These policies were in place when George Bush Senior was president and
furthered by Bill and Hilary Clinton; ALL of these unconstituitonal
provisions were happening already, all that has changed is the PEOPLE see
it now, and they have made their criminal operation "legal" by changing the
"rules".... instead of stopping their criminal acts of agression against
the people, they are trying to make what they are doing APPEAR "legal"....
they have been proceeding in fraud for YEARS, only we SEE IT NOW..... NOW
WE SEE IT NOW WE STOP IT !!!! IT IS BEYOND OUTRAGEOUS WHAT THEY ARE
DOING... THESE ARE NOT HUMANS WHO WRITE BILLS OF ATTAINDER SUCH AS THEY ARE
BE LOUD - IT IS WORKING.... ANYTIME IT GOES AGAINST THE "CORPORATE
INTEREST" IN THE COURT, IT IS BECAUSE WE THE PEOPLE HAVE RAISED SUCH
OUTCRY THAT THESE JUDGES ARE AFRAID TO UPHOLD THE CRIMINAL OPERATION
IT'S JUST TOO DAMN BAD THIS PRESIDENT HAS TO BE TOLD
BY THE FEDERAL COURTS
HE'S VIOLATED THE MOST SACRED OF OUR CIVIL LIBERTIES. HE KNEW IT WHEN
TOOK HIS OATH OF OFFICE!
----- Original Message -----
> CORRECTED: Judge Rules Against Patriot Act Provision
> 14 minutes ago
> By Gail Appleson zzz
> NEW YORK (Reuters) - Surveillance powers granted to the FBI (news -
> sites) under the Patriot Act, a cornerstone of the Bush
> war on terror, were ruled unconstitutional by a judge on Wednesday in
> blow to U.S. security policies.
> U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero, in the first decision against a
> surveillance portion of the act, ruled for the American Civil
> Union (news - web sites) in its challenge against what it called
> power" by the FBI to demand confidential customer records from
> communication companies, such as Internet service providers or
> Marrero, stating that "democracy abhors undue secrecy," found that the
> violates constitutional prohibitions against unreasonable searches.
> it also violated free speech rights by barring those who received FBI
> demands from disclosing they had to turn over records.
> Because of this gag order, the ACLU initially had to file its suit
> the Department of Justice (news - web sites) under seal to avoid
> for violation of the surveillance laws.
> Although the ACLU's suit was filed on behalf of an Internet access
> the ruling could apply to other entities that have received FBI
> subpoenas, known as national security letters.
> The ACLU said that the Patriot Act provision was worded so broadly that
> could effectively be used to obtain the names of customers of Web
> such as Amazon.com or eBay, or a political organization's membership
> or even the names of sources that a journalist has contacted by
> "This is a landmark victory against the Ashcroft Justice Department
> web sites)'s misguided attempt to intrude into the lives of innocent
> Americans in the name of national security," said ACLU Executive
> Anthony Romero.
> "Even now, some in Congress are trying to pass additional intrusive
> enforcement powers. This decision should put a halt to those efforts,"
> PATRIOT ACT
> He said the suit was one of the ACLU's legal battles to block certain
> sections of the Patriot Act that went "too far, too fast."
> The FBI has had power to issue national security letters demanding
> customers records from communication companies since 1986. These
> not require court supervision, but the FBI could at first only seek
> private information if the subject was suspected of being a foreign
> In 1993, Congress expanded the powers further to include people who
> communicated with suspected spies or terrorists.
> But a section of the Patriot Act -- a controversial law the Bush
> administration pushed through Congress after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks
> help it battle terrorism -- gave the FBI even more power to obtain
> information through these letters.
> In his ruling, Marrero prohibited the Department of Justice and the
> from issuing the national security letters, but delayed enforcement
> judgment pending an expected appeal by the government. The Department
> Justice said it was reviewing the ruling.
> The decision is the latest blow to the Bush administration's
> In June, the U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) ruled that terror
> suspects being held in U.S. facilities like Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, can
> the American judicial system to challenge their confinement. That
> was a defeat for the president's assertion of sweeping powers to hold
> "enemy combatants" indefinitely after the Sept. 11 attacks.