Slashdot Mirror
Justice Department Censors ACLU Web Site
phr1 writes "According to the Washington Post, the ACLU was forced to remove a paragraph from their online press release, that specified what kind of information FBI agents could request under the Patriot Act that the ACLU has been suing over. "
This would be a useful item to offshore. Anyone care to put up a mirror of the current page before the Google cache updates?
Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has.
Surely what a FBI agent can request would be defined in the PATRIOT act itself, and the ACLU would be free to describe the content of the act itself?
Or am I expecting too much of the US government...
ACLU Was Forced to Revise Release on Patriot Act Suit
Justice Dept. Cited Secrecy Rules
By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, May 13, 2004; Page A27
When a federal judge ruled two weeks ago that the American Civil Liberties Union could finally reveal the existence of a lawsuit challenging the USA Patriot Act, the group issued a news release.
But the next day, according to new documents released yesterday, the ACLU was forced to remove two paragraphs from the release posted on its Web site, after the Justice Department complained that the group had violated court secrecy rules.
One paragraph described the type of information that FBI agents could request under the law, while another merely listed the briefing schedule in the case, according to court documents and the original news release.
The dispute set off a furious round of court filings in a case that serves as both a challenge to, and an illustration of, the far-reaching power of the Patriot Act. Approved by Congress in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the law gives the government greater latitude and secrecy in counterterrorism investigations and includes a provision allowing the FBI to secretly demand customer records from Internet providers and other businesses without a court order.
The ACLU first filed its lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of such demands, known as national security letters, on April 6, but the secrecy rules of the Patriot Act required the challenge to be filed under seal. A ruling April 28 allowed the release of a heavily censored version of the complaint, but the ACLU is still forbidden from revealing many details of the case, including the identity of another plaintiff who has joined in the lawsuit. The law forbids targets of national security letters to disclose that they have received one.
ACLU lawyer Ann Beeson said the court order also means that she "cannot confirm or deny" whether the ACLU is representing the second plaintiff. The group is the only counsel listed in court documents.
The dispute over the ACLU's April 28 news release centered on two paragraphs. The first laid out the court's schedule for receiving legal briefs and noted the name of the New York-based judge in the case, U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero.
The second paragraph read: "The provision under challenge allows an FBI agent to write a letter demanding the disclosure of the name, screen names, addresses, e-mail header information, and other sensitive information held by 'electronic communication service providers.' "
Justice lawyers said that both paragraphs violated a secrecy order and that the ACLU should be required to seek an exemption to publicize the information, court records show. Justice spokesman Charles Miller declined to comment yesterday.
"It simply never occurred to us that this information would be covered by the sealing order, because it's completely non-sensitive, generic information," Beeson said.
The dispute was partly resolved yesterday. Marrero ruled that the briefing schedule could be publicized, along with edited versions of other court filings. But the paragraph describing the information that can be sought remains absent.
=-=-=-=-=-=
my god. WTF is wrong with the government of this country?
Just wait till some crappy band steals your nic.
The nerd lobby just isn't big enough to oust a president.
I mean, imagine you are an FBI administrator with a real love of America and freedom. Suddenly, you are given these insane powers by the Patriot Act, powers that you know to be unconstitutional and just plain bad for a democracy.
If I were in that situation, I'd go after the ACLU. How better to get the law repealed, while keeping your job?
Or they could be evil bastards. Either one.
someone should get it over to them ASAP, before it disappears.
This is all very distressing. These fascists must be stopped. I wonder when they'll have our Kristalnacht or when will these neocons burn down the Capitol Building. These are dark days we are living in.
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
Is it just me, or is the ACLU seem to go from being good guys to being bad guys. It seems that some things they back are morally justified (like this one) and other seems to be just plain stupid (flag, GOD on Tshirts, etc cases?) I don't want to generalize too much, but maybe some people should shed their thoughts on the whole thing. I personally have a feeling of "uh oh" what the hell is the ACLU bitching about now kind of thing whenever I read an article just because of the bad taste they leave in peoples mouths after picking on schools kids for freedom of speech issues, etc but then get surprised when they actually take the correct side of an issue from time to time too.
