Court sides with ACLU, strikes down Patriot Act gag provision

[kpete]

Source: Raw Story

Court sides with ACLU, strikes down Patriot Act gag provision
RAW STORY
Published: Tuesday December 16, 2008

ACLU victorious as federal court declares Patriot Act provision a violation of the First Amendment

A federal appeals court ruling late Monday is the cause célèbre of the American Civil Liberties Union, as another provision of the Bush administration's Patriot Act falls to the judicial system.

Until the ruling, recipients of so-called "national security letters" were legally forbidden from speaking out. The letters, usually a demand for documents, or a notice that private records had been searched by government authorities, were criticized as a cover-all for FBI abuses.

"The appeals court invalidated parts of the statute that wrongly placed the burden on NSL recipients to initiate judicial review of gag orders, holding that the government has the burden to go to court and justify silencing NSL recipients," said the ACLU in a release. "The appeals court also invalidated parts of the statute that narrowly limited judicial review of the gag orders – provisions that required the courts to treat the government's claims about the need for secrecy as conclusive and required the courts to defer entirely to the executive branch."

Because of the ruling, the government will now be forced to justify individual gag orders before a court, instead of casually wielding the power of a blanket gag as the Bush administration has done since the blindingly fast passage of the Patriot Act in Oct. 2001.

In Sept. 2007, a federal judge ruled unconstitutional provisions within the Patriot Act which allowed the government to obtain search warrants without probable cause.

The ACLU's complete press release follows.


Read more: http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Court_sides_with_ACLU_strikes_down_1216.html

[pinto]

1. Score one for the rule of law.

:kick:

[alllyingwhores]

24. So, this is going forward only--or can now everyone that has been unconstitutionally violated...

...seek justice in court?

"Because of the ruling, the government will now be forced to justify individual gag orders before a court..."

Will now be forced going forward only OR is BushCo actually held accountable for all of the insane shredding of the Constitution to date?

[bjobotts]

52. Cal.Hi,Patrol is allowing the military to set up sobriety check points with them.

[bjobotts]

53. Told it was unconstitutional, against posse comitatus act but HP decided to do it anyway.

[bjobotts]

54. They are trying to get us used to a military presence on the hiways.

[bjobotts]

55. Number of troops pulled in to 'aid' with population control increased from 4,000

[bjobotts]

56. To 20,000 "combat" troops.Remember the frog sitting in the pan of boiling water??

[bjobotts]

58. Only the poor and middle class will suffer in the great depression

The troops are there to make sre we do what we are told...once again protecting the holdings and the business of the wealthy and multinational corporations. Nobody wants to believe what is happening. what is right before our eyes.

[bjobotts]

59. The law has decided to break the 'law' in order to protect the people??.

Our founding fathers warned us of this very thing...using the military to police our own citizens. Let's hope it's not too late for an Obama administration to change things.

[Homer Wells]

2. Looks like they may have to increase the size of the barnyard

to give all the chickens coming home to roost enough space.

[acmavm]

3. So, all this shit that they've illegally or unConstitutionally pulled

is going to be fixed HOW???? The son of a bitches that did all this are about to thumb their noses at us on their way out of town.

[Libertyfirst]

35. The Congress voted for it. And most of them are still there.

I think we should ask for a resolution from the Congress apologizing to the American People.

[LiberalFighter]

36. Too bad this law wasn't applied to them.

[williesgirl]

4. Great - now overturn the entire fucking unconstitutional law. rec'd

[barbtries]

5. will this have any bearing on

Sibel Edmonds's case?

[Gregorian]

33. My first thought. Please let it be so.

I have to wonder why she hastn' spoken up by now.

[jtrockville]

50. "State secrets" was used to gag Sibel Edmonds, not PA

[barbtries]

51. thanks

i wasn't sure.

they sure did all they could to make sure their ducks were in a row.

[UpInArms]

6. here's what the unPatriot ACT does:

The USA Patriot Act:

Violates the First Amendment freedom of speech guarantee, right to peaceably assemble provision, and petition the government for redress of grievances provision; it violates the First Amendment to the Constitution three times.

Violates the Fourth Amendment guarantee of probable cause in astonishingly major and repeated ways. The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution reads: "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, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons of things to be seized." The Patriot Act, now passed and the law of the land, has revoked the necessity for probable cause, and now allows the police, at any time and for any reason, to enter and search your house - and not even tell you about it.

Violates the Fifth Amendment by allowing for indefinite incarceration without trial for those deemed by the Attorney General to be threats to national security. The Fifth Amendment guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, and the Patriot Act does away with due process. It even allows people to be kept in prison for life without even a trial.

Violates the Sixth Amendment guarantee of the right to a speedy and public trial. Now you may get no trial at all, ever.

Violates the Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual punishment).

Violates the 13th Amendment (punishment without conviction).

