Patriot Act Author Introduces Bill To Limit Use of Patriot Act 189
wjcofkc writes "In an ironic but welcome twist, the author of the Patriot Act, Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), is introducing the USA FREEDOM Act, a bill specifically aimed at countering the portions of the Patriot Act that were interpreted to let the NSA collect telephone metadata in bulk. The congressman has been a vocal opponent of the NSA's interpretation and misuse of the Patriot Act since Edward Snowden first leaked evidence of the program in June. On Wednesday, he wrote (PDF) to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder that the 'collection of a wide array of data on innocent Americans has led to serious questions about how government will use — or misuse — such information.'"
Guess we'll see where Obama really stands... (Score:2, Informative)
Yeah, but we already do, don't we?
In favor of bigger, "better", more-overweening government.
Re:Common sense does not apply (Score:4, Informative)
One of the first should be the ruling that allowed case law to take precedence over legal matters.
Case law is what determines the current valid meaning of the written laws, as precedent. Get rid of case law, and all the clarity of modern law disappears. Goodbye, privacy. Free speech? Well that still probably applies to things you say, but nothing written online... or maybe it's just going to cover the use of your wine press. After all, it was Supreme Court cases that established our current interpretations of these basic laws. "Freedom of speech, or of the press", as written, really only covered printed documents and verbal speech, and the "unreasonable searches" in the Fourth Amendment meant physically going through a person's personal effects.
Without the baseline of case law, the vague written law is no help in determining what's legal or not. You could be arrested for anything, and it must go to court for a judge to decide. Older similar cases can't be used as precedent, so the prosecutor could argue any crazy theory he wants, and know that he'll be able to at least present evidence... but evidence standards are based in case law, too, so the judge has no reason to reject evidence that, for example, showed up at the police station's door with a note saying it came from your car. Let's hope the jury is on your side, but since you're defending yourself against someone who's well-trained in the art of convincing people to believe a story (because, without case law, that's the prosecutor's whole job), your acquittal is unlikely.
Sure, getting rid of case law would make the written law easier to understand, but practically useless.
Re:shoulda got it right the first time (Score:3, Informative)
Heritage repudiated that plan long ago after rethinking it. They determined it was a bad idea. You should give them credit for being able to do so.
ObamaCare's Heritage [wsj.com]
In that 11th Circuit appeal, which is almost certainly headed to the Supreme Court, the Justice Department cited Heritage as an authority in support of its position. Heritage responded with an amicus brief explaining that its view had changed:
If citations to policy papers were subject to the same rules as legal citations, then the Heritage position quoted by the Department of Justice would have a red flag indicating it had been reversed. . . . Heritage has stopped supporting any insurance mandate.
Heritage policy experts never supported an unqualified mandate like that in the PPACA [ObamaCare]. Their prior support for a qualified mandate was limited to catastrophic coverage (true insurance that is precisely what the PPACA forbids), coupled with tax relief for all families and other reforms that are conspicuously absent from the PPACA. Since then, a growing body of research has provided a strong basis to conclude that any government insurance mandate is not only unnecessary, but is a bad policy option. Moreover, Heritage's legal scholars have been consistent in explaining that the type of mandate in the PPACA is unconstitutional.
Re:shoulda got it right the first time (Score:4, Informative)
Full text: bin Laden's 'letter to America' [theguardian.com]
(Q2) As for the second question that we want to answer: What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?
(1) The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam.
Re:shoulda got it right the first time (Score:5, Informative)
This is a third party doctrine issue. The 3PD conflates "perfect secrecy" with "reasonable expectation of privacy". The 3PD is the rule that if you share info w/ a third party, even if that party promises you confidentiality, and even if they never actually breach your confidence, then the Feds can just have the data because the 4th Amendment doesn't apply at all (you have no reasonable expectation of privacy). Even Justice Sotomayer is starting to think that the 3PD is outdated. See her concurrence, specifically, the paragraph starting at PDF page 19: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/10-1259.pdf [cornell.edu]
If the 3PD disappeared, all of this stuff would have to go through a 4th amendment analysis and a third grader could demonstrate it fails to comply. The only reason Section 215 of PATRIOT Act has the effect it has, and all of these programs are "legal" -- is the 3PD. Take that away, and it's all unconstitutional. Fail to address the 3PD, and any proposed reform is fig leaf.
As for Irony, the Feds are hell bent on getting Snowden, but if the rules that apply to people applied to it, it would have no reasonable expectation of privacy in the documents he released because the Feds shared that info with a third party, namely, Booz Allen Hamilton.