See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: Appeals Court Says Some Patriot Act Provisions Unconstitutional
Source:
Associated Press
URL Source: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artic ... e/n152850S48.DTL&type=politics
Published: Dec 10, 2007
Author: Associated Press
Post Date: 2007-12-10 19:39:52 by Brian S
Keywords: None
Views: 924
Comments: 72
(12-10) 16:15 PST Los Angeles (AP) -- A federal appeals court ruled Monday that some portions of the U.S. Patriot Act that govern dealings with foreign terrorist organizations are unconstitutional because the language is too vague to be understood by a person of ordinary intelligence. The ruling released Monday by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco affirms a 2005 decision by U.S. District Judge Audrey Collins. Collins ruled on a petition seeking to clear the way for U.S. groups and individuals to assist organizations in Turkey and Sri Lanka with training on applying for disaster relief or conducting peace negotiations. Collins said language in the Patriot Act was vague on matters involving training, expert advice or assistance, personnel and service to foreign terrorist organizations. Without clear language, the plaintiffs argued, those who provide assistance to those organizations could be subject to U.S. prison terms of up to 15 years. Charles Miller, a Justice Department spokesman, said his agency was reviewing the ruling to determine a response. Collins' ruling prevented the federal government from enforcing the vague Patriot Act provisions as they apply to the terrorist groups named in the lawsuit. In its 27-page decision, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that to survive a vagueness challenge, a statute "must be sufficiently clear to put a person of ordinary intelligence on notice that his or her contemplated conduct is unlawful." The language covered by the ruling remained unconstitutionally vague despite Congressional amendments to the Patriot Act meant to remedy the problems, the appeals court ruled.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 54.
#2. To: Brian S (#0)
www.infowars.com/print/patriot_act/alexs_analysis.htm TOTAL POLICE STATE TAKEOVER The Secret Patriot Act II Destroys What Is Left of American Liberty
Geeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeezuz.
How did we let this happen?
'WE' didn't. Congress did, and there were people that tried to bring the issue to light. They all believe they are above the law. They've declared war on us. Some they tell us to our face, and the other behind our backs.
It's an all out assault now...unbelievable. Things are moving VERY quickly.
I feel it too. Each day you wake up and say, what rain of crap is planned for us today.
The first thing I do in the morning is check the internet to see what the bad news is. It is very sad.
The Signing of the Military Commissions Act (MCA) of 2006 The Signing of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2007 TWO 'ACTS' OF TYRANNY ON THE SAME DAY! By Daneen G. Peterson, Ph.D. December 7, 2006 Updated June 2, 2007 On October 17, 2006, 'a date which will live in infamy' . . . there were two acts of tyranny committed. The first was a public signing of the 'Military Commissions Act of 2006' which suspended habeas corpus allowing the president to declare you an 'enemy combatant' and end your rights to seek legal or judicial relief from unlawful imprisonment. The second act of tyranny took place in a private Oval Office ceremony, in which the president signed into law the 'John Warner National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2007' which essentially eliminates the protections of the Posse Comitatus Act and re-wrote the Insurrection Act. The NDAA will allow the president to declare a 'public emergency' and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to 'suppress public disorder'! About The Military Commissions Act of 2006 . . . "A writ of habeas corpus which is Latin for 'you have the body' [as proof] is a judicial mandate to a prison official ordering that an inmate be brought to the court so it can be determined whether or not that person is imprisoned lawfully and whether or not he should be released from custody."(1) "The writ of habeas corpus serves as an important check on the manner in which state courts pay respect to federal constitutional rights. The writ is 'the fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action'."(1) Expressing the pessimist's view was law professor Jonathan Turley who wrote: "The Congress just gave the president despotic powers and you could hear a yawn across the country [. . . ] People clearly don't realize what a fundamental change it is about who we are as a country. What happened today changed us. And I'm not too sure we're going to change back anytime soon."(2) Turley also said that: "What, really, a time of shame this is for the American system. What the Congress did and what the president signed today essentially revokes over 200 years of American principles and values."