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.
I've considered that myself. While past presidents have certainly worked to erode rights in some areas (Clinton and the DMCA anyone), it usually was for the purpose of giving their palm-greasing pals something in return for buying their position. This guy, however, got the deal of a lifetime. Not only can he run roughshod over the public, environment, foreign policy, and everything else for the purpose of special interest and buddy-pal-ol-boy appeasement, he got the opportunity to use the single worst terrorst attack on U.S. soil in history to go play god with everything else. For awhile there, the answer to everything, no matter how idiotic it seemed, was "9/11 this" and "terrorism that". There are still people, more than 2 years later, running and hiding under their beds every time the president says that magic word: "terrorists".
If he is reelected, the only thing he has to fear is retribution from the laws of the land. However, with the introduction of things like PATRIOT, and talk of amending the constitution on a whim, he's suggested that maybe even that can't stop him.
However, even if the Administration does get reelected, there is still hope. A lot of members of Congress have been sitting up lately and taking notice to what's going on. The Republican controlled Congress wants to help its Republican president, but they're also starting to say "look, this is just too much".
Still, I'm hoping he's gone in November, and I'm terrified of what may happen if he's not... fewer and fewer people are laughing at me like I'm a looney tune now when I say I'm more scared of my own governments than any boogey-man terrorists...
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
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.