FARK.com: (1146593) Media caught with heads up collective asses. Patriot Act NOT ruled unconstitutional

If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)		Media caught with heads up collective asses. Patriot Act NOT ruled unconstitutional (volokh.com)		77
		More: Followup

• • •

20072 clicks; posted to Main » on 30 Sep 2004 at 5:54 PM | Favorite | share:

Share this link:

URL:

http://fark.com/go/1146593

Bookmark:

Article Comments close

77 Comments (+0 »)

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

Huskadoodle		2004-09-30 10:50:54 AM

To Parrott Farkers from yesterday

WHY WON'T FARK GREEN LIGHT THIS MAJOR NEWS!!!!!!

unpainted huffhines		2004-09-30 12:01:31 PM

well thank god this brave new piece of [legislation] wasn't found unconstitutional. i can think of one fascist asshat that needs surveilling, in particular.

krikkitt		2004-09-30 12:09:19 PM

I believe the Patriot Act modified 2709, no? He acts like they are almost unrelated. And how is this "MAJOR NEWS" that should be greenlighted? (I had to put in my two cents, but I also must leave the computer for the day, and so will unfortunately be unable to participate in any flaming)

http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/PatriotAct.htm

BigTuna		2004-09-30 01:09:33 PM

To be fair, the Patriot Act did amend some language in this section; just not in a relevant way

This guy's a complete moran. The amended language is what made the law unconstitutional. Not relevant, my ass.

Cyberluddite		2004-09-30 01:41:38 PM

Though the statute at issue, 18 U.S.C. § 2709, was on the books since the 1980s, the statute was significantly amended by the Patriot Act. Prior to the Patriot Act, it applied only to criminal investigations of dealings with foreign powers. The Patriot Act amended it to make it apply to purely domestic investigations, including investigations involving only U.S. citizens. See page numbers 20-21 of the court's opinion. This case--or the "investigation," if you can call it that--probably wouldn't have even come up without that amendment. I think this blogger is a little off base here.

unpainted huffhines		2004-09-30 02:01:23 PM

methinks maybe the admin who greenlit this completely unworthy fascist wet dream is either the blogger, or the submitter, or both.

ralanprod		2004-09-30 04:28:45 PM

One of these days the world may wake up and realize that Blogs are generally opinion pieces. Unless the blogger happens to be a sitting justice on the supreme court, his view has as much value as the guy who offered to wash my windshield this morning.

office_despot		2004-09-30 05:58:32 PM

Media with head up butt:

Check this out!
http://www.heraldsun.com/

The debate story on the front page is written for tomorrow, and the picture has been replaced by MUPPETS!

MadFarker		2004-09-30 05:59:28 PM

Patriot Act NOT ruled unconstitutional

----

It means that the Patriot Act is ruled constitutional. Do not use negations when they are unnecessary.

GuinnessDrinker		2004-09-30 06:01:01 PM

So the Patriot Act itself wasn't ruled unconstitutional, but a certain part of it was. It's a step in the right direction anyway.

waitaminute...		2004-09-30 06:01:02 PM

Glad this has all been cleared up by Some Guy With a Website! We are all safe again! Thanks, Some Guy With a Website!

[patriotic music swells]

RockIsDead		2004-09-30 06:01:05 PM

And in other mainstream media sham news, CBS tries again to fool it's wiewers with fake stories.

lepermassiah		2004-09-30 06:01:09 PM

DID SOMEONE SAY MUPPETS?

Straws		2004-09-30 06:01:33 PM

wow. good thing this blog got greenlighted. I'm going to post in my journal about how kerry is a psycho alien here to kill us all. because we all know that blogs are such highly respected and obviously reliable news sources!

fishrocket		2004-09-30 06:01:53 PM

Funny, the way I heard it on the news, *portions* of the Act were deemed unconstitutional, not the whole thing...

poot_rootbeer		2004-09-30 06:02:10 PM

It means that the Patriot Act is ruled constitutional.

Wrong.

Do not use negations when they are unnecessary.

Don't you mean "Use negations when they are necessary"?

Miskatonic University		2004-09-30 06:03:31 PM

Submitter, you moran! You have mistaken a blog for a legitimate news source.

Until further news, I'll put my faith in that old rag, the NEW YORK TIMES.

thfpt		2004-09-30 06:04:10 PM

Well that kicks balls.

