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.
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.
Oh yeah, equating box-cutters and speach makes a lot of sense. As if some terrorist were going to take over a newspaper by threatening the editorial staff with a vicious tongue lashing and fly the Op-Ed section into a nuclear reactor!
The current administration, and their cowardly lackies, would like you to believe that security can be bought by the sacrifice of civil liberties. Unfortunately (for their argument, at least) there is no proof that this is true. Most civil liberties (gun ownership included) don't materially enhance the ability of a dedicated sociopath to kill hundreds or thousands of people. The loss of civil liberties, however, greatly reduces the ability of the citizenry to resist corrupt and despotic governments, or even to be aware of the corruption and despotism.
moviepig continues:
First, most bureacrats (also known as civil-servants, which are non-partisan positions to begin with) are not evil, they are simply lazy and rude. They've got no great desire to do you harm, but also very little desire to help you out.
Second, given the current domination of all three branches of government (as well as the media) by one party, and given that their agenda is obviously malign to most of the citizenry, any litmus test that identifies the current administration's policy objectives as anything other than pure and good is bound to be labeled a partisan agenda.
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.
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
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.