It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Judge blocks part of Patriot Act

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 30 2004 @ 06:00 AM
link   
NEW YORK (AP) -- Declaring that personal security is as important as national security, a judge Wednesday blocked the government from conducting secret, unchallengeable searches of Internet and telephone records as part of its fight against terrorism.


www.cnn.com...



posted on Sep, 30 2004 @ 12:54 PM
link   
Thank you New York! Hmmm, wonder who will be declared a terrorist supporter and sent to the Bay.



posted on Sep, 30 2004 @ 12:59 PM
link   
I'm glad to see the judges decision on this. One of the problems I have with the Patriot Act is I just don't see the point in keeping the suspects name secret from the public after arresting him. We don't know who the government arrested. What if they arrested someone who wasn't a terrorist but apposed to what the government was doing about civil liberties?



posted on Sep, 30 2004 @ 03:13 PM
link   
This is the reason that the Patriot Act has never been of much concern to me. The courts will rule on the constitutionality of the Act and, I hope, that in the end we will have an act that gives law enforcement the tools they need to combat terrorims, yet prevents the unwarranted harrassment of the public.

I would like to point out however, that in times like these, some sacrifice on the part of the public is necessary to overcome the threats we face, even if that means cleaning up your act enough that you don't care who looks at your personal business.



posted on Sep, 30 2004 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I would like to point out however, that in times like these, some sacrifice on the part of the public is necessary to overcome the threats we face, even if that means cleaning up your act enough that you don't care who looks at your personal business.


Well considering the fact I personally believe the "war on terrorism" is a lie, there is no way I'm sacrificing anything to let the government snoop into my personal business.



posted on Sep, 30 2004 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrmulder

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I would like to point out however, that in times like these, some sacrifice on the part of the public is necessary to overcome the threats we face, even if that means cleaning up your act enough that you don't care who looks at your personal business.


Well considering the fact I personally believe the "war on terrorism" is a lie, there is no way I'm sacrificing anything to let the government snoop into my personal business.


good point.. its amazing people on this site still believe its a good thing.. the ohh so bad bin laden and sadam give me a break..

and good find ASE



posted on Sep, 30 2004 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrmulder
[Well considering the fact I personally believe the "war on terrorism" is a lie, there is no way I'm sacrificing anything to let the government snoop into my personal business.


Well, your avatar states that you are an agent of the FBI, what's your concern?



posted on Sep, 30 2004 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

Originally posted by mrmulder
[Well considering the fact I personally believe the "war on terrorism" is a lie, there is no way I'm sacrificing anything to let the government snoop into my personal business.


Well, your avatar states that you are an agent of the FBI, what's your concern?


No, I'm not affiliated with the government. I'm just an X-Files fan. And because I'm an American citizen I think I have a right to be concerned about the Patriot Act.

[edit on 30-9-2004 by mrmulder]



posted on Sep, 30 2004 @ 07:11 PM
link   
The terrorists aren't the major threat to this country. They come nowhere close to detroying the United States of America like this judge and the ACLU.

Communists using the name of Liberty to take Liberty away from Americans.
Sad, sad, sad that people don't realize this.

The American Civil Liberties Union should change their name to We'll Do All We Can To Destroy America Through The Inside.



posted on Sep, 30 2004 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I would like to point out however, that in times like these, some sacrifice on the part of the public is necessary to overcome the threats we face, even if that means cleaning up your act enough that you don't care who looks at your personal business.


At times like these the public needs to be particularly wary of any and all attempts to usurp their rights by those in power. "Times like these" have been exploited throughout history in the name of safety and security.

No matter how squeeky clean my personal life is, I will never "not care" whether someone is looking over my shoulder.



posted on Sep, 30 2004 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrmulder
I'm glad to see the judges decision on this. One of the problems I have with the Patriot Act is I just don't see the point in keeping the suspects name secret from the public after arresting him.

Wait, where does it say they can do this?



posted on Sep, 30 2004 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrmulder
No, I'm not affiliated with the government. I'm just an X-Files fan.

Nice try Agent Mulder...[takes a drag from cigarette]..But we've been watching you for some time now, you and your 'partner'



posted on Oct, 1 2004 @ 08:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by mrmulder
No, I'm not affiliated with the government. I'm just an X-Files fan.

Nice try Agent Mulder...[takes a drag from cigarette]..But we've been watching you for some time now, you and your 'partner'


Uh... Okay....
And what brought that comment up?



posted on Oct, 1 2004 @ 10:01 AM
link   
Fox mulder, the smoking man, agent scully, guess it wasn't a very good impersonation of the smoking man



posted on Oct, 1 2004 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by mrmulder
I'm glad to see the judges decision on this. One of the problems I have with the Patriot Act is I just don't see the point in keeping the suspects name secret from the public after arresting him.

Wait, where does it say they can do this?


