Monday, May 29, 2006
Judicial RhetIraq: US Gov't Attempt to End Free Speech
Who: Richard Cardamone, Judge for 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
Source: Associated Press via Findlaw
Quotes: From article titled, "Judge: Endless ban on speech sought for terror investigations likely unconstitutional"
A federal appeals judge warned the U.S. government Tuesday that the permanent ban on speech it seeks to assist terrorism investigations is likely unconstitutional.
Judge Richard Cardamone, of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, commented as the court acted on lawsuits challenging the government's ability to force companies to quietly turn over information about customers or subscribers as part of the war on terrorism.
"While everyone recognizes national security concerns are implicated when the government investigates terrorism within our nation's borders, such concerns should be leavened with common sense so as not forever to trump the rights of the citizenry under the Constitution," Cardamone said.
... a district judge in New York had ruled the national security letters violate the Constitution because they amount to unreasonable search and seizure. He found that the nondisclosure requirement violated free speech.
That case pertained to an unidentified Internet access firm that received one of the letters in which the FBI certified that phone or Internet records are "relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities."
The appeals court said the district judge can consider new evidence or arguments and rule again.
Cardamone wrote a separate concurring opinion to highlight what he said was the government's recent insistence that a permanent ban on speech is sometimes permissible under the First Amendment. He said he suspected "a perpetual gag on citizen speech of the type advocated so strenuously by the government may likely be unconstitutional."
Cardamone said previously approved bans on free speech were limited and ended with the investigation. But now the government has insisted on permanent bans on speech because all terrorism investigations are permanent and unending, he said.
"The government's urging that an endless investigation leads logically to an endless ban on speech flies in the face of human knowledge and common sense: witnesses disappear, plans change or are completed, cases are closed, investigations terminate," he wrote.
American Civil Liberties Union lawyer Ann Beeson, who argued before the appeals court, said Cardamone was "sending a strong message to the government that it can't simply claim secrecy is always necessary to protect national security."
Source: Associated Press via Findlaw
Quotes: From article titled, "Judge: Endless ban on speech sought for terror investigations likely unconstitutional"
A federal appeals judge warned the U.S. government Tuesday that the permanent ban on speech it seeks to assist terrorism investigations is likely unconstitutional.
Judge Richard Cardamone, of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, commented as the court acted on lawsuits challenging the government's ability to force companies to quietly turn over information about customers or subscribers as part of the war on terrorism.
"While everyone recognizes national security concerns are implicated when the government investigates terrorism within our nation's borders, such concerns should be leavened with common sense so as not forever to trump the rights of the citizenry under the Constitution," Cardamone said.
... a district judge in New York had ruled the national security letters violate the Constitution because they amount to unreasonable search and seizure. He found that the nondisclosure requirement violated free speech.
That case pertained to an unidentified Internet access firm that received one of the letters in which the FBI certified that phone or Internet records are "relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities."
The appeals court said the district judge can consider new evidence or arguments and rule again.
Cardamone wrote a separate concurring opinion to highlight what he said was the government's recent insistence that a permanent ban on speech is sometimes permissible under the First Amendment. He said he suspected "a perpetual gag on citizen speech of the type advocated so strenuously by the government may likely be unconstitutional."
Cardamone said previously approved bans on free speech were limited and ended with the investigation. But now the government has insisted on permanent bans on speech because all terrorism investigations are permanent and unending, he said.
"The government's urging that an endless investigation leads logically to an endless ban on speech flies in the face of human knowledge and common sense: witnesses disappear, plans change or are completed, cases are closed, investigations terminate," he wrote.
American Civil Liberties Union lawyer Ann Beeson, who argued before the appeals court, said Cardamone was "sending a strong message to the government that it can't simply claim secrecy is always necessary to protect national security."
