We don't really have a "Politics/Current Events/Etc" section of the board, so I'm not sure where I'd want to post this. So, I'll post it here as it seems to make the most sense. I'll even legitimize it by asking "What do YA'LL think of this?" Myself, the Patriot Act raised my radar and my hackles from day one. So...Yaaaay! Lets hear it for the Judicial System! ************************************** Judge Rules Against Patriot Act Provision 28 minutes ago Top Stories - Reuters NEW YORK (Reuters) - Part of the Patriot Act, a central plank of the Bush Administration's war on terror, was ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge on Wednesday. U.S. District Judge Victor Marreo ruled in favor of the American Civil Liberties Union (news - web sites), which challenged the power the FBI (news - web sites) has to demand confidential financial records from companies as part of terrorism investigations. The ruling was the latest blow to the Bush administration's anti-terrorism policies. In June, the U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) ruled that terror suspects being held in places like Guantanamo Bay can use the American judicial system to challenge their confinement. That ruling was a defeat for the president's assertion of sweeping powers to hold "enemy combatants" indefinitely after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The ACLU sued the Department of Justice (news - web sites), arguing that part of the Patriot legislation violated the constitution because it authorizes the FBI to force disclosure of sensitive information without adequate safeguards. The judge agreed, stating that the provision "effectively bars or substantially deters any judicial challenge." Under the provision, the FBI did not have to show a judge a compelling need for the records and it did not have to specify any process that would allow a recipient to fight the demand for confidential information. Source: Yahoo! News Story: Judge Rules Against Patriot Act Provision

Well, well, well. The Diet of Worms and Magna Carta seem to be coming back. (Coming back much better than my history lessons -- think those are the two things where the British kings started trials by peers and such.)

The Magna Carta was basically the "Rules of the Land" in fact I think thats its direct translation. As for the worms thing you lost me utterly

Yes, with the nobles against Prince John of England. As Cricket indicated, it was pretty much the first example of limitation to the devine power of the monarchy in western culture. Diet of Worms? I dunno, it triggers two vague memories, neither of which is political/governmental history related. One was something about Darwin's theory of natural selection, and the other was a science experenment in which worms were put through a maze and they gradually developed the ability to navigate the maze better and better. Then those learned worms were chopped up and fed to a new generation of worms, who, upon eating the smart worms, could suddenly navigate the maze. Somehow they'd literally 'injested' the chemical memories of the smart worms. Even with those two half memories, I can kind of see how it might be fiddled with to apply to this! LOL If anyone else knows for sure! I'm curious!

I've heard references to it, not sure though as to what Diet of Worms is. I *think* it's a book... Personally, I don't like the Patriot Act (and this is coming from a conservative! ). It reminds me too much of the Cold War and what the US did to the Japanese during WWII. I'm sure some of those at Guantanamo Bay would, if put through the justice system, be found guilty. I'm sure a lot would. But who are we to spout off on freedoms and rights if we adjust those freedoms and rights to apply only to those we want it to? Just seems a little wrong and hypocritical to me.

Bingo Elvin. That's my concern. Here's the core of my problem with it, and also the very reason (s) it was deemed unconstitutional: "...part of the Patriot legislation violated the constitution because it authorizes the FBI to force disclosure of sensitive information without adequate safeguards. The judge agreed, stating that the provision "effectively bars or substantially deters any judicial challenge." Which meant: "Under the provision, the FBI did not have to show a judge a compelling need for the records and it did not have to specify any process that would allow a recipient to fight the demand for confidential information. " Exqueeze me? No accountability DoJ? You'll be good because you say you will? Here's your pass in hell complete with all your good intentions. Sheesh.

Amen. I think it's very important that the government and all its sections should have to prove their reasoning and intentions. I'm glad this was struck down.

Oooh, I remember that experiment. Looked the thing up online. They're experimenting with wormy diets for folks with Ulcerative Colitis and Chron's Syndrome -- ugh, think I won't sign up for that one. http://www.fact-index.com/d/di/diet_of_worms.html explains the other. Yeah, off topic. Apparently Canada has something like the Patriot Act, but we hid it much better. Sigh. Power corrupts. Absolute Power courrupts absolutely.

Power corrupts?! absolute power corrupts?! Then it has no effect on me

Cep has bowed to the inevitable -- a site full of women is more than any man can hope to control. What shall we do to him next, ladies?

Anything!! ...as long as its pleasant!

For who?

for us!

Do we get to vote on it? Let's make a Gatchamania Constitution!

What would be contained theirin?

Members' rights to partaaaayyyy!

Good one! A constitution should follow the philosophy of the site. Which has been fairly anarchic, I suppose. So maybe a constitution is anathema to Gatchamania?

I will vote a yay for Crickets policy PAAAAARRRRRRRRTTTTTTYYYYYYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!