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.
Who defends the ACLU when their liberties are infringed? The ACLCLU?
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...
I can't wait to see how the Bush babies try to spin this one. I expect a flood of right-wing apologists to appear in the thread soon telling us that a) it isn't that bad, and b) somehow, Clinton was worse.
Think about it. Not only do we have a law which allows secret investigations and arrests, and prohibits the accused from telling anyone about what's being done to them -- but apparently, the powers granted to the government by the law are themselves state secrets! This has gone beyond evil into insanity. When did my home become the Unites States of Kafka?
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
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 idea that our government is 'protecting' us by feeding our culture of fear and banning legitimate free speech...from the frikin' ACLU!!! [Yosemitie Sam mode on] %#@$#%$
No matter how many of my rights are taken away, somehow I still don't feel safe.
"It's all just meme meme around here"
I did. The ACLU web site accepts donations.
I've never done something like this before. I rarely write letters to politicians, and I don't make donations to political parties. But as I get older I realize that if I don't start putting my money where my mouth is, I may not be heard.
Take back your country.
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.
Also, how can it be illegal to disclose the types of things that may be requested under the law? We can't be subjecting people to laws they are not even allowed to know about now can we? This sounds more like the behavior of a certain former leader the US just ejected from Iraq. Say it ain't so.
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.' "
And three paragraphs up...
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.' "
Nice one, Washington Post!
Just think what they (the Bush regime) could accomplish with another 4 years. Scary thought isn't it.
Win a signed Stephen Carpenter ESP Guitar from the Deftones: http://def-tag.com/?r=0008781
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.
Invoking Godwin's Law in a first post? Wow. Game over.
The Blaster Master Fighting for Truth, Justice, and Evil Pie since 1979
Kerry voted for PATRIOT.
He's no savior.
I must have missed the news about the government rounding up Jewish people.
It won't be the Jews this time. It'll be the Muslims. Or maybe just the "potential terrorists".
"They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
I officially declare this thread over.
A provider of electronic communication service or remote computing service shall disclose to a governmental entity the -
(A)
name;
(B)
address;
(C)
local and long distance telephone connection records, or records of session times and durations;
(D)
length of service (including start date) and types of service utilized;
(E)
telephone or instrument number or other subscriber number or identity, including any temporarily assigned network address; and
(F)
means and source of payment for such service (including any credit card or bank account number),
of a subscriber to or customer of such service when the governmental entity uses an administrative subpoena authorized by a Federal or State statute or a Federal or State grand jury or trial subpoena or any means available under paragraph (1).
(3)
A governmental entity receiving records or information under this subsection is not required to provide notice to a subscriber or customer.
True, and while I don't love Kerry, he is the lesser of two evils. I don't doubt for a minute that voting for the Patriot Act was largley due to political pressure. That seems to be the case for most Democrats. Voting against the "Patriot Act" would have been political suicide at the time.
Time makes more converts than reason
I can't wait to see how the Bush babies try to spin this one.
Who says it will make news at all? Somewhere there's an unexplored angle of Michael Jackson or Kobi Bryant's trials that has not received full media saturation.
I've never been so ashamed to be American than now. It really upsets me that Donald Rumsfeld can go to Abu Graaib and make jokes about not reading the newspapers any more. Boy, that's real funny Don. It's like Bush making the "funny" video about not being able to find any weapons of mass destruction. Not everything is a laughing matter. There are some things which aren't laughing matters: our civil rights, the respect and trust of the rest of the world, and the lives of American soldiers and innocent Iraqis.
we have a law which allows secret investigations and arrests, and prohibits the accused from telling anyone about what's being done to them
I've wondered, when someone receives a "National Security Letter" -- since it's illegal to reveal you've gotten one -- how does the recipient go about getting a lawyer?
"Law Offices."
"Uh, hi, I think I need a lawyer."
"What sort of legal services do you need sir?"
"Uh, I can't say."
"You can't say?"
"No, that's illegal, but I need a lawyer, to help me with this thing I can't talk about. You know, a secret lawyer for secret charges."
This is not the United States of America I learned about in school.
But then neither is sending Canadian Maher Arar to Syria to be tortured, or exposing an undercover CIA agent for petty personal revenge, or setting up secret U.S. prison camps for 10,000, or Military Intelligence encouraging torture in those prisons, or lying about the reasons for going to war.
Wake up -- this is the same administration that ignored warnings of 9/11. Why do we keep rewarding this secretive, authoritarian, and incompetent administration?
