Judge Strikes Down Part of Patriot Act
Bad news for the Bush administration (but good news for those who aren’t too happy with the way the administration has chosen to fight terrorism): “A federal judge struck down parts of the revised USA Patriot Act on Thursday, saying investigators must have a court’s approval before they can order Internet providers to turn over records without telling customers.”
US District Judge Victor Marrero said that the (recently rewritten) Patriot Act “offends the fundamental constitutional principles of checks and balances and separation of powers.”
I’m not a lawyer, heck, I’m not even American, but this sounds about right to me from a constitutional perspective. The idea that everything has changed because of 9/11 and that, therefore, the interpretation of laws should be changed – at least to a degree – has always sound foreign (heh) to my ears.
In Germany, we can now see the same debate taking place: some argue that the arrests two days ago prove that the police should be able to wiretap and Intertap people more easily. I disagree: the arrests prove that the government has enough tools to do what’s necessary. The arrest was a success, not a failure.
It’ll be interesting to see what the result of this’ll be, but that it’s another blow for the Bush administration is obvious.
H/t Memeorandum, more at Think Progress.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
2 Responses to “Judge Strikes Down Part of Patriot Act”
I’ll reserve judgment until we can read the opinion instead of a very brief second-hand report on the gist of it, but it bears noting from the outset that, just like the TSP case (ACLU v. NSA), this is a district court ruling by a district court (and Democratic appointee to boot), it will certainly be appealed, almost certainly stayed pending that appeal, and questions of law will be reviewed de novo by the
adultscourt of appeals. Let’s start by finding the opinion, though.I’ll reserve judgment until we can read the opinion instead of a very brief second-hand report on the gist of it
Ask and ye shall receive. [pdf] Run down the history of the case and you’ll find it doesn’t make the ruling look any better.