Fark_Q		2004-09-30 06:04:26 PM

I'd hit it...

waitaminute...		2004-09-30 06:05:00 PM

Blogs are better than real news.

spakto		2004-09-30 06:05:13 PM

Gee, I don't see how anything related to computers has changed since 1986.

?????

Inspectma Gadget		2004-09-30 06:05:37 PM

Never trust a website with the word Conspiracy in the title.

Hender		2004-09-30 06:05:52 PM

So let me get this straight....

He's refuting CNN, the NY Times, The NY Post, Reuters, and the AP?

Yup, OK, that makes total sense.

MadFarker		2004-09-30 06:06:45 PM

poot_rootbeer

Do not use negations when they are unnecessary.

Don't you mean "Use negations when they are necessary"?

---------------------

Right, I was just trying to illustrate the point...looks like you got it !

KyngNothing		2004-09-30 06:07:04 PM

Oh sweet jesus, now every blogger thinks they are better than every paper out there...

//doubts that guy read all 120 pages either

lepermassiah		2004-09-30 06:07:30 PM

Patriot Act Shmatria Act...WHERE CAN I GET SOME CHICKEN WINGS!

lepermassiah		2004-09-30 06:09:52 PM

now every blogger thinks they are better than every paper out there

they are if they're scissors!

aerocontrols		2004-09-30 06:10:42 PM

Just in case anyone is wondering...

Orin Kerr is a 4th Amendment expert.

Ajakk		2004-09-30 06:10:42 PM

Holy crap, who would guess that a blog run by a bunch of law professors from Harvard, UCLA, George Washington, Duke, George Mason, Temple, and Northwestern would know anything about the law?

spinfire		2004-09-30 06:13:51 PM

Funny Site.. and the person writing it apparently hasn't read the modified sections of the law or the decision if he thinks it was unrelated to the patriot act. Of course, what nobody has pointed out is that this is only a district court case which has not been appealed... and it won't have much weight or affect until its climbed its way through the court system.

The ruling only affects the jurisdiction of the 2nd circuit.

lepermassiah		2004-09-30 06:14:04 PM

Just in case anyone is wondering...

Orin Kerr is a 4th Amendment expert.

I am a 61 st amendment expert!

WayneKerr		2004-09-30 06:14:40 PM

us, not them
them, not us
skipping through a landmine
unloading an AK-47 in church

I need instant replay
Sleeping keeps me busy
A human at its best
Needs a puppy to smack

/smoked too much crack
//defective, take it back
///brain chemistry out of whack
////someone put cheerios in my smack
/////five slashes for not saying jack
//////six eyelashes per pack

The Nim Elf		2004-09-30 06:15:25 PM

farked

ZAZ		2004-09-30 06:17:59 PM

18 USC 2709, the law that was declared unconstitutional.

swahnhennessy		2004-09-30 06:19:24 PM

So much for this clown. Farther down the page he has an entry about the infamous yellowcake that he tries to spin. Pitiful. The amount of willful ignorance on display in this blog is just silly.

HTH		2004-09-30 06:20:55 PM

MadFarker

No, he means, "Use negations only when they are necessary!"

Bhruic		2004-09-30 06:22:34 PM

It means that the Patriot Act is ruled constitutional. Do not use negations when they are unnecessary.

Silly. That would suggest that:
Do not do something unnecessary = Do something necessary. Which, of course, is completely bogus. Cancellation of a negation does not automatically imply a positive.

HTH		2004-09-30 06:22:43 PM

Of course, it would help if I realized it should have been addressed to poot_rootbeer instead of MadFarker.

ZAZ		2004-09-30 06:25:42 PM

Here is the section of the PATRIOT Act amending 18 USC 2709:

Sec. 505. MISCELLANEOUS NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORITIES.

(a) Telephone Toll and Transactional Records.--Section 2709(b) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by inserting "at Bureau headquarters or a Special Agent in Charge in a Bureau field office designated by the Director" after "Assistant Director";

(2) in paragraph (1)--

(A) by striking "in a position not lower than Deputy Assistant Director"; and

(B) by striking "made that" and all that follows and inserting the following: "made that the name, address, length of service, and toll billing records sought are relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such an investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely on the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and"; and

(3) in paragraph (2)--

(A) by striking "in a position not lower than Deputy Assistant Director"; and

(B) by striking "made that" and all that follows and inserting the following: "made that the information sought is relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such an investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.".

trippdogg		2004-09-30 06:25:59 PM

So let me get this right - you think someone actually has to greenlight a headline before it gets posted here?