(3) You can watch this MSNBC video where Keith Olbermann and guest Jonathon Turley, Constitutional Law professor at George Washington University discuss the Military Commissions Act here. About the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2007 . . . The NDAA essentially eliminated the Posse Comitatus Act and re-wrote the Insurrection Act so that the president can declare a 'public emergency' and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to 'suppress public disorder'! "The historic and ominous re-writing of the Insurrection Act, accomplished in the dead of night, which gives Bush the legal authority to declare martial law, is now an accomplished fact."(4) "In a stealth maneuver, President Bush has signed into law a provision which, according to Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), will actually encourage the President to declare federal martial law. It does so by revising the Insurrection Act, a set of laws that limits the President’s ability to deploy troops within the United States. The Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C.331 -335) has historically, along with the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C.1385), helped to enforce strict prohibitions on military involvement in domestic law enforcement. With one cloaked swipe of his pen, Bush is seeking to undo those prohibitions."(4) What 'Rights' Have Been Taken From You? "On September 28, by a vote of 65-34, the Senate formally passed S. 3930, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA). The next day, the House of Representatives followed suit, passing the act by a vote of 250-170, . . . [whereby] "alien unlawful enemy combatants ... [to be] subject to trial by military commissions" without the constitutional safeguards American citizens possess against illegal detainment and judicial railroading."(5) As far as an American citizen is concerned the definition of the term 'unlawful enemy combatant' has ominous import for them. The law states the following: "(1) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT - (A) The term 'unlawful enemy combatant' means--"(6) "(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al-Qaeda, or associated forces); or "(6) "Notice that this definition contains no exception for Americans; it throws the blanket over citizen and alien alike by using the word 'person' rather than 'alien'."(5) Gonzales: ‘There Is No Express Grant of Habeas Corpus In The Constitution’ Yesterday, [1/18/07] during Senate Judiciary Committee hearings, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales . . . was debating Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) about whether the Supreme Court’s ruling on Guantanamo detainees last year cited the constitutional right to habeas corpus. Gonzales claimed the Court did not cite such a right, [Specter disagreed] then [Gonzales] added, “There is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution.” Specter pushed back. “Wait a minute. The constitution says you can’t take it away, except in the case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn’t that mean you have the right of habeas corpus, unless there is an invasion or rebellion?” You MUST watch this EXTREMELY DISTURBING video: http://www.stopthenorthamericanunion.com/videos/GonzalesOnHabeas.html#Title Ominously, the full text of the 'Military Commissions Act of 2006' was published by the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations). The fact that the CFR published the 'Act' would appear to be prima facie evidence of the Shadow Government's support for its genesis!(6) The Center for Constitutional Rights commented that the: "Congress is now rubber-stamping a bill that was written by the President which gives the President expansive power to detain without judicial oversight. If the Military Commissions Act is passed, it will grant the President the privilege of kings, allowing him to imprison any critics as alleged ‘enemy combatants,’ never to see the inside of a court room or to have the chance to challenge their detention or their treatment. What would we say if another country passed a law making it legal to snatch U.S. citizens and detain them indefinitely?”(7) Sadly, the American Forces Press Service, propagandized the signing by utilizing the most common form of deception . . . omission. Read how they announced the signing but uttered not one peep about the potentially devastating future it has unleashed.(8) Senator John Warner Martial Law Now Stalks America . . . On October 17, 2006, "Public Law 109-364, or the 'John Warner National Defense Authorization Act of 2007' (H.R.5122) (2), which was signed by the commander in chief on October 17th, 2006, in a private Oval Office ceremony, allows the President to declare a 'public emergency' and station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to 'suppress public disorder'.”(5) What the National Defense Authorization Act does is end the Posse Comitatus Act of 1787. Posse Comitatus is Latin for 'power of the country.' It WAS a "law, [that] was championed by far-sighted Southern lawmakers in 1878. They had experienced a fifteen year military occupation by the US Army in post-Civil War law enforcement. They understood the heel of a jackboot."(9) "In a nutshell, this act bans the Army, Navy, Airforce and Marines from participating in arrest, searches, seizure of evidence and other police-type activity on U.S. soil. The Coast Guard and National Guard troops under the control of state governors are excluded from the act."