posted on April 29, 2004 08:30:49 AM new
ACLU Reveals Secret Suit Over FBI Powers
NEW YORK (Reuters) - The American Civil Liberties Union (news - web sites) disclosed on Wednesday it had secretly sued the government over a provision of the Patriot Act that allows the FBI (news - web sites) to demand customer records from businesses without court approval.
The ACLU said it initially filed the civil lawsuit under seal on April 6 because it could have been prosecuted for violating a gag order contained within the Patriot Act. It said it chose to make the case public after the government agreed on Wednesday it would not seek a penalty against the ACLU.
But many details of the case, filed in Manhattan federal court, must remain secret.
The defendants include Attorney General John Ashcroft (news - web sites) and FBI Director Robert Mueller. A spokesman for the Manhattan U.S. attorney's office had no comment.
At issue is the power the FBI has to execute what is known as a "National Security Letter," a form of administrative subpoena used to demand confidential financial records from companies as part of terrorism investigations.
Legislation signed by President Bush (news - web sites) in December expands the definition of companies from which information can be obtained and allows FBI agents to send out the letters without first obtaining a judge's approval.
"The National Security Letter provision allows the FBI to demand the sensitive records of innocent people in complete secrecy, without ever appearing before a federal judge," said Jameel Jaffer, an ACLU staff attorney.
"Before the Patriot Act, the FBI could use this invasive authority only against suspected terrorists and spies," Jaffer said. "Now it can issue National Security Letters to obtain information about anyone at all. This should be disturbing to all of us."
The suit argues that the National Security Letter provision violates the constitution because it authorizes the FBI to force disclosure of sensitive information without adequate safeguards.
The FBI no longer has to show a judge there is a compelling need for the records and it does not have to specify any process that would allow a recipient to fight the demand for confidential information.
Prior to December, the letters could only be sent to certain financial institutions. However, the definition of "financial institution" in the new law is expanded to include such businesses as insurance companies, pawnbrokers, dealers in precious metals, the Postal Service, casinos, and travel agencies.
The law also bars subpoenaed businesses from revealing to anyone, including individuals who may be under investigation, that the FBI sought records of their transactions or that businesses have turned over their records. A company faces criminal penalties if it breaches the gag order.
posted on April 29, 2004 09:30:46 AM newHowever, the definition of "financial institution" in the new law is expanded to include such businesses as insurance companies, pawnbrokers, dealers in precious metals, the Postal Service, casinos, and travel agencies.
Again I'll say...they're not after us...they're after the terrorists and we can't tie their hands and then demand they protect us.
Look to the 9-11 commission hearings and see the problems created because the FBI and CIA couldn't share information with one another...not allowed. Under the Patriot Act that has now changed. Why because it didn't allow our government to do all it could do to 'connect the dots'.
We need to be able to do everything possible to route out these terrorists. This is such a small addition to what they're already allowed to check.
posted on April 29, 2004 01:27:53 PM newAgain I'll say...they're not after us...they're after the terrorists and we can't tie their hands and then demand they protect us.
Wrong. The PA isn't limited to investigating terrorists. It was used to bust a small time prostitution ring in LA.
Look to the 9-11 commission hearings and see the problems created because the FBI and CIA couldn't share information with one another...not allowed. Under the Patriot Act that has now changed. Why because it didn't allow our government to do all it could do to 'connect the dots
They still can't share the information. This "wall" has not been taken down by the Patriotic Act. The "wall" has to do with the difference between gathering evidence for criminal investigations and gathering information for intellegence.
The "wall" is there because criminal evidence must be gathered in accordance with Constitutional protections while intellegence does not have to follow those protections.
If we allow the two to share information, the evidence will not be allowed in court.
posted on April 29, 2004 01:58:24 PM new
Congress Speaks
Congress Explains the USA PATRIOT Act
The Patriot Act Protects Both the Nation and Citizens' Rights
Senator Baucus (D-MT) said, "I strongly support this important counter-terrorism bill because it will give law enforcement officials the flexibility and resources to eradicate acts of terrorism. . . . There's a thin line between increasing the powers of the federal government and maintaining Americans' and Montanans' civil liberties. I believe the bill we passed today balances the needs of protecting the country from terrorism and protecting our rights as citizens of this great country." (Senator Baucus, Press Release, October 25, 2001)
The Patriot Act Applies Pre-Existing Tools to the Fight Against Terrorism
Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) said, "[T]he FBI could get a wiretap to investigate the mafia, but they could not get one to investigate terrorists. To put it bluntly, that was crazy! What's good for the mob should be good for terrorists." (Senator Biden, Congressional Record, October 25, 2001)
[view full statement]
The Patriot Act Helps Ensure Coordination
Senator Edwards (D-NC) said, "We simply cannot prevail in the battle against terrorism if the right hand of our government has no idea what the left hand is doing." (Senator Edwards, Press Release, October 26, 2001)
The Patriot Act In One Word: Balance
Senator Schumer (D-NY) said, "If there is one key word that underscores this bill, it is 'balance.' . . . The balance between the need to update our laws given the new challenges and the need to maintain our basic freedoms which distinguish us from our enemies is real." (Senator Schumer, Congressional Record, October 25, 2001)
[view full statement]
The Patriot Act Addresses Coordination, Communication, and Cooperation
Senator Snowe (R-ME) said, "One of the most critical elements of this anti-terrorism package—which also includes expanded authority to hunt down and identify terrorist activity within our own borders—addresses the 'Three C's' that have been lacking among those federal agencies that are integral to preventing terrorism: coordination, communication, and cooperation." (Senator Snowe, Congressional Record, October 25, 2001)
The Patriot Act Combats Terrorism Without Losing Constitutional