Thoughts?
The quote is actually Ben Franklin, and says:
"Those who would give up essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
I certain hope this is a passing farce. For the moment I'm still save for this kind of madness (thanks to the waterouse body between America and Europe), but these are things than eventualy get copied by the EU, or our Belgian overlords.
How long did it take before we saw them copying DMCA-like regulations (like the tax on recordables. Both CD and DVD. We actually have to pay the music industry each time we backup our own files.)or the IP-madness?
Do I dare to ask what's next?
Indeed, you would do so less than you would as a civilian. If Dad had tried to get on base with a "Clinton Sucks" bumper sticker, he would've been stopped at the gate. If you don't like the CinC (and der Schlickmeister wasn't exactly the most popular among GIs), you're expected to keep your mouth shut.
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
Forcing the ACLU to wait until it's over is not justice--many cases go on for years. It would be too easy to abuse. You just file a suit, or commit an act that elicits a suit, and suddenly you can silence your critics.
It is always possible to rationalize wrongs. But that never makes them right. For example, "I should be allowed to speed because I might have an emergency," or "I should be allowed to torture because it might save lives," or "I should be able to invade privacy and bypass the checks and balances of justice because it might catch more terrorists."
With the increase of destructiveness available to sociopaths, any society must abrogate some rights of its citizens. E.g., nobody much minds that we may no longer carry box-cutters onto jetliners.
But, what's the non-partisan litmus test that tells me whether some new abrogation is a net win/necesssity, or instead embodies the authoritarian ill intent of the evil bureaucrat? (...already assuming those are mutually exclusive...)
Seeing bad movies only encourages them. Watch responsibly
Paul Wellstone was the only one who opposed the Patriot act. (And then he dies in a plane crash. Conspiracy theorists love that part)
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
If that asshat gets another 4 years, he's a "lame duck." Beleive it or not, there's things even BUSH won't do, for hurting his chances of reelection... Call me a member of the tinfoil hat crowd, but after seeing this, I wouldn't be surprised if another 4 years gets us a secret police force.
If there's a law that is in order, is restrictive, but anyone can go and read it and just don't do the prohibited thing, or do the forced thing, it is some kind of freedom restrictions, but may be within reasonable limits.
If there is one law which forbids something and another which makes publishing the first one secret and learning WHAT exactly is forbidden, so you just know there are certain things you're not allowed to do, but you won't learn what those things are, until you face the court for violating them... That's a state of terror.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
I really disagree with your entire characterization of EVERYTHING.
Neither Democrats NOR the Republicans are doing much of anything to stop terrorism since the Taliban fell. There were no terrorists in Iraq, and now we're handing it over to Al Qaeda. So we're HELPING terrorists there, like it or not. Every intercepted cash transaction is NOTHING compared to the sheer amount of power we are busily giving them in the Middle East via Iraq.
Personally, I'm voting for Kerry because he's from a different party than the majorities in Congress and the Supreme Court. I'm counting on political gridlock to prevent the Democrats AND Republicans from achieving anything close to their goals. Kerry supported PATRIOT and the Iraq invasion. If the Democrats were in charge of Congress, I'd be campaigning for Bush.
Kerry will take this country in the exact wrong direction--the same wrong direction it's going under Bush. But good old fashioned party politics will make sure it goes there slower. I used to be disheartened to say things like that, but I realize that's just how it is. I'd vote for Erwin Rommel if he was running, because he's not a Republican. And he's not bad in the desert either.
to solve our government problems is to prevent
their secrecy. We need to create a movement
where *all* candidates take a stand on one
simple issue: will they allow all their public
dealings to be recorded and put in the public
domain.
