It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Another federal judge finds against exposure of secret interpretation of section of the Patriot Act

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 21 2012 @ 02:50 PM

Again the old argument of in the interests of national security. How about a little citizen security from the government tyranny.

Last November, U.S. District Judge Robert Patterson snuffed requests for the Federal Bureau of Investigation to break down how many of its inquiries looked into criminal activity versus national security threats.

On Thursday, a different district court judge declined to release a secret interpretation of the Patriot Act that Savage sought.

"Section 215 of the Patriot Act authorizes the Government to apply to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for an order directing the production of 'any tangible things' for certain investigations," Judge William H. Pauley III summarized in his order. "The Government contends that its use of this authority is critical to countering national security threats. It represents that public disclosure of the Report would expose sensitive intelligence sources and methods to America's adversaries and therefore harm national security."

The New York Times and ACLU countered that two U.S. Senators sitting on the Intelligence Committee, Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and Mark Udall, D-Colo., undermined that assertion in comments made on the congressional record.

While Judge Pauley's opinion quotes several of these statements, it leaves out much stronger words the senators shared with Savage in subsequent reports.

On March 18, Savage reported that the senators told him that Americans would be "stunned" to know what the government believed the Patriot Act authorized.

"We would also note that in recent months we have grown increasingly skeptical about the actual value of the 'intelligence collection operation,'" the senators said, according to Savage. "This has come as a surprise to us, as we were initially inclined to take the executive branch's assertions about the importance of this 'operation' at face value."


edit on 21-5-2012 by oghamxx because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 21 2012 @ 03:07 PM
Maybe face palm value.

So they trusted the exeutive branch. Facepalm 2

posted on May, 21 2012 @ 03:15 PM
Words cannot describe how much hatred and disgust I feel toward the "Patriot Act" and the people who try to rationalize its legitimacy. We have a blatant erosion of our civil rights and liberties, but in the name of "terror" people accept it. Some fight to change it, but as this story proves they are so easily shut down. I hope one day we (the collective citizenry of the US) will all pull our heads out of the sand (or for some people a certain bodily orifice) and hold these scumbags accountable.

One of my favorite comedians the late, great Bill Hicks said it best: "Go back to bed, America. Your government has figured out how it all transpired. Go back to bed, America. Your government is in control again. Here. Here's American Gladiators. Watch this, shut up. Go back to bed, America. Here is American Gladiators. Here is 56 channels of it! Watch these pituitary retards bang their f***ing skulls together and congratulate you on living in the land of freedom. Here you go, America! You are free to do as we tell you! You are free to do what we tell you! "

Emphasis on "Free to do as we tell you."

posted on May, 21 2012 @ 03:16 PM

On March 18, Savage reported that the senators told him that Americans would be "stunned" to know what the government believed the Patriot Act authorized.

quoting your ex content,
stunned or outraged?
sounds like it would go against the grain of the nation and is proberly unconstitutional


new topics

top topics

log in