Many of us have known that parts of the patriot act have been in violation of the constitution, but now it seems no one will be able to deny it. A federal court ruled that the Bush administration is in violation of the constitution. The supreme court will not take an appeal, because it does not want to have rule against the president it put into power, but the could not rule against the constitution.
Legislate in haste, repent at leisure. That's one lesson Washington should take from a court decision last week striking down a provision of the USA Patriot Act that empowered the FBI to demand that telephone companies and Internet service providers give them secret access to subscribers' records.
So blatant a violation of constitutional rights - to due process, protection against unreasonable searches and free speech - should have been obvious to elected officials. It wasn't. It fell to U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero in Manhattan to spell that out last week. Marrero struck down the provision that gave the FBI unchecked power not only to demand the records, but to bar service providers from ever in life saying a word to anyone about the demand. The law's gag order could be read as making it illegal for service providers to discuss the FBI demand even with a lawyer.
The law allows the FBI to get the records by issuing a "national security letter," which does not require a judge's approval. Law enforcement officials have only to decide, completely on their own, that the records are "relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities." With that, the FBI would be entitled to secret access to certain financial and credit records and a record of the people a subscriber communicated with electronically. Targets would never know government officials had rifled through their files.
Marrero stayed his ruling in the case - brought by the ACLU - for 90 days, to allow time for an appeal. But the FBI should be required to have its snooping, and the need for secrecy, reviewed, case-by-case, by a judge.
This unconstitutional extension of police power was written into law in the fevered, immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. More deliberation would probably have resulted in greater restraint.
Unfortunately, House Republican leaders risked similar missteps last week when they grafted ever broader police powers onto a bill to reorganize the nation's intelligence community. Congress is rushing to enact that sensitive and complex legislation before the Nov. 2 election. Such haste is a mistake.
Legislate in haste, repent at leisure. That's one lesson Washington should take from a court decision last week striking down a provision of the USA Patriot Act that empowered the FBI to demand that telephone companies and Internet service providers give them secret access to subscribers' records.
So blatant a violation of constitutional rights - to due process, protection against unreasonable searches and free speech - should have been obvious to elected officials. It wasn't. It fell to U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero in Manhattan to spell that out last week. Marrero struck down the provision that gave the FBI unchecked power not only to demand the records, but to bar service providers from ever in life saying a word to anyone about the demand. The law's gag order could be read as making it illegal for service providers to discuss the FBI demand even with a lawyer.
The law allows the FBI to get the records by issuing a "national security letter," which does not require a judge's approval. Law enforcement officials have only to decide, completely on their own, that the records are "relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities." With that, the FBI would be entitled to secret access to certain financial and credit records and a record of the people a subscriber communicated with electronically. Targets would never know government officials had rifled through their files.
Marrero stayed his ruling in the case - brought by the ACLU - for 90 days, to allow time for an appeal. But the FBI should be required to have its snooping, and the need for secrecy, reviewed, case-by-case, by a judge.
This unconstitutional extension of police power was written into law in the fevered, immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. More deliberation would probably have resulted in greater restraint.
Unfortunately, House Republican leaders risked similar missteps last week when they grafted ever broader police powers onto a bill to reorganize the nation's intelligence community. Congress is rushing to enact that sensitive and complex legislation before the Nov. 2 election. Such haste is a mistake.
Newsweek