Those that have something to hide or an agenda
to keep hidden (which is probably 99% of them)
will say something about security. The only
need for secrecy resides in a very few elements
of military decision making. All other policy
decisions, especially those that go before
congress, must be compeletely on the record.
The fuckers are supposed to be "public servants",
so let's make them be just that. Servants don't
have privacy. If they really want to serve us,
then they don't want to hide anything, right?!
The only time they are not on record is when
they are in rooms with their spouse that have
no communication devices.
Simple. This will be the only way to draw a
line between the persons who seek to serve the
community and those who are seeking to serve
themselves.
I'm sick of this shit.
Peace & Blessings,
bmac
It's one thing to complain about how bad these things are, especially in a forum where nobody is likely to disagree with you, and another to actually do something about it. What can we do? How about making every effort to beat Bush and the Congressional supporters of the Patriot Act in November? You can send up to $2000 to the candidates before the party conventions (I think) - why not put your money where your mouth is? Or if you are lucky enough to live in a state that is actually up for grabs (e.g. not California and New York) do some campaign work for your favorite non-Bush candidate...
The typical uneducated (or Conservative-knee-jerk) response is "I'm not doing anything wrong, why should I care?" And, everyone is calling this thing a "war", which it really is, technically, but has Congress ever actually passed whatever resolutions or whatever that "officially" designate it as such? Me thinks the Prez has way too much unsupervised power.
But...
Damn me if they're not on the right side in this one.
And the brethren went away edified.
BUSH cant be elected again in 2008, but hes the least of the problems; he doesnt even read his reports. Just think if we were stuck with someone like Karl Rove or Dick Cheney...
Great rant. You almost made me forget about Diebold.
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
"Armed forces abroad are of little value unless there is prudent counsel at home" - Cicero
At its absolute worst, Bush will only be in office for 8 years. Max, can't run again.
;-)
Why?
Have you not noticed the part about tearing up the constitution?
So... lacking a constitution... why can he only be in office 8 years?
I'm sure that when it does come... they'll "promise" to restore free elections "as soon as possible" and this will all be "temporary".
Step #1 - Make sure any of those pesky "militias" authorized by the constitution won't get in the way... check. (They've been sent over seas.)
Step #2 - Control information channels... check. (New law allows for more ownership of media outlets in major metropolitan areas.)
Step #3 - Make people feel "lucky" to have a job and be able to support their family. This keeps them too damn busy to pay attention to you... check. (Unemployment rates drop because people don't even apply any more, or have been unemployeed so long they drop off the rolls.)
Step #4 - Have your "friends" count the votes... check. (Less than one percent change can throw the election. Get electronic voting put in place and make sure there is not a paper trail.)
Step #5 - Remember that after the election you are still commander in chief for a few months and that "anything" could happen requiring you to call for martial law. Especially if the really bad thing kills the president elect and vice-president elect.
(Whoa... what happens then?)
Just a few items for a fiction novel.
--Phillip
Can you say BIRTH TAX
I kind of think that this idea is laughable in the face of the strong arm of the American military. Granted a fair portion of them are abroad at the time, but it would be easy enough for the commander in chief to direct our own weapons against 'domestic insurgents'. It is only a few short steps from censoring websites to crushing a 'right to revolution'. While I'm sure that's what the framers had in mind, they also did not envision a permanent army to oppose that rebellion; especially one with big tanks. Of course a protracted Guerilla war throughout the states would be quite possible, the major problem would be the power vacuum and fragmentation of society resulting from the conflict (Left-wing vs. Right-wing groups, religious vs. secular groups).
Weird, I always thought the first amendment was more "powerful" than the second one...
Then apparently you haven't put much thought into it.
When someone attempts to subvert your other rights like, for example, your right to vote. What makes you think that these same people won't try to subvert your right to free speech?
It's your right to keep and bear arms that protects those other rights. Some people say "That'll never happen in America. Well, the truth is that it has.
