To Parrott Farkers from yesterday

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

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The debate story on the front page is written for tomorrow, and the picture has been replaced by MUPPETS!

Patriot Act NOT ruled unconstitutional

----

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

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.

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]

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

DID SOMEONE SAY MUPPETS?

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!

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

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"?

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.

Well that kicks balls.

I'd hit it...

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

?????

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

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.

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 !

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


//doubts that guy read all 120 pages either

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

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

they are if they're scissors!

Just in case anyone is wondering...

Orin Kerr is a 4th Amendment expert.

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?

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.

Just in case anyone is wondering...

Orin Kerr is a 4th Amendment expert.

I am a 61 st amendment expert!

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

farked

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.

MadFarker

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

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.

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

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...

anyone who cares jump on the wagon please:

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

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.

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

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

Here's the direct link to the post, for peeps who hate to scroll: [link=http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2004_09_28.shtml#1096581574]More on the Mainstream Media[/link].

And the guy is a law professor at GWU, so ad hominem attacks on him as a "st00pid farking blogger" are, um, st00pid!!11

Attacks on his reasoning and/or reading comprehension skills are also stupid; the reasons why are left as an exercise for the reader.

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

nationally renowned does not neccesarily mean respected. After reading the other content on his blog, I have no respect for this Con.

Let's call everyone who disagrees with us fascists!

[patriotic music swells even louder, because we are the TRUE patriots]



So much for this clown. Farther down the page he has an entry about the infamous yellowcake that he tries to spin. Pitiful.

You should really try reading recent news on the 'yellowcake claims' and what was actually going on. You might have to actually read the links, including one on Slate, that he cites, though. And I'm sure you don't want to read anything that might force even a slight re-think on your part.



The amount of willful ignorance on display in this blog is just silly.

That, or someone expressing knowledge that doesn't toe the conventional wisdom of the Dubya bashers makes you really angry. Difficult to believe someone complains of willful ignorance after making your comment about yellowcake.

A quick survey of headlines indexed by Google News RE: this topic doesn't reflect any misunderstanding on the part of any major news source.

A piece of legislation amended by the Act was ruled unconstitutional, appeal by DOJ is probably pending. I don't see anybody disagreeing on this.

It's pedantic semanticism to argue pick nits over whether this is a ruling against the Act, the amended legislation, or the DOJ.

The ACLU press release is vague, but correct in essence. It's certainly no worse than most news.

Cheers.

Er, yeah. Strike the superfluous 'argue' in that post. I only make sense on my good days.

For those of you who are looking for it,

18 USC 2709 (current form) -- scroll down to see the exact amendments and when they were passed

18 USC 2709 -- as the code provided in 1999

Hope those links work.

Okay, I think I understand it now. The ACLU won a lawsuit over a particular act. The big controversy is whether the act was a part of the Patriot Act or not.

Cronyn insists that it's not. (The Act appears to be been authored by Sen. Leahy (D-Vt.).)

So that's the big deal? Yawn.

Say goodbye to your freedom America!

Come to Canada - we got better beer, women, and pot!

Beer?

Women?

Pot pies?

I'm in!

After looking at the two versions of the law, I've figured out that there were two major changes made to it by the Patriot Act:

1) Extends the scope of the law from investigations of possible terrorist activities by foreign agents to investigations of acts by anyone, regardless of nationality. I don't have much of a problem with this, since as has been shown by events like the Oklahoma City bombing domestic terrorists can be pretty bad.

2) Removes the requirement for official submitting the application to certify that "there are specific and articulable facts giving reason to believe that" the person has terrorist ties. This is the creepy part, since it means that the submitter doesn't have to specify a reason, just that they want the information for an investigation.


Bottom line: good thing this was struck down.

http://www.prosoundweb.com/fun/Photofun/76-head_up_ass.jpg

First thing that comes to mind: Journalistic Yoga

/just one of several examples, chosen at random

2004-09-30 05:59:28 PM MadFarker
Patriot Act NOT ruled unconstitutional
----
It means that the Patriot Act is ruled constitutional. Do not use negations when they are unnecessary.

If the Patriot Act has not been ruled unconstitutional, it does not necessarily follow that it has been ruled constitutional.

Hey, according to out government, being a professor does not mean you know what you are talking about. Just look at all the academic oversight gangs - ooops, I mean groups - are being formed and encouraged.

Unless you think they really mean that being a LIBERAL professor does not mean you know what you are talking about.

You don't think they mean THAT, do you?

Site is waay to tinfoil-hatted to waste time reading. Which perhaps is why there are only 68 comments thus far.

Kudos to MadFarker

Do not use negations when they are unnecessary.

This is tantamount to a null class in the class of all classes not members of the given class. (Heinlein)

I am reminded of Eric Blair (a.k.a. George Orwell) who once ridiculed this construction perfectly with the sentence: "The not unquick brown fox jumped over the not unlazy brown dog."

Anyone notice that "blog" is a four-letter word?

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

Oh yeah? Well I'm a 212th Amendment expert.

/VERY obscure.

Patriot Act = Nazi Decrees of 1933

"The Decrees of 1933
(a) The February 28 Decree.
One of the most repressive acts of the new Nazi government, this one allowed for the suspension of civil liberties in the wake of the false crisis created by the Nazis as a result of the fire that gutted the Reichstag (parliament) building on the previous day. Without firm evidence, it was put about that it had been set by the Communists as the opening act in the attempt to overthrow the state. The president was persuaded that the state was in danger and, hence, that the emergency measures embodied in the decree were necessary. Even though under Art. 48 of the constitution, the decree would have been withdrawn once the so-called emergency had passed, any hope of this happening was prevented by the establishment of Hitler's dictatorship following the Enabling Act (see below). It was in fact never withdrawn and remained until the end as an instrument of Nazi terror against ordinary citizens who ran foul of the regime.

ARTICLE 1. In virtue of paragraph 2, article 48,* of the German Constitution, the following is decreed as a defensive measure against communist acts of violence , endangering the state:

Sections 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124, and 153 of the Constitution of the German Reich are suspended until further notice. Thus, restrictions on personal liberty [114], on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press [118], on the right of assembly and the right of association [124], and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic, and telephonic communications [117], and warrants for house-searches [115], orders for confiscation as well as restrictions on property [153], are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed.

*Article 48 of the German Constitution of August 11, 1919:
If public safety and order in Germany are materially disturbed or endangered, the President may take the necessary measures to restore public safety and order, and, if necessary, to intervene with the help of the armed forces. To this end he may temporarily suspend, in whole or in part, the fundamental rights established in Articles 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124, and 153 "

source: http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~jobrien/reference/ob60.html

Petey4335: nationally renowned does not neccesarily mean respected. After reading the other content on his blog, I have no respect for this Con.

Just because you don't respect him doesn't negate the fact that people who are far more knowledgable than you about constitutional law _do_ respect him.

The whole reason the Rovian neocons act as they do is because the Moore-fellating libs are such a total joke that the Rovians think they're unbeatable by comparison.

And as usual, the reasonable are caught in the middle, hating both sides for being such self-serving wastes of space...

Beatle_Matt
unfortunately you had to give up your free speech almost entirely and it looks like farkers in the good old usa are about to as well (links pop)

here's another link from a senator on the subject of this ruling not being about the patriot act. senator link

Tha patriot act's amendment to 18 USC 2709 was not relevant to the court's decision.