Parts of Patriot Act struck down
Good: A federal judge struck down parts of the revised USA Patriot Act on Thursday, saying investigators must have a court’s approval before they can order Internet providers to turn over records without telling customers.
September 7th, 2007 at 10:05 am
At first I wasn’t worried about the whole Patriot Act thing, but after they invoked it to go after dog fighters, I reconsidered. As bad as dog fighting is, it’s not terrorism, regardless of what PETA might say.
I still don’t have a problem with them going after terrorists any way they want (I prefer shot on sight), but unfortunately, the people that should be held responsible are themselves irresponsible. Or lazy.
September 7th, 2007 at 11:04 am
Irrelevant: district court judges are very low on the food chain. This will get overturned.
September 7th, 2007 at 4:47 pm
Rust: Did they “invoke” it to go after dog fighters, exactly?
I’ve heard lots of claims about lots of law enforcement actions being “Patriot Act” … it just turns out that that’s rarely the case, because reporters typically don’t know what the hell they’re talking about.
The Vick Indictment mentions 18 USC 371, which was not amended by the Patriot Act. Nor is 18 USC 1952, also mentioned. (Some changes to 18 USC 1956 (referenced by s1956) were made, but none of them seem to affect Vick in any way.)
Nor did the Patriot Act amend 7 USC 2156 (part of the Animal Welfare Act, under which Vick was also indicted).
What part of PATRIOT do you believe was “invoked” in his case? (I’m assuming you refer to the Vick case, as it’s the only significant dog fighting case in recent memory.)
(A quick search on Google suggests that nobody else is of the opinion that Michael Vick was indicted or convicted based on the Patriot Act.)
I’m ambivalent about whether an NSL to get ISP records was a bad thing or actually really unconstitutional, so I’ll neither agree nor disagree that it’s “good” that it’s been ruled unconstitutional. But that the courts still have oversight suggests that the system works.
September 7th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
Sig, have to do some searching but it was a local case where the feds took down a dog fighting ring with surveillance measures authorized by the PA. At least, that’s the papers said.
September 7th, 2007 at 7:12 pm
They also used it in a regular criminal case against mobsters in Nevada. They were criminals, but they weren’t terrorists. Once misapplication becomes accepted practice it can be used against anyone for anything.
No power granted the government will escape abuse. That is why the founders so severely limited governmental powers. Were it not so dangerous to liberty it would be laughable to observe our modern day imitations of statesmen who think they are more intelligent than those long ago founders. Most aren’t even on the same side of I.Q. Bell Curve.