The Battle Of Athens is a great example of how corruption in the goverment can be stopped by an armed populace.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Presumably the FBI wants to keep it a secret because it will be embarassing when it comes out. It's probably some overbroad order against an ISP or telco.
Actually a deconstructionist means nothing of the sort. The deffinition of a Deconstructionist is someone who looks into the meaning of every political action, and doesn't take it at face value. So when I say deconstructivism I mean that I never settle for the explaination that is given to me by those who have something to benefit from the bias of the information, rather I try to develop my own opinion based on my experience and "deconstruction" of the facts. This is a GREAT way to look at politics today because of all the "constructed" and "out-context" information that is diseminated in order to sway the uknowing public.
If the government was really out of control, would a few statements in the constitution really stop them from unarming all its citizens?
The only gain I could see from having the amendment is the awareness it gives to the idea that an armed revolution against a tyrannical government is nothing to feel guilty about.
Maybe that is good enough and maybe it is necessary. What do you think?
Because the ruling class of which he is a member is scared.
The house of cards that is big business finance is starting to topple (e.g. Enron, WorldCom)
Third world countries are starting to say no to unfair trade agreements.
The internet allows much easier communication between those who oppose the ruling class.
People are wising up about using the law to keep the actions of the government in check.
Some of the facts about the support of the US and European ruling class for Bad People such as Pinochet, Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein are coming out.
There are major troubles coming our way, caused in part by the actions of the ruling class (e.g. Global Warming, The exhaustion of fossil fuels, chemical poisoning of the ocean)
I think that what we have is a case of some people doing some bad things and then covering them up and continuing to do worse and worse things in order to stay in power.
There actions make perfect sense from their point of view (assuming you take ethics out of the equation). There are more of us than there are of them, so they need to use a range of dirty tricks to prevent us from removing them from power.
Dan.
One of the guys who is running against Russ Feingold is running ads right now specifically attacking Feingold on his voting record for the PATRIOT Act. The funny thing is, this guys name is Russ Darrow, and he made his millions selling cars! A politician who used to be car salesman? I can't stop laughing. I don't think I agree on Feingold on any issue other than his opposition to the PATRIOT Act, but I might just vote for him anyways.
I saw a video of Rumsfeld the other night that was broadcast by the Daily Show and Rumsfeld actually said this:
"But one thing appears reasonably certain, and that's that those who make allegations of a culture of deception, of intimidation or cover-up need to be extremely careful about such accusations."
Wow. That's from a DOD Town Meeting, May 11, 2004
This is what we're dealing with people.
I don't pretend to know exactly why Bush does what he does but I can make some educated guesses. I think he's trying to be all things to all people, doing what he's told, and trying to maintain American dominance in the world. I do know that the CIA tends to think in terms of power relations, that Bush's father was head of the CIA and this seems to describe how 'W' sees the world too.
Heres some speculation; the cover of war allows the president and the CIA power that they normally wouldn't have, and is a distraction from domestic issues. Bush has managed to deport a number of illegal immigrants from the US without the numerous complaints which would have been raised otherwise. The CIA has gotten the various Patriot acts passed, which would have been difficult in peacetime. A message has been sent to a number of nations; respond to America's diplomatic requests or we'll take you down. Iraq attacked Kuwait and threatened our ally Saudi Arabia, and Bush has close ties to the Wahabi (sp?) rulers of Saudi Arabia. The Saudis can't retaliate. That would be bad politically. But they can use the US to do so.
Iraq traded a lot of oil with France and Russia rather than the states. Not a good move.
The 'war on terrorism' is another war which justifies the US attacking its enemies in the eyes of the American people. You can decide for yourself whether this method of justifying a pre-emptive strike and preventing powers hostile to the US from 'going nuclear' is good or evil. Sadadm did want nuclear weapons. Iran and N.Korea were working on them.
Iraq had been trading too much oil with France and Russia, rather than the states, perhaps? I know that this is true, but it's hard to determine someone's motives if they want to keep them covered.
