Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
Posted on 09/26/2007 4:35:10 PM PDT by SmithL
The FISA court is the court to review this provision so what has been ruled there? I think in this case the Government overreached but I think this Clinton Judge is overreaching striking down the provision. Sections 201 to 225 require at a minimum post search FISA court review so FISA court must not think it’s unconstitutional. I guarantee right now the government will get a stay on the ruling pending appeal and the stay will outlast this President. The USSC will eventually rule the provision meets constitutional muster.
Good Ruling
Please back up your unfounded slur against a man who served honorably as an officer in our Armed Forces....
Good Ruling ... Ping
so best to dismantle it now...
it was bad law when it was enacted it'll will only be worse then...
Glad to see you hold the 4th ammendment in such high regard... I would through out that old sacrificing liberty for security quote ... but you would not care ...
He was defending them because he was their attorney.
It was his job.
I’ve watched this case for years as it developed in the local papers, and it looks to me like an attempt to intimidate attorneys who accept cases to defend accused terrorists. I think the FBI overstepped here, and this decision may well stand.
En Guard!
Aiken is a commie cretin!
Check post # 2!
i would prefer guilty people going free over innocent people's rights being violated. that's for sure. but certain people do possess certain...attributes that should open them up to more scrutiny. did i advocate profiling??? the horror!
I have had personal dealings with Mr. Rosenthal. Let’s just say, he needs to be one of the first lawyers in the ocean, as the old joke goes.
Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
I'm afraid you are correct. It amazes me how shortsighted most of us here are in being so willing to give the government so much power, especially when the 'government they like' is only a presidential term away from being over.
>>I am willing to bet that EVERY complaint and gripe about the Patriot Act will end, once She Who Must Not Be Named is in the WH in 2009.<<
I hope not - can you imagine how abusable the patriot act would be under somebody like Hillary Clinton?
>>American citizens...
While I’ve never liked some of the provisions against U.S. Citizens, hopefully we will be able to keep the other parts intact.
Americans have the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects. That clearly should include bank records and phone calls.
That’s who I’m talking about...
Google section 215 of the PATRIOT Act. Apparently part of the issue is that FISA courts only require reasonable cause, rather than probable cause.
There are also valid concerns related to “sneak and peek”/secret breaking/entering government searches with delayed warrant notices — it’s been a while since I researched that issue, but if I’m remembering correctly “delayed” is not defined so it can mean that those subject to government breaking/entering search and seizure may in effect never be notified. In addition, there are “administrative” warrants that are basically warrants in name only — they’re issued by the department requesting the search rather than by a court.
I’m not sure whether these latter two issues are related to this particular ruling, though.
Before her federal appointment she was quite the media whore with a clear activist streak, even as a county judge. Her appearance was youthful and attractive - at least partially explaining her appointment by the sinkmaster.
She most recently presided over several ecoterror cases that came out of a federal infiltration of the ELF group a few years ago. She rendered some adequate sentences in this group which largely pleaded down from original charges to lesser charges still categorized as “terrorism”, and sentenced accordingly.
But how she landed the Mayfield case from Portland in the Eugene courthouse I don’t know.
It may go to the Ninth circus. Beyond that I don’t know. Since the criminal matter is settled and this is a civil case with little real importance it isn’t likely to go far.
I have mixed feelings about this. I agree with Judge Aiken that activities amounting to searches without due process are unconstitutional. BUT - I still think there is something fishy about the Mayfield case. His connection to known terrorists is real and well documented, and I am not convinced that his hands are clean.
Many state Constitutions were written during a time of war. There is no "time of war" exemption, and if there were it would take exactly two seconds for an unscrupulous president to simply and gratuitiously declare war, immediately suspend the Constitution and appoint him/herself dictator for life.
What you say is the way it should be, but not the way it is.
Lincoln and the Civil War stands as a shining example of an Executive Branch doing as it wishes during war, Constitution be damned.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.