[happychatter]

9. Copied as a succinct reminder - thank you - n/t

[UpInArms]

10. here's my original writing in its entirety: Shredding the Bill of Rights

Shredding the Bill of Rights

By: Bridget Gibson - 11/23/01

On September 11, 2001, four American airplanes were hijacked and used as weapons of mass destruction against the citizens of the United States of America. The following shock that ensued was normal. Shock at the loss of lives. Shock at the ease with which this act was carried out. Shock that anyone alive could even concoct such an atrocity.

The majority of Americans supported retaliation for this attack. We looked at out governmental leaders to provide us with the knowledge and understanding of who and how and why such a thing could have happened. We have not been told, discounting the talking heads on the media, the answers to these questions. Ten weeks later, we still have not been told. Terms such as "evil doers" do nothing to tell us who has done this. The finger pointing at the Al Qaeda network seems vague and indecipherable. Evidence has not been presented to the American people because of "National Security".

Well, folks, our "National Security" let us down on September 11, 2001. And, in my opinion, our "national security" is still letting us down. Our representatives have passed the USA Patriot Act in response to this heinous crime. Few people understand what that document does, so I want to tell you about it.

The USA Patriot Act:

Violates the First Amendment freedom of speech guarantee, right to peaceably assemble provision, and petition the government for redress of grievances provision; it violates the First Amendment to the Constitution three times.

Violates the Fourth Amendment guarantee of probable cause in astonishingly major and repeated ways. The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution reads: "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, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons of things to be seized." The Patriot Act, now passed and the law of the land, has revoked the necessity for probable cause, and now allows the police, at any time and for any reason, to enter and search your house - and not even tell you about it.

Violates the Fifth Amendment by allowing for indefinite incarceration without trial for those deemed by the Attorney General to be threats to national security. The Fifth Amendment guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, and the Patriot Act does away with due process. It even allows people to be kept in prison for life without even a trial.

Violates the Sixth Amendment guarantee of the right to a speedy and public trial. Now you may get no trial at all, ever.

Violates the Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual punishment).

Violates the 13th Amendment (punishment without conviction).

We have been told by our leaders in Washington, D.C. that in the name of "National Security", we must be made insecure. If that isn't an Orwellian twist to this first year of the Twenty-first Century, I cannot say what is. Orwell, in his book 1984, wrote "War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery and Ignorance is Strength".

All Americans should do more than wave their flags in support of our troops. All Americans should be ever more vigilant to the erosion of our entire reason for being a democracy, our Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

[Divine Discontent]

26. that police entering thing is proven to be going on?

where they don't even have to tell you about it? that is horrible. I know of the other things about how they have searched people before without warrant, but the police (not the CIA, FBI, or some other covert gov't operation) can go in without any warrant into someone's place?

[UpInArms]

31. I don't know of any cases of this action, only that

under the provisions of the unPatriot ACT, if the police determine (?) that you are a threat to "national security" they can enter your home without notification or even disclosing the entry and/or search.

[Laelth]

7. Our congresscritters are presumed to know the Constitution.

What part of "the government shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech" did they not get? That's exactly what this gag order provision does, and it gives the executive branch unilateral and unchecked power to do so. Of course, very few of the cowards in Congress actually read the Patriot Act or had any idea what was in it. They deserve impeachment for passing the thing. Many of its provisions are clearly unconstitutional.

Sadly, the justice system is slow. It took six or seven years to get a ruling on this turd of a law, and because the ruling comes from just one appeals court, it doesn't apply to the whole country yet.

:mad:

-Laelth

[BrklynLiberal]

21. Unitary Executive along with compliant Congresscritters were destroying

the basic tenets of the Constitution...and it was not unintentional!!!

[awoke_in_2003]

38. Yep, the republican controlled...

congress gave up their power, and the spineless leadership of the now democratically controlled congress refuses to take it back :(

[Hekate]

25. The Congresscritters are elected from amongst "The People", Fella Murkins who slept through Civics

I think a lot of politicians "know" the Constitution and Bill of Rights the way a lot of Christians "know" the contents of the Holy Bible: they've heard a lot of good sermons and stories about it, they've seen some movies about it -- but actually read it all the way through? Not so much.

And after 9-11-2001, when they had to evacuate the House and Senate within sight and sound of the plane hitting the Pentagon -- a lot of them did what many would do: they panicked. They panicked and looked for a leader.

Thank God -- or Goddess -- or the gods -- or humanity (the ACLU will defend your right to believe in all or none ;-) ) that the ACLU and others have persisted. We may yet regain our national soul.

Hekate

[annabanana]

39. "Slept through Civics"??

I don't believe that Civics has been a regular part of the Curriculum for Public Schools for a long long long time.

(And THAT is not an accident either)

[Hekate]

48. I guess it was one of those "boring" subjects. Too bad. nt

[happychatter]

8. Just before retirement Justice O'Connor was asked by a student...

"What are some of the most interesting cases you've had?"

She said that in the future, challenges to the Patriot Act would be the "most interesting."

Then she quit, eh?

I fear for ANY lower court decision made until we have a more balanced SCOTUS.

I'm not sure, but won't it be more difficult to get re-hearing on any legal challenges that have already been decided once?

Seems like stuff like this will go all the way up, get upheld by the currently Statist Court, then languish in lower courts for decades after.

edited to add: Our Legislature needs to unfuck it's own handiwork.

