FEDERAL JUDGE RULES PARTS OF PATRIOT ACT UNCONSTITUTIONAL

MSNBC ^ | 1/26/04

[areafiftyone]

Federal Judge Rules Part of Patriot Act Unconstitutional. Just breaking on the ticker. Looking for more info!

[Don Joe]

YOU look it up.

This law doesn't include the word "knowingly".

Game Over.

Thanks for playing.

We have a lovely consolation prize for you, it's hanging from the doorknob. Standard caveats apply.

[Don Joe]

Did you read what they found unconstitutional? You can now help terrorists make bombs or poison and it's not a crime. Great Win for Freedom!

Yes! It's now legal to tell a stranger, over the phone, when he calls your gas station, "No, the only safe way to transport gasoline is in a red safety can."

Oh, the humanity!

[archy]

Did you read what they found unconstitutional? You can now help terrorists make bombs or poison and it's not a crime. Great Win for Freedom!

Cool! I can't wait to assist them in a number of helpful ways!

Sure thing Hakim! All you have to do to prepare the explosive mixture is to pour the distilled water right into the concentrated sulphuric acid....

[HiTech RedNeck]

Mens Rea

Don Joe is over the top, but by less of a margin than you'd think. See http://www.overcriminalized.com

[Lazamataz]

They need to be locked up on in the looney bin.

Why, you guys could write that into Patriot III:

Whoever shall question the goodness and rightness of the Patriot Act shall be locked up in the looney bin for a period of not less than 5 years and not more than 20 years. As it is written, so shall it be.

[Don Joe]

Don Joe says: "Now tell us what that logic means when determining the quality of some of Papa Bush's appointees."</b

And how is that relevant to the thread topic?

It's every bit as relevant as damning this decision because the judge was a Clinton appointee -- which, as you'll recall, was the context in which I mentioned it.

If the logic works, the logic works, regardless of who's ox is gored.

If you don't like it on the flipflop, then don't go marketing it, eh?

[Don Joe]

Give that man a kewpie doll!

[mrsmith]

LOL!

Thanks for the humor!

(But don't be hurt if some people still believe you're as stupid as you're acting.)

[HiTech RedNeck]

See the overcriminalized.com website. The mens rea requirement is today sometimes reduced almost to the vanishing point. A citizen is now required to take ever more elaborate precautions to ensure that he or she does not engage in some violation.

[mrsmith]

If you're talking about the lobster case, the business is required to know the regulations about the business they're in.
But I can't see any way to get around requiring that.

Of course the regulating is out of hand, stupid and even counter-productive at times.

[HiTech RedNeck]

THere are other cases, such as managers being held criminally, not just civilly liable for acts of their employess that they could not reasonably foresee or oversee. Even the lobster case is (excuse the expression) fishy as hell, because the judicial system of the country whose laws were supposedly broken had ruled that those laws were void.

[Don Joe]

Just posted -- by a lawyer -- in another thread:

All to often, prosecutors forget to provide exculpatory evidence to defense attorneys because they are afraid of losing a case. EVEN WHEN IT SHOWS THE DEFENDANT IS INNOCENT.

[Don Joe]

umpbay

[Modernman]

While the government may have no intention to do this at the present, they would certainly like to keep the option open in case they want to someday.

I don't want government to have that power. Way too much potential for abuse, especially in the hands of a Democratic president.

[Modernman]

Just because they technically "could" do something because of vague language doesn't mean they would or even try to do so.

So, you trust government never to abuse its power? Even if, say, Hillary Clinton was president?

[mrsmith]

But they were valid Honduran laws at the time of the trial.

Boy, that case is a good one to scare a person out of commerce with other nations. You really have to know your stuff (and pay your bribes in a timely manner)!

[HiTech RedNeck]

US jurisprudence holds that a law declared void by the courts was never valid; all convictions under that law are nullified.

Unless the Honduran constitution or judicial tradition forbids a similar principle to operate in that country, it is a supreme (pun intended) hypocrisy for US courts not to honor this.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Somehow, I don't think that the US cares quite as much about "violations" of Chinese law. The Wal-Mart lobby would never permit that to be.

[Modernman]

Did you read what they found unconstitutional? You can now help terrorists make bombs or poison and it's not a crime. Great Win for Freedom!

The legislature should draft laws more clearly if it doesn't want them struck down. A new, constitutional, version of this provision will be drafted and passed within a couple of weeks.

[Modernman]

Do a historical report on the White House, go to jail.

Or point out how our airport security is failing, or how we are not doing enough to protect our nuclear power plants, or point out weaknesses in our border policy.

Basically, any criticism of the government and the war on terror could be spun as "aiding and assisting" a terrorist organisation.