Loose_Brie Posted May 13, 2004 Share Posted May 13, 2004 ACLU gagged by the Patriot act Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
selkirk Posted May 13, 2004 Share Posted May 13, 2004 Can you repost the article or the important part? Other wise we've all got to register with the Washington Post. Thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loose_Brie Posted May 13, 2004 Author Share Posted May 13, 2004 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.  © 2004 The Washington Post Company Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshK Posted May 14, 2004 Share Posted May 14, 2004 The "patriot" act, another fine wonder of the administration dedicated to eroding your civil liberties... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonehead Posted May 14, 2004 Share Posted May 14, 2004 Presidential push fails to quell GOP fear of Patriot Act --The Hill  A group of libertarian-minded Republicans in Congress is blocking President Bush’s effort to strengthen domestic counterterrorism laws and reauthorize the USA Patriot Act, which the president has made one of his top domestic priorities this year.  Fifty-eight lawmakers, including six Republicans, have co-sponsored legislation sponsored by Rep. Butch Otter (R-Idaho) in the House that would rein in aspects of the Patriot Act.  Both Otter and Craig emphasized in interviews that they don’t oppose the Patriot Act — they just want to eliminate the excesses that could some day be abused by investigators and prosecutors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted May 14, 2004 Share Posted May 14, 2004 The "patriot" act, another fine wonder of the administration dedicated to eroding your civil liberties...  http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0419/p02s01-uspo.html  Aside from the title, it is a very good story. Many provisions are going to "sunset".  BTW, Josh, do you know that The Patriot Act was voted into law by a 98-1 senate vote? John Kerry also voted "yes".  I have reservations about TPA too, but I don't perceive that it has yet (key word) been abused. It isn't like Lincoln has sent the Feds in to shut down The Chicago Tribune ! God forbid if John Kerry should have this tool in his hands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshK Posted May 14, 2004 Share Posted May 14, 2004 Yeah, I realize that is how the vote went down. The administration obviously realized that immediately following 9/11 was the definite time to slam this through. With approval ratings of 75% or whatever they were and the national sentiment as it was, no senator or congressman interested in being re-elected was going to vote against it. Â Out of curiosity, do you know who the 1 against and the 1 obstain were? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted May 14, 2004 Share Posted May 14, 2004 Russ Feingold (D) was against. Don't know who the absent vote was. Â The congressional elections were still over one year away when this vote was taken. Even farther away for most of these senators. I can't accept that political fear was a factor in a 98-1 vote. I think most members who voted in favor were likely sincere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slothrop Posted May 14, 2004 Share Posted May 14, 2004 If you read the actual text of the Patriot Act, it's almost impossible to tell what the hell it does. It's mostly a jumble of additions and deletions to existing legislation, with no context. This (deliberate) inscrutability, coupled with the breakneck pace with which the legislation was rammed through the Congress, did not contribute to a healthy debate of the potential consequences of passing such a blatantly fascist piece of legislation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted May 14, 2004 Share Posted May 14, 2004 Russ Feingold (D) was against. Don't know who the absent vote was. The congressional elections were still over one year away when this vote was taken. Even farther away for most of these senators. I can't accept that political fear was a factor in a 98-1 vote. I think most members who voted in favor were likely sincere.  Landrieu (D-LA) was the absent vote.  Many members were probably sincere in their support of the ostensible purpose of the Patriot Act - but this act was rammed through in near record time - passed on Oct 25, 2001(and let's not forget the weeks before was when the Senate offices closed from the Anthrax letters) it wasn't subject to heavy scrutiny.  In my mind the Bush Administration has certainly used the spirit in which the Patriot Act was passed by using it to crack down on drug offenses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martlet Posted May 14, 2004 Share Posted May 14, 2004 Yeah, I realize that is how the vote went down. The administration obviously realized that immediately following 9/11 was the definite time to slam this through. With approval ratings of 75% or whatever they were and the national sentiment as it was, no senator or congressman interested in being re-elected was going to vote against it. Out of curiosity, do you know who the 1 against and the 1 obstain were?  Yes, the Bush administration sits around plotting to absolutely screw the public whenever they think they can accomplish it. In fact, they were ecstatic that 9-11 took place, because it gave them a great excuse to take away all our rights, lower taxes, and invade peace loving nations.  Here you go.  Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
selkirk Posted May 14, 2004 Share Posted May 14, 2004 See, now you just being reactionary. We all know Bush isn't an evil maniacal individual dead set on screwing every thing over. Fundamentally I think he's probably a pretty good guy. But good will and good intentions aren't enough. Haven't you heard, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. My biggest problem with the patriot act was the lack of discussion that went into. It was proposed and past at a time when everyone wanted action, and as such there seemed to be very little political discussion and hence tempering of it. Â And your right, it may not have been abused yet. But do you really want the FBI to be able to tap your phones because someone tips them off that you have terrorist links? Unlike the drug enforcement laws there isn't the court oversite. They don't really need a court order or a warrant to utilize a most of the tools in the patriot act, just a reasonable suspicion. I'm not even worried about blatant abuse, I think most of the individual in the FBI and the DOJ are also fundamentally pretty bright, good people out to do what they think is best and right. What i'm worried about is someone who in their own mind is sure that they're in the right, and aggressively going after someone. Without the court oversight to be sure that everyhing is in order, that overzealous prosecutor is wielding too much power. Â On the upside it's starting to work it's way through the legal system. The ACLU has cases against it that finally came into public view as the fact they existed had been sealed due to "secrecy". Not that I quite grasp why a challenge to some aspect of the law should be "secret" and therefore not fit for public consumption. So hopefully the justice system will eventually adjust/repair the law and make it reasonable again. But that's going to take a while. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martlet Posted May 14, 2004 Share Posted May 14, 2004 See, now you just being reactionary. Â Of course I was being reactionary. I was reacting specifically to JoshK's statement that Bush took advantage of 9/11 and used it to "ram through" constrictive legislation. The implication being that a: he'd been dying for an opportunity to pass it, and b: (which is most likely true) that it wouldn't have passed without 9/11. Â I realize that most of the population, whether they think Bush is competent or not, whether they support him or not, and whether they like him or not, does not think that Bush has a secret diabolical agenda. I realize that most of his opponents just disagree with him, find him incompetent, or believe he is dishonest. I wasn't addressing them. I was specifically addressing JoshK's statement. Â You're points are seperate. I believe I read something about court oversight somewhere. I'll go look for it and address your points. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonehead Posted May 15, 2004 Share Posted May 15, 2004 "I am not a crook." --Richard Nixon "Read my lips, no new taxes." --George H.W. Bush "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." --Bill Clinton  We all know that Presidents and their administrations do not lie to the people and we can always trust them to do what's in the people's best interests. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.