1. Welcome to CowboysZone!  Join us!  Come on!  You know you want to!

Judge Rules Parts Of Patriot Act Unconstitutional

Discussion in 'Political Zone' started by BrAinPaiNt, Sep 27, 2007.

  1. BrAinPaiNt

    BrAinPaiNt Brotherhood of the Beard Staff Member

    59,658 Messages
    2,676 Likes Received
    LINK

    AP) PORTLAND, Ore. A federal judge ruled Wednesday that two provisions of the USA Patriot Act are unconstitutional because they allow search warrants to be issued without a showing of probable cause.

    U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken ruled that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, as amended by the Patriot Act, "now permits the executive branch of government to conduct surveillance and searches of American citizens without satisfying the probable cause requirements of the Fourth Amendment."

    Portland attorney Brandon Mayfield sought the ruling in a lawsuit against the federal government after he was mistakenly linked by the FBI to the Madrid train bombings in 2004.

    The federal government apologized and settled part of the lawsuit for $2 million after admitting a fingerprint was misread.

    But as part of the settlement, Mayfield retained the right to challenge parts of the USA Patriot Act.

    Mayfield claimed that secret searches of his house and office under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, violated the Fourth Amendment's guarantee that "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause ..."

    Aiken agreed with Mayfield, repeatedly criticizing the government.

    "For over 200 years, this Nation has adhered to the rule of law -- with unparalleled success. A shift to a Nation based on extra-constitutional authority is prohibited, as well as ill-advised," she wrote.

    She said that by asking her to dismiss Mayfield's lawsuit, the U.S. Attorney General's office was "asking this court to, in
    essence, amend the Bill of Rights, by giving it an interpretation what would deprive it of any real meaning. This court declines to do so."

    Elden Rosenthal, an attorney for Mayfield, issued a statement on his behalf praising the judge, saying she "has upheld both the tradition of judicial independence, and our nation's most cherished principle of the right to be secure in one's own home."
  2. burmafrd

    burmafrd Well-Known Member

    40,942 Messages
    1,208 Likes Received
    Even CNN mentioned that the judge was one of the most liberal of clintons appointments, so it will almost certainly be over turned.
  3. BrAinPaiNt

    BrAinPaiNt Brotherhood of the Beard Staff Member

    59,658 Messages
    2,676 Likes Received
    I don't care if he is a liberal and I don't care if it is overturned.

    I just like that the message is getting out. Too many people just take the patriot act (clever name used for it by the way) as how things should be instead of questioning it as far as the constitution goes.

    This government is getting a little big for it's britches IMO and the patriot act, as I stated back then, is going to be abused. You can not give the US Government too much power because they will always abuse it. So much for small government in conservative thinking. Neocons have ruined the republican party IMO.

    Now I know the constitution is just a darn piece of paper but some would rather have our rights protected instead of abused. A true patriot would never want our constitutional rights abused, although when someone brings that up they are oddly having their patriotism questioned. Strange world in which we live in when the true patriot has their patriotism questioned.
  4. burmafrd

    burmafrd Well-Known Member

    40,942 Messages
    1,208 Likes Received
    And too many people are so worried about something other then the fact that we are in a life and death struggle with fanatics. GW is doing FAR less then Roosevelt did during WW2; and Roosevelt did FAR less then Lincoln did during the Civil War. But don't let facts get in the way of your rant.
  5. BrAinPaiNt

    BrAinPaiNt Brotherhood of the Beard Staff Member

    59,658 Messages
    2,676 Likes Received
    And don't let that pesky little thing called the constitution to allow the government to take away rights.