(9) All these new tyrannical laws have been created obsessively to combat the amorphous concept of 'fighting terrorism' . . . an undefined and ever present boogey man. So not only is the military now permitted to be used around the country, the president can take over the National Guard and the Coast Guard too. It can happen under ANY pretext, at which time the president will become the dictator-in-chief. According to Gen. Tommy Franks, martial law will replace the Constitution after the next terror attack. In an interview with Cigar Aficionado he said: “It means the potential of a weapon of mass destruction and a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event somewhere in the Western world – it may be in the United States of America – that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event. Which in fact, then begins to unravel the fabric of our Constitution. Two steps, very, very important.”(10) Written Dissent to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2007: No matter your opinion of Cynthia McKinney, her 26 page dissent of the NDAA of 2007 is very compelling and highlights the damage and erosion, of tasks and performance, taking place between the police and the military in direct contradiction of our Constitution. The following excerpt is from the section concerning the issue of Posse Comitatus [pp. 30-31 .pdf (pp. 528-529)] which can be found here: (11) This Authorization should also have reaffirmed the principle of Posse Comitatus for military forces, police and contracted security or combat forces. This Constitutional principle creates a bright line between military and police functions. In the wake of the attacks on September 11, 2001, the Bush administration has continued to make widespread and unnecessary changes in laws and administrative powers that undermine the most basic Constitutional principles and protected rights of citizens in a democracy Recently, both President Bush and Senator Mark Warner (VA) have renewed calls to undermine or reverse the Posse Comitatus Act of 1867 [sic - i.e.,1878], which re-established the Constitutional principle and practice of separating military and police functions in a democracy [ours is a Constitutional Republic]. The experience of the founding fathers with the British model that combined the functions was enough to cause them to set that division sharply in administrative powers and civilian command of the military. The principles began to be eroded in the period following the end of the Civil War, and the effective occupation of areas of the south by federal troops who were holding military tribunals, carrying out executions of citizens and usurping local police and judicial control. Their excesses came to the attention of the post-war Congress and they passed the Posse Comitatus Act to forbid the military being used to enforce laws. Further erosion followed the end of the Vietnam War, when police departments were increasingly militarized in training and equipment as well as employing a large number of returning war veterans. SWAT teams were created, a clearly militarized police function, getting training on military bases with advanced weapons. When President George H.W. Bush came into office in the 1980s, his programs made increased use of military troops and equipment in the war against drugs, supporting police and collecting intelligence in regard to civilian crimes. Joint Military Task Forces were created that combined DoD, FBI, SWAT, ATF and local police in sieges at Wounded Knee, Waco, Texas and against MOVE in Philadelphia, using tanks and military explosives.:, President Bush has ample authority under provisions of existing laws on disaster response to mobilize and command any and all federal assets, including military forces. State directed National Guard units have always worked in conjunction with federal troops without being put under federal control themselves. Both National Guard and regular military forces are authorized under federal and state laws to use force to protect lives, property and public safety during a declared emergency. Police functions have been wisely left to local police and state National Guard forces, except when the situation was so dire they could not function.
Ayyyyy.
#63. To: Peppa (#54)
That's some chewy and nutritious reading there my friend Peppa...
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#12. To: TwentyTwelve (#2)
#13. To: Peppa, FOH, FormerLurker, Original_Intent, wudidiz, Uncle Bill (#12)
Geeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeezuz.
#15. To: TwentyTwelve (#13)
How did we let this happen?
#18. To: Peppa (#15)
They've declared war on us.
#20. To: FOH (#18)
Things are moving VERY quickly.
#21. To: Peppa (#20)
Each day you wake up and say, what rain of crap is planned for us today.
#25. To: TwentyTwelve, Peppa, Critter (#21)
"(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the president or the secretary of defense ."(6)
All Americans should know that the suspension of the 'writ of habeas corpus' by the 'Military Commissions Act of 2006' is a violation of Article 1, Section 9 of the U. S.Constitution which states: "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."
#54. To: FOH (#25)
Replies to Comment # 54.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 54.