Well, so far John Ashcroft has said they have over I think it's 100 suspects in prison thanks to the Patriot Act. Maybe more. Regardless, I personally have not heard who their names are. Now this may not be written in the Patroit Act but it seems to me the government is not releasing any names. At least I haven't seen anything where they mention a name. Have you?



posted on Oct, 1 2004 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrmulder

Well, so far John Ashcroft has said they have over I think it's 100 suspects in prison thanks to the Patriot Act. Maybe more. Regardless, I personally have not heard who their names are. Now this may not be written in the Patroit Act but it seems to me the government is not releasing any names.

Oh, so the names might've been released, you just didn't get a newsletter about it. And before, when you said it was written in the Patriot Act, you were just making that up right? Or at least you don't know if its there or not?


At least I haven't seen anything where they mention a name. Have you?

I haven't received the newsletter no. Since I've never heard of the patriot act or any other act allowing this, I'm not going to assume that its happened. Also, I don't think that the 'patriot act' allows anyone to be arrested, you don't go to jail for violating the patriot act, so I am not so sure anyone is actually 'arrested for violating the patriot act'. If anyone was arrested because of the patriot act tho, I would say Jose Padilla was. So, there ya go, the name of someone possibly arrested because of it.



posted on Oct, 1 2004 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
And before, when you said it was written in the Patriot Act, you were just making that up right?


Uh... I never said that. Please show me where I said that. I think you're assuming that I did. And why would I recieve a newsletter? What are you talking about?


I haven't received the newsletter no.


What newsletter? What are you talking about?


you don't go to jail for violating the patriot act


Then tell me what happens if you violate it?

[edit on 1-10-2004 by mrmulder]



posted on Oct, 1 2004 @ 03:04 PM
link   

here is the line that I got that from
One of the problems I have with the Patriot Act is I just don't see the point in keeping the suspects name secret from the public after arresting him

If you meant something different, then I have to say that it wasn't at all clear.

What newsletter? What are you talking about?

Man, for an x-files fan you sure are taking everthing a little too literally. We were talking about the names of people held 'under the patriot act'. You said you hadn't seen any names. Why do you think you would see these names? You read every newspaper published everyday, or read every bulletin released by every law enforcement agency? Some papers simply don't report on things as prevalently as they should. By talking about a newsletter, I was joking around while trying to make a point, short of getting a 'Patriot Act Newsletter: Updates and Current Events', (or doing some thurough research on the subject), how else would you know?


Then tell me what happens if you violate it?

The patriot act, as far as i understand it, is a modification of the laws that allows the government easier access to search warrants and that sort of thing. I, and again I haven't sat down to do a thorough reading of it, don't think it creates new types of crimes. If you are more familiar with it than I am you could elaborate?



posted on Oct, 1 2004 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
If you meant something different, then I have to say that it wasn't at all clear.


Sorry, what I meant is "because" of the Patriot Act or since it was passed, as far as I understand it, the government is now keeping the names of those secret who have violated the Patriot Act. Now if they haven't then I apologize.


Man, for an x-files fan you sure are taking everthing a little too literally.


Once agian. I aplogize.



The patriot act, as far as i understand it, is a modification of the laws that allows the government easier access to search warrants and that sort of thing.


From what I understand the government doesn't need a search warrant under the Patriot Act. That's how I read it at least in sec 202 and 216. But mabye you're right. Maybe it just gives the government easier access to search warrants.



[edit on 1-10-2004 by mrmulder]

[edit on 1-10-2004 by mrmulder]



posted on Oct, 1 2004 @ 06:13 PM
link   
No need to apologize for honest mistakes and mutual misunderstandings

My interest is piqued now. Lets look at the texts

www.epic.org...
The P.A.T.R.I.O.T. ACT



SEC. 202. AUTHORITY TO INTERCEPT WIRE, ORAL, AND ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO COMPUTER FRAUD AND ABUSE OFFENSES.
Section 2516(1)(c) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking `and section 1341 (relating to mail fraud),' and inserting `section 1341 (relating to mail fraud), a felony violation of section 1030 (relating to computer fraud and abuse),'.

Most of the related portions seem to be adding such and such activity to previous laws. It looks like this is either re-iterating or ensuring that violation of title 18 uscode blah blah blah is also a feolony violation of the other section, or something. Talk about legalese.

The other section you mention is larger. here is an important portion, its a alteration of of a pre-existing text

`(a) IN GENERAL-

`(1) ATTORNEY FOR THE GOVERNMENT- Upon an application made under section 3122(a)(1), the court shall enter an ex parte order authorizing the installation and use of a pen register or trap and trace device anywhere within the United States, if the court finds that the attorney for the Government has certified to the court that the information likely to be obtained by such installation and use is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation. The order, upon service of that order, shall apply to any person or entity providing wire or electronic communication service in the United States whose assistance may facilitate the execution of the order. Whenever such an order is served on any person or entity not specifically named in the order, upon request of such person or entity, the attorney for the Government or law enforcement or investigative officer that is serving the order shall provide written or electronic certification that the order applies to the person or entity being served

Not having the original text, its difficult to say what has changed, but it looks like either way a warrant is still required and can only be issued by a judge.

I, like you, would be very concerned if Patriot allowed them to detain US citizens secretly for indefinte periods of time with out charge and without trial and all the rest of the 'Court of the Star Chamber' type business.




top topics



 
0

log in

join