What Was This Federal Judge Thinking?

Reading back through the history of Third Reich Germany it became increasingly apparent how the whole basis of law was subverted, usually by courts taken over by the Nazis. While once there had been real laws, ennobling citizens, i.e. of the Weimar Republic, the laws had now been gutted and misshapen through corruption, fear and violence.

It all began on March 23, 1933, as the newly elected members of the German Parliament (the Reichstag) met in the Kroll Opera House in Berlin to consider passing Hitler's Enabling Act- which was officially called the 'Law for Removing the Distress of the People and the Reich.' (Think of it in neo-Orwellian language terms, like "the Patriot Act")

 Once passed, it effectively meant the end of democracy: no more labor unions, end of voting, free speech and a free press in Germany and establishing the legal dictatorship of Adolf Hitler. The vote,  441 for, only 84, (the Social Democrats), against, achieved what Hitler had wanted for years - to tear down the German Democratic Republic legally and end democracy, thus paving the way for a complete Nazi takeover of Germany.

The point?  “Laws” can be implemented as abominations! Just because we are told mass spying is "lawful" or "legal" doesn't make it so - not if the original law was altered to make it conform to lawlessness. Once proper courts are taken over whether by fear, intimidation or violence, then all law goes out the window because it is no longer based on founding principles - but perversions of them,

In this way, the Enabling Act led the way for further perversions of German law as embodied in the Reich laws, which conferred sweeping powers on Reich courts to enable the Nazi government to do whatever it wanted: have neighbors spy on neighbors, get Gestapo to collect people in the middle of the night, halt all contrarian news articles or editorials as "threats to the state" and prevent any dissemination of why this was happening on the basis of "national security."

We have seen the same genesis for the disruption of law and the Constitution in our own country using the Patriot Act in ways never intended. It began with the illegal wiretapping of citizens under the Bush administration and was then compounded when a pathetic congress legalized the lawless wiretaps rather than bringing the Bush bunch up on charges. This marked the original violation and subversion of law.

It then continued when the perverted law came up for extension in 2011 and a perverted traitor congress again passed it, much like the 441 cowards in the Reichstag passed the Enabling Act. Rather than set the legal and Constitutional basis straight, it became warped once more.  To the point of validating extreme and lawless measures to fight "terrorism", e.g.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2008/03/31/the-showdown/

Voices have since fought to expose this perversion and subversion, starting with Edward Snowden's exposure of its extent. Then, more recently we had the original Patriot Act authors (Patrick Leahy and Jim Sensenbrenner) calling foul and asserting the Act was never intended to go so far as Snowden revealed. A new law  (USA Freedom Act) was proposed to steer us back onto a path of sanity, i.e.  http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-10-31/usa-freedom-act-would-leash-the-national-security-agency

However, it is being fought tooth and nail by the current crop of neo- 'Enabling Act' pawns of the national security state.  Fighting back have been other voices, as well as one federal  judge, Richard J. Leon of Federal District Court for the District of Columbia. Judge Leon said the program most likely violated the Fourth Amendment. As part of the ruling, Judge Leon ordered the government to stop collecting data on two plaintiffs who brought the case against the government.

 

In his ruling, Judge Leon said that the program “infringes on ‘that degree of privacy’ that the founders enshrined in the Fourth Amendment,” which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.

 

Rather than live with that ruling, the government has appealed and we now behold another federal judge aligning with the Spooks and their pawns - much like the lower German courts were intimidated into aligning with the Reich courts.  In this case,, Judge William H. Pauley III, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, granted a motion filed by the federal government to dismiss a challenge to the program brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, which had tried to halt the program.   

    

Incredibly Judge Pauley's excuse was that protections under the Fourth Amendment do not apply to records held by third parties, like phone companies.   Fair enough, but then you cannot give those records to the NSA unless they have a proper SPECIFIC warrant - individualized  - as per the wording of the 4th amendment! You cannot cede the records en masse, based on mass warrants!

 

 Pauley added:

"The ACLU argues that the category at issue – all telephony metadata – is too broad and contains too much irrelevant information. That argument has no traction here. Because without all the data points, the government cannot be certain it is connecting the pertinent ones.......This blunt tool only works because it collects everything,”

 

  Right! So by that logic if I have to get rid of a hornet's nest on my house I will need to get hold of a flame thrower and an AK-47.

 

Does this judge have any idea how ignorant he sounds? He compounds that with this additional twaddle:

     

“While robust discussions are underway across the nation, in Congress and at the White House, the question for this court is whether the government’s bulk telephony metadata program is lawful. This court finds it is,”

At the same time, and in contradictory fashion, Pauley acknowledged that his ruling did not mean it was right to continue with the program, which he acknowledged was a “blunt tool” that “imperils the civil liberties of every citizen” if unchecked. And yet despite this acknowledgement of threat - reinforcing Judge Leon's take - he approved it. Cognitive dissonance anyone?

This sad excuse for a federal judge, alas, has no concept of what the 4th amendment is all about and has no business sitting on any bench.  If he'd acted consonant with the Constitution he'd have validated Judge Leon's earlier ruling and definitely not found the dragnet approach lawful. That is talking out of both sides of one's mouth, especially after admitting the threat to civil liberties.

 

What we can say, is that Hitler would have welcomed him with open arms on his Reich Courts!