[gratuitous]

11. And it only took seven years

I wonder how many violations of constitutional rights occurred during that time? We will, of course, never know.

[Nikki Stone1]

16. Crime happens in an instant. Justice takes time.

Ah well...

[Soylent Brice]

12. is it me or does the court system in this country seem to be mildly slow...

[BrklynLiberal]

20. 12 Monkeys. One of the best pictures, ever.

[annabanana]

40. It should be annulled, They can rebuilt the bits that AREN'T an

affront to the system.

[Trillo]

13. Would the courts speed up if

presidents were elected yearly?

[asjr]

14. The law is as slow as molasses. Does

this mean that the provisions are unconstitutional only after a new president is in office? The entire Bush administration will pass Go and collect $200.00. They have gotten away with murder.

[Mari333]

15. always remember the dems who voted for it n/t

[Towlie]

17. But... But... But... It's the "Patriot" Act! What could be more constitutional than a patriot act?

[Deny and Shred]

23. Right, and Operations Just Cause and Infinite Justice were Just (eom)

[OutNow]

18. Thanks to the ACLU - Again

Most of the comments on this lawsuit is that the decision to uphold the Constitution took too long or wasn't broad enough to throw out the entire Patriot Act. While I certainly agree, I give many thanks to the ACLU. Yes, I've been a member for 33 years. Where would we be without a group that works full time on protecting our civil liberties?

The ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) are fighting for all of us. They do it with a budget that is microscopic compared to the federal Justice Department.

I say thanks to the ACLU - again. And nothing says thanks more than a contribution! I'm writing out a check today.

[defendandprotect]

19. GOP has worked for decades to destroy ACLU ...

support the ACLU --

[Hulk]

22. And the red-neck right wingers believe the ACLU is "anti-American".

What ignorant douche bags. If it wasn't for the ACLU, this country would be no better than Hitler's Third Reich.

[damntexdem]

27. The PoorTrait Act is enough to make us all gag.

The gag orders are just among some of the more ridiculous provisions.

[northofdenali]

28. K&R -

northofdenali, proud card-carrying member of the ACLU since 1972. :kick:

[Piewhacket]

29. Too LATE.

The ruling comes too late. Too damn late.
The rule of law is in tatters.

There must be a price for this trampling of
civil liberties, this despoiling of America,
and that means prison for those responsible,
whether Democrat, Republican, or scum of any
other stripe.

So now its time to hunt down the MFs who wrote these laws,
who passed these laws, who stalled court review, who
used these laws to violate citizen's rights and to
suppress criticism.

Its time for accountability. Time to fill the prisons.

[The Stranger]

30. Anyone have a link to the opinion?

Thanks.

[MasonJar]

32. Once again the citizens owe a big debt of gratitude to the ACLU. How

convenient for the Bushista that the ruling comes so close to his demise as pres. This is not to say that the courts were purposely slow. I did NOt mean that, just that Bush could care less now.

[tomp]

34. could they legally speak out right now?

before the gov't "justifies" its censorship.

[peacetalksforall]

37. It's time to remind ourselves - THE ONLY SENATOR TO VOTE NO ON

the Patriot Act was RUSS FEINGOLD.


While I'm at it:

First vote as Senator - No on Iraq War 1
Last vote as Senator - No on Iraq War 2
Paul Wellstone

The only way that the House and Senate can make it up to the citizens of the world is to rewrite and vote for legislation that matches this verdict. They don't even have to apologize to us - they need to act to conform.

[bjobotts]

44. Yeah...Russ Feingold was who I wanted for VP.One of our better senators

[Canuckistanian]

41. Good to see the Judicial Branch making a comeback

The "wheels of justice" are certainly slow but they get the job done.

And you can quote me on that.

[DissedByBush]

42. Leave the champagne in the rack

It didn't do any sort of such thing. All it did is make it remotely possible to successfully challenge a gag order in court where before it was practically impossible. This ruling is nowhere near as good as the one given by the lower court. The Bush administration basically got everything it asked for.

But I guess we take the tiny semi-victories where we can find them.

[bjobotts]

43. Another reason why I support the ACLU. Our leaders too cowardly to challenge the king

[gorfle]

45. Hooray!

Finally the pendulum starts to swing in the other direction!

[sonias]

46. Thank you ACLU!

Proud card carrying member of ACLU!

:patriot:

Sonia

[Lucian]

47. Good. I'm waiting for the courts to strike down the rest of the Patriot Act.

Hopefully sometime during the Obama Administration.

[No Elephants]

49. Don't celebrate unless and until the Supremes uphold the lower court.

[Overseas]

57. K&R and congratulations and thanks to the ACLU !! //nt

[clt]

60. Why weren't we more creative?

I'm not sure how much of the "Patriot Act" remains with respect to librarians' obligations, but our response certainly could have been more creative. Why didn't we respond to the government's need to know our reading habits by mobilizing thousands of patriots to call their local U.S. Attorneys' offices whenever they read something political? We could have called it "pre-emptive obedience."