I don't think that Bush is 'evil' so much as he wants to acomplish his goals by any means necessary but that's a fine line.
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
The very name "Patriot Act" is intended to con people into thinking that a law more suited for a fascist country is benign and all-American, necessary to protect mom, the flag, and apple pie. They named the law carefully:
so that it would have this appealing acronym. I say we shouldn't go along with the scam. Don't call it the Patriot Act. Let's call it HR 3162.I think it has been proven quiet well that a bunch of determined yahoos with severly out classed weapons CAN make a significant resistance when they are fighting on their home turf and the folks with the Big Guns dare not go for a scorched earth policy.
And yes, your right, it would screw the pooch for the whole country. As I like to say "I used to be an Anarchist till I realized how much I like my indoor plumbing." But like a nuke, some weapons are better used as a deterrant than on your enemies - Thus the importance of an armed populace. Mind you I don't want a gun in my house. But I want to right to obtain one if I feel it necessary.
Vietnam was not a revolution in action, it was a real war with two sides and well-defined borders. And the reason the U.S. didn't simply walk all over the North Vietnamese is twofold:
No, if anything, Vietnam is an excellent example of how a civilian population, even if reasonably well-armed compared with the U.S. civilian population, has no chance against a modern military. How is it an example of that? Well, notice that South Vietnam fell to the North Vietnamese almost immediately after the U.S. military pulled out of the region. This essentially proves that a civilian population can't overcome a well-armed military on its own. And the North Vietnamese had already suffered a lot of casualties before the U.S. pulled out, whereas in a revolution here in the U.S., the revolutionaries would be going up against a fresh military force which is much more heavily armed than it was during Vietnam and would be much more willing to pull out all the stops than in Vietnam (since the survival of the government it serves is at stake).
I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to, but if I had to guess, it would be because the situation was different. It wasn't a case of the U.S. government being forced to fight for its own survival, so there wasn't the imperative to declare the American civilians in question "enemy combatants" like they certainly would be in the case of a revolution.
Oh yeah? The press in the U.S. is starting to talk about how the goings on at Abu Ghraib are not an isolated incident. And if it's not an isolated incident, then only one of two things are possible:
So either the U.S. military is highly undisciplined, which would also tend to make it an ineffective fighting force (not likely, given its demonstrated effectiveness in multiple combat situations), or it has no problem treating "the enemy" as if it has no rights of any kind. Take your pick, but there's no escaping the logic.
Oh yeah? Then how do you explain the 2 million dead Vietnamese compared with the 50 thousand dead U.S. military personnel? And that's when the civilians had the help of the North Vietnamese military! That's a 20 to 1 advantage in favor of the U.S. military, and that's when the U.S. military was hampered by limitations placed on them by the politicians! You call that a "pretty good job"???
No, sorry, Vietnam illustrates vividly how a purely civilian population has no chance against a well-trained and well-armed military.
[on Bush]
Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
BTW, elections being hijacked is nothing new. Kennedy wasn't likely the first, either. Just remember also, the electors (you know, the people we are actually voting for on election day - as opposed to the candidates whose names are on the ballot) don't have any obligation to vote for who they're pledged to vote for (other than one of honor, and who was the last honorable man you saw in politics?). They could all go in and decide to elect someone who isn't even on the ballot if they wanted to!
This system was devised for a reason, and not for practicality: the founders never really believed in democracy, they were just "new money" who wanted to be rid of the incovenience of the king (or, more to the point, the incovenience of the king's taxes). To be blunt, American democracy has never worked the way it is billed to work, and still works exactly the way the founders intended. It was, and is, a boldfaced lie - a charade to delude the ignorant by making them believe they have a voice in government. Marx said religion was the opiate of the masses, but I say democracy is the real culprit.
Aristotle held that all republics eventually degrade into oligarchy. Some would say they all start that way, too.
It should have served as a red flag that the government was out of control when it started to disarm the people.
Note the past tense.
Laws are horrible moral guides, moral guides make even worse laws.