    The sheep follow so easy.
  6. burmafrd

    burmafrd Well-Known Member

    40,942 Messages
    1,208 Likes Received
    And the fools that do not recognize danger should be the first ones to get killed but unfortunately are not. Like Hilary last night: given a hypothetical that is very possible= a high up Al Queeda is caught and boasting of a nuclear attack about to occurr- or a dirty bomb (more likely) in a major US city. It could kill and wound THOUSANDS- maybe HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS. And Hilary would not in that case authorize torture to break him and find out where. (Interestingly BIll said he would do it under those circumstances).
    Some fools realize that if YOU DO NOT SURVIVE NOTHING ELSE MATTERS.
    Also something else you are forgetting- or ignoring- or just do not think about: If something like that HAPPENS, there will be over whelming pressure to go even farther then the Patriot act- and the politicians, being mostly sheep, will go along with it. The Judiciary up to this point has been pretty sensible at the highest level (treating terrorists as POWs instead of the CRIMINALS they are unfortunately is a bad thing) -outside of the stupid lower judges that up to this point have been mostly over turned- so they are still a break on going too far.
  7. BrAinPaiNt

    BrAinPaiNt Brotherhood of the Beard Staff Member

    59,658 Messages
    2,676 Likes Received
    Constitution can be used and not abused in those cases. Bush, and the government as a whole, wants to go around those methods so they do not leave a paper trail of accountability.

    You can rationalize it any way you wish but there are provisions in place to LEGALLY and CONSTITUTIONALLY work on those scenarios.

    It only boils down to a government that does not wish to have a paper trail of accountability. That is the bottom line.

    If you are a true conservative you are only going against the nature of being a conservative by giving the government more power and less checks and balances.

    ANY reason to go against the constitution is wrong. No matter the scenario. There is a difference between making amendments to the constitution and flat out going against it.

    The president of the united states takes an oath to defend the constitution.

    People who are so eager to go against the constitution should remember the quote by Franklin...

    Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

    As I stated before, the sheep follow so easily.
  8. Doomsday101

    Doomsday101 Well-Known Member

    74,861 Messages
    1,508 Likes Received
    Yet the founding fathers executed British officers in the war for our freedom as well as attacked citizens who supported the British yet were not soldiers. The so called greatest generation of World War II interned Japanese we also eavesdropped on communications of people of German decent and while it can argued it was wrong the fear of attack was so great at the time that the US did what it felt had to be done to insure the safety of its citizens. I'm not saying this was right or wrong but given the facts on the ground at the time the US did what it felt had to be done.
  9. ConcordCowboy

    ConcordCowboy Mr. Buckeye

    12,747 Messages
    2 Likes Received
    [IMG]
  10. BrAinPaiNt

    BrAinPaiNt Brotherhood of the Beard Staff Member

    59,658 Messages
    2,676 Likes Received
    You can go ahead and say it...It was wrong.

    Although in your first case the US Constitution was adopted after the American Revolution. Plus at that time there was no Geneva Convention code.
  11. burmafrd

    burmafrd Well-Known Member

    40,942 Messages
    1,208 Likes Received
    the Geneva convention was NEVER MEANT to cover terrorists- and it SHOULD NOT.
    By the way, most of the atrocities of the revolutionary war were carried out be militias- the Continental Army had a very good record in that area. The British army- with some exceptions like Tarleton- did pretty well also. The Hessians were pretty bad.
  12. iceberg

    iceberg detoxed Zone Supporter

    27,963 Messages
    989 Likes Received
    how can you claim "facts" when you're running amok on drama?

    life and death struggle? please. that's as bad as saying this war can actually be "won". be defination we'll always have "terrorism" when people come to think that's the only way they will be heard.

    that isn't going away. the best we can do is learn from our mistakes and go after those who go after us. we got sidetracked and while we can debate all the reasons in the world for iraq - right or wrong, good or bad - it was a sidetrack.

    playing upon peoples fears is a long running tactic and if the patriot act is being "abused" to "keep you safe from the boogie terrorist" then yes, we need to call it out. if it's true then not done intentionally, then there is never any harm in talking it out.

    if you've got something to hide, you turn and make the other guy the bad guy for asking and keep the fear alive through blatant reminders of why you should be scared.

