Court ruling against Patriot Act
- From: pluto <pluto@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 07:50:03 +0800
Sep
28
2007
Court ruling against Patriot Act | Print | E-mail
Political Views
By MWC NEWS
Translation
A victory for the Constitution
Dennis Kucinich, US Presidential candidate for 2008
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- A federal court ruling striking down key provisions of the
?USA Patriot Act? is ?a major victory for the U.S. Constitution and the civil
liberties of Americans, and a stunning rebuke of the Bush Administration?s abuse
of power and of the Congress that permitted and reauthorized such abuses,? said
Ohio Congressman and Democratic Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich this
morning.
Kucinich, the Democratic candidate who voted against the original act in 2001
and its reauthorization early last year, said yesterday?s ruling ?demonstrates
that no official and no agency is above the law, and no member of the House or
Senate who passed this law can escape responsibility for the Constitutional
violations that have resulted.?
?It is a matter of public record that the White House and the Justice Department
have no respect for the Constitution or the rights and freedoms of Americans,?
Kucinich said, ?but this ruling also makes it clear that some members of
Congress have been willing accomplices to these Constitutional abuses; and they
have a responsibility to explain their votes.?
Yesterday?s ruling by New York U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero struck down
various provisions of the act related to ?national security letters? issued to
telephone companies and Internet providers ordering them to turn over records
without telling customers. The NSL?s do not require court review or approval and
impose a gag order on recipients that makes it illegal to even acknowledge that
they have received the order.
In his 106-page decision, the judge said Patriot Act provisions related to the
letters are "the legislative equivalent of breaking and entering, with an
ominous free pass to the hijacking of constitutional values."
He also wrote, "in light of the seriousness of the potential intrusion into the
individual's personal affairs and the significant possibility of a chilling
effect on speech and association - particularly of expression that is critical
of the government or its policies - a compelling need exists to ensure that the
use of NSL?s is subject to the safeguards of public accountability, checks and
balances, and separation of powers that our Constitution ?prescribes?. Marrero
issued a similar ruling in 2004 regarding the original 2001 Act. His ruling
yesterday addressed provisions in the amended Act that was reauthorized by
Congress in 2006.
?Congress passed an unconstitutional and unconscionable law in 2001, and then,
failing to recognize its mistake, re-authorized the law last year,? Kucinich
said. ?What makes this situation even more dumbfounding is that five Democrats
who voted in the U.S. Senate to support that unconstitutional law are now asking
to be elected President.?
Kucinich concluded, ?If my colleagues had made the right decision in 2001 and in
2006, they would be in a better position today to claim they have the
leadership, experience, and wisdom to be President. Their records, however, on
this and other issues, such as the war in Iraq, tell a very different story.?
source: http://www.dennis4president.com/
Recommend this article...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did you enjoy this article? Please bookmark it onto:
Quote this article on your site | Views: 128
Comments (3)
1. 29-09-2007 05:43
I read an article about this detailing the attorney that was wrongfully accused
of the Madrid bombings. The DHS surveilled the attorney and serrendipuously
entered the business and residence all without a warrant.
And the attorney was innocent.
I have been saying it all along, the Patriot Act violates our 4th Amendment
rights. Why has it taken so long to get the law to realize this?
Oh yeah, fear-mongering and faux nationalism.
Guest
Report
tao2. 29-09-2007 05:44
So doing everything one can to stop a suicide bomber, who has no regard for any
life, is not justified. The suicide bomber always wins, while the constitutional
theorist orates from onhigh.
Guest
Report
rmdg3. 29-09-2007 10:16
Bow
rmdg,
I think you are drawing a very very very long bow.
Mike
http://mozilla
Registered
Report
mike keenor
=====================================================
=====================================================[WHEN REPLYING TO MY XPOST PLEASE DELETE THE XPOST]
.
- Prev by Date: Myanmar remains under lockdown
- Next by Date: International conference discusses overseas Chinese
- Previous by thread: Myanmar remains under lockdown
- Next by thread: International conference discusses overseas Chinese
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
