IT and A National Security Letter Gag Order

fstyke writes "An article in the Washington Post (anonymous for obvious reasons) describes the trauma the president of a small US IT company faces after receiving a National Security Letter. This is sent by the FBI demanding information (140000+ have been sent between 2003/2005 according to the article). Makes for an interesting read of the side effects of receiving such a letter and its requirements for the recipient to remain silent about even the fact he/she has received it.'The letter ordered me to provide sensitive information about one of my clients. There was no indication that a judge had reviewed or approved the letter, and it turned out that none had. The letter came with a gag provision that prohibited me from telling anyone, including my client, that the FBI was seeking this information. Based on the context of the demand -- a context that the FBI still won't let me discuss publicly -- I suspected that the FBI was abusing its power and that the letter sought information to which the FBI was not entitled.'"

Comments

PATRIOT act

[flyingfsck]

The USA is officially in a limited state of emergency, so this is not normal.

Re:Hopeful thinking....

[daigu]

...and get in a lather over how a handful of US attorneys (ALL of whom work entirely at the whim of every president and are political appointees, and ALL of whom the previous administration fired without so much as a minor hissy fit out of congress) were dismissed.

Can you show me where the Clinton administration pressured US attorneys to selective prosecute cases that served Democratic political ends? Or how when the US attorneys failed to comply they were fired? That would be news - which is why it is news now and wasn't then.

But, the opposing party's majority supported the PATRIOT act...

Perhaps the first time around - a month after 9/11. Perhaps you missed the memo for the Senate and the House the second time around. I'll tease out the key details for you.

For the House, only 44 Democrats supported the legislation and only 18 Republicans did not - which means 207 Republicans did.

The Senate vote was trying to address some of the most problematic aspects of the PATRIOT Act - specifically:

Original action on the bill was blocked in the Senate 2005 by four Republicans and a majority of Democrats who demanded that safeguards be put in place to protect against abuses of the law. Those safeguards included ending the use of "National Security Letters," which did not require a judge's approval, in order to obtain some forms of electronic information. Senators also added a provision that would allow the recipients of a "215 subpoenas," which are issued by the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court, to challenge "gag" orders that prevented them from disclosing the fact that they had received a subpoena.

I guess my point here is that if you are going to correct someone - you should actually be acquianted with the facts. I'd also argue that who is in charge of the Executive does matter because the Executive is the one that is abusing the power in the first place.

Which gets back to your ridiculous framing. I'd love for you to talk about all the terrorist activity the PATRIOT Act has enabled the U.S. government to prosecute. Where are all the terrorist convictions? Where is the accountability after the fact - information on what provisions were used, how it was effective, etc. Where's the empirical proof that the PATRIOT actually does "fix the problem" and information about how this Act has actually been used?

I think when you look at the facts you will find that the Patriot Act is being used in ways it was never intended on cases that have absolutely nothing to do with terrorism and that is a gross misuse of state power. All we have now is people - like yourself - stating it is very important. I'd like to see some facts that support that assertion. In the meantime, I'll continue to call bullshit.

Re:Hopeful thinking....

[Guuge]

You seem to have missed the point entirely. Bush has, by choice, engaged in unconstitutional activity. Up until now, congress has been unable or unwilling to stand up to Bush. But the responsibility for the illegal activity ultimately rests on Bush's shoulders. Passing legislation requiring Bush to obey the law isn't going to change anything; congress needs to do some real investigation up to and including impeachment if necessary. And that's exactly what they seem to be doing. Legislation might help prevent abuses of power in the future, but the immediate problem will not end until Bush is out of office. Then we can begin the process of undoing the damage and preventing it from happening again.

Re:answering by omission?

[spedrosa]

In other words, you are only allowed to repeat the Watchtower's lies.