No way - they use the tried and true "train the chicken to peck the keyboard" method...

ZAZ		2004-09-30 06:36:08 PM

The ruling only affects the jurisdiction of the 2nd circuit.

I don't think that is correct. The District Court had territorial jurisdiction only over New York City and the immediate surroundings, the Southern District of New York, but it had personal jurisdiction over the government and its order reads in part:

Defendants John Ashcroft, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the United States, Robert Mueller, in his official capacity as Directo of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Marion Bowman, in his official capacity as Senior Counsel to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, are hereby enjoined from issuing national security letters under 18 U.S.C. § 2709, or from enforcing the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 2709(c)...

This order applies nationwide, or worldwide. If not the judge would have said where the order applies.

kronicfeld		2004-09-30 06:40:56 PM

"This order applies nationwide, or worldwide. If not the judge would have said where the order applies."

Nein. Circuits only cover their own territory. That's why you see the phrase "the circuits are split on the issue" in a number of SCOTUS opinions: the circuits will independently reach varying conclusions on questions of law, and their conclusions will only extend as far as their own circuit.

joebell		2004-09-30 06:49:06 PM

anyone who cares jump on the wagon please:

Straws		2004-09-30 07:00:31 PM

Yeah well I'm an expert on the 21st amendment

ZAZ		2004-09-30 07:05:02 PM

kronicfeld

You're confusing two different issues, judgments vs. precedents.

The judgment of a court is final, subject to appellate review, and binding on all other courts.

The legal principle used by the court is binding only on inferior courts within the same judicial district (federal circuit, county,whatever), and is conventionally followed by the same court in subsequent cases. This is the policy called stare decisis.

If the court had ruled that an ISP receiving an NSL may challenge the specific NSL in court, and the second circuit agreed, that would be (1) a judgment finally disposing of the particular NSL, and (2) a precedent that courts in the Second Circuit would use in similar cases in the future. The decision would indeed be limited geographically.

But the court didn't say that. This was a challenge to the general practice of issuing NSLs and the court ordered the government not to do that any more.

If I sue you for $100 for making an incorrect statement of law on the internet and I win, you can't evade that judgment by moving to a circuit where the law is more favorable.

yukichigai		2004-09-30 07:09:37 PM

Upon closer inspection it appears that the media didn't quite have their heads up their asses. Maybe in the vicinity of the ass, perhaps in the asscrack, but not in the ass itself.

The ruling did not strike down a part of the Patriot Act exactly, it struck down a law modified by the Patriot Act. The ruling was based (near as I can tell) on the modified sections of the law. So while technically a part of the Patriot Act wasn't struck down, something else was due to a modification made by the Patriot Act.

It'd be nice if someone could dig up the pre-Patriot Act law. The amendment seems to be specifically worded so it's unclear what's been modified.

ZAZ		2004-09-30 07:11:44 PM

I missed a definition above.

The judgment in a case is an order saying that A owes B money, or A does not owe B money, or ordering A to do something, finding that A is not permitted to do something to B, or a similarly concrete order directed at the parties to the case.

rickythepenguin		2004-09-30 07:16:23 PM

for those commenters saying things like "gee thanks, mr. anonymous guy with a website", Gene Volokh is a nationally-renowned Con Law Dude.

/.02

Madcow		2004-09-30 07:17:55 PM

Funny because the case itself mentions the PA several times. Wonder how he missed that????

Sparky-DC		2004-09-30 07:19:06 PM

Okay, so I read the headline, read the linked post, and even read the frigging court's opinion, and now I'm still confused: Where exactly is the media WRONG (i.e., caught with their "heads up [their] asses") when it reports that a judge in NY ruled parts of the Patriot Act unconstitutional?

The 122-page opinion is pretty clear when you winnow away the bullcrap. And even if you don't want to read this whole thing, does this not give it away?:

"ORDERED that the motion of [the Plaintiffs] is granted. Defendants John Ashcroft, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the United States, Robert Mueller, in his official capacity as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Marion Bowman, in his official capacity as Senior Counsel to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (collectively "Defendants"), are hereby enjoined from issuing national security letters under 18 U.S.C. s 2709, or from enforcing the provisions of 18 U.S.C. s 2709(c)...."

/seems to have missed something

Displayed 50 of 77 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

Redisplay/refresh comments

This thread is closed to new comments.