    so we're not in a "life or death" struggle unless you got promoted to selling the drama. but we are in a fight still and while losing to the terrorist from time to time isn't good, it's even worse for us to lose to ourselves from internal bickering.
  13. burmafrd

    burmafrd Well-Known Member

    40,942 Messages
    1,208 Likes Received
    I notice our resident Libs always dodge the question about survival and the consequences of NOT SURVIVING. Also the fact that if something really bad happens again there will be immense pressure to go BEYOND the Patriot Act.
    But facts like that seem not to matter.
  14. iceberg

    iceberg detoxed Zone Supporter

    27,963 Messages
    989 Likes Received
    bp and i have debated this quite a bit and i agree, if they're not going to abide by it, we shouldn't either.

    but i agree with BP that we should call it out and define *how* we intend to act, not just ignore it because it gets in the way right now.
  15. Doomsday101

    Doomsday101 Well-Known Member

    74,861 Messages
    1,508 Likes Received
    Yet conflicts have not changed. We talk of rules of war but only 1 side is using the rules? Sorry I think rules are for games not for war it is seriouse life and death and I fully believe in using everything you can to end a conflict as soon as possiable here is one of the rules No hollow point bullets what do they think the object is in war? As for when the constitution was adopted it does not change the fact of what we had to do to ensure our freedom from the British. Let me also add it did not stop Sherman in the Civil War from burning Atlanta to the ground as well as Charleston South Carolina.
  16. burmafrd

    burmafrd Well-Known Member

    40,942 Messages
    1,208 Likes Received
    It is life and death; for us it is since we are against groups that wish to DESTROY us. And the IMMENSE damage they can cause would do far more to destroy us then the Patriot Act ever will. I find it hard to believe that supposedly intelligent people cannot figure that out. If we have another 9/11 there will be a lot more then the current Patriot Act passed- guaranteed!
  17. burmafrd

    burmafrd Well-Known Member

    40,942 Messages
    1,208 Likes Received
    Sherman did not burn Atlanta down. He ordered certain structures torched as they were considered militarily important. It was actually roving bands of thugs that torched a lot more and caused the major fires.
  18. iceberg

    iceberg detoxed Zone Supporter

    27,963 Messages
    989 Likes Received
    well this resident conservative wonders what the hell you're talking about.

    survival? they gonna come kill us all? we gonna go "good shot" next time around and just give up and hand achmed the keys to the white house?

    it starts with taking away a few rights, then a few more...then suddenly what do you do when they're all gone and the government can interrupt your life at will? i mean hey - if you wanna talk in extremes, i can do that too.

    the fact is we don't live the bulk of our lives in the extremes now do we? we just use them a lot to stir up fear and make people feel like something must be done NOW to "save the say" from the bad guy.
  19. Doomsday101

    Doomsday101 Well-Known Member

    74,861 Messages
    1,508 Likes Received
    True Sherman tactics were to burn down things of Military importance and the roving band of thugs were part of Shermans army. However in Charleston Sherman said they started this war and they will pay for it and did burn much of it to the ground even areas that held no military importance. War is not a great thing but to end a was as quick as possiable I think you use all means to do so. It is not a game
  20. BrAinPaiNt

    BrAinPaiNt Brotherhood of the Beard Staff Member

    59,658 Messages
    2,676 Likes Received
    If you want to change the rules of war than make it official and bow out of the Geneva convention treaty. As long as we are part of the geneva convention treaty we are bound by it. Burm does bring up a good point about it not being a uniformed or even country army so it does not apply in many areas.

    But once again the issue is getting sidetracked to the war and not what the article was about.

    We are talking about circumventing the US Constitution not killing or not killing terrorists.

    Illegal aliens are not covered by the constitution however us CITIZENS are and we are doing things now with the patriot act that violates US citizen rights given to them in the constitution.

Share This Page