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.
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.
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
The problem is yours not theirs. They support everyone's right to free speech, not just the speech you approve of. They may defend people who's speech I find offensive, but that doesn't put them on the wrong side. Tell me exactly when have they picked on school kids? Other than fighting for kids not to have to say the pledge, not to have to pray, not to have to take drug tests, not to have school publications censored, etc?
Jack Valenti and Orrin Hatch will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
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.
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...
But...
Damn me if they're not on the right side in this one.
And the brethren went away edified.
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
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
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.
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.