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
They are NEVER the bad guys. Simply because you don't like the form of speech or the civil right that they are defending at any given moment doesn't make them good or bad. They are, de facto, good. Please keep in mind a quote by Supreme Court Justice William Brennan: "If there is a bedrock principle of the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable."
This applies to flag burning (as a veteran, I'm for it as valid political speech). It also goes beyond the First Amendment to ALL the other Amendments. Separation of Church and State is and must remain a solid wall. Offensive speech must remain protected regardless of your (or anyone else's) sensibilities. The ACLU is there to ensure this for the most offensive to the most inoffensive. There is no such thing as an OK and minor violation of Constitutional principle or of ANY Constitutional Right.
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
Huh? I am from Wisconsin. Feingold was the only one who voted against it. Thank God for him.
The record is here.
Wellstone voted Nay... don't you just love misinformation. Conspiracy theorists love that!
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!
This post has been removed by the United States Justice Dept. in the name of national security.
Tech News, Reviews and Tutorials
"True, and while I don't love Kerry, he is the lesser of two evils."
I hope you're not basing that on 20/20 hindsight campaign promises intended to earn votes. The truth of the matter is that the country is so divided about what's happening here that either way, a large number of people are going to be unhappy. Either they'll do too much to stop terrorism, or they won't do enough. Niether situation is ideal, and the bitching will not die down.
You wanna be mad at somebody? Point to the asshole that thinks the right way to express himself is to brainwash people into flying planes into buildings.
"Derp de derp."
That seems to be the case for most Democrats. Voting against the "Patriot Act" would have been political suicide at the time.
Three points:
1) Russ Feingold voted against it. It'll be interesting to see if this comes back to bite him in the ass - he's up for re-election this fall. I hope he makes it; he's one of the few politicians in either party that I respect (even though I think the campaign finance reform bill is unconstitutional).
2) Most politicians didn't even read it before they voted on it, which is why there's a minor backlash against it now from both parties. Fortunately, at least some people paid attention. The Republican committee chairman responsible for vetting the bill before it hit the floor (I forget his name) actually read the original version that Ashcroft submitted, and deleted significant portions. Apparently the original allowed suspension of habeas corpus, and the chairman's response was something along the lines of "WTF?" (Of course, the administration seems to be getting away with that on its own; I hope the SCOTUS slaps them down.)
3) The bill was designed to fix some of the more obvious intelligence failures leading up to 9/11. Although there's a lot of nasty stuff in it, people recognized immediately that some changes would need to be made. So, they were in a hurry to pass the bill because it was obvious that they'd been caught with their pants down. Which, of course, meant that they voted without thinking.
If you think that freedom to practice religion means that you are free to infringe on other people's religions by placing your God's image and commandments in public arenas, you aren't thinking hard enough. The only way that a society can exist with freedom of religion is if every religion's philosophies are treated equally in the eyes of government. If you expect your ten commandments to be posted in a courthouse, you should expect the religious laws of every other person in the community to be given equal time. And how hypocritical would that look, when the first of said commandments is "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me?"
The ACLU is doing what it always does: it's trying to protect the rights of the minority from being squelched by a well meaning but misguided majority. There is no shame in having a secular government. After all, government is about keeping things in order right here and right now. Religion's about the afterlife. If you think the two should be mixed, then mix them in your church -- and expect the Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Ba'hai, and Zoroastrians in your neighbourhood to do the same. Render unto Caeser what it Caesar's, man.
Hey freaks: now you're ju
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.
There are a lot of ways to spin it.
On is to use a headline that says:
"Justice Department Censors ACLU Web Site"
Another could be:
"Court Rules ACLU Violated Anti-Terror Law"
What's important is being able to recognize when somebody's spinning you.
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.
hmmm, fair enough. We do seem to get screwed least when neither party has enough power to push through something without help from the other side.
Twenties Retirement
2) Most politicians didn't even read it before they voted on it, which is why there's a minor backlash against it now from both parties.
Yeah, that's partially how the unconstitutional redistricting in Colorado got through last year; a lot of republicans realized after the fact how bad it was, but they were told it would help them and didn't bother to read it before voting for it.
Personally, I think anybody who votes for something without reading it first (or at least, having a staffer read it and tell them what it does) ought to be voted out of office.
Twenties Retirement
Here are the paragraphs that were removed, (per the Washington Post)
[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.' " ]