[2ndDivisionVet]

Let me guess: Clinton appointee?

[VR-21]

"A law allowing federal anti-terrorism agents to access information on the US public without a warrant has been ruled as unconstitutional by a US judge."

So is keeping records of my firearms purchases.

I really wish we would find a different petri dish to get our judges from.

[MrJapan]

A law allowing federal anti-terrorism agents to access information on the US public without a warrant has been ruled as unconstitutional by a US judge. Victor Marrero said Congress exceeded its authority by allowing the FBI to keep requests secret under the Patriot Act, passed after the 9/11 attacks.

He said the act offended constitutional principles of checks and balances, and violated the guarantee of free speech.

---

What the heck does this have to do with free speech? Also, if a person has not broken any laws, then why would they be offended if they were `scanned`.... For the protection of the freedom in the USA, I would not be offended if they did a background check on me. Sounds a little like `1984`, but it`s for the safety and well being of the population of the USA.

MJ

[Captain Rhino]

He said his ruling did not mean the FBI must get court approval before ordering records, but that it must be able to justify why the request should be kept secret.

Be able to justify to whom? The ACLU, the person receiving the letter? No! To a judge, of course. So, his ruling (which, I admit, I have not read) appears to dismiss with one hand the requirement for prior court approval for the letter and require it on the other. Seems like a perfect example of judical double talk.

[LibLieSlayer]

Like every other commie attack on our defense... this will be overturned.

LLS

[Arrowhead1952]

Women, Children and Minorities hardest hit.

Oh wait.

Terrorists and democrats rejoice.

[Publius6961]

And I must believe a claim by the BBC on my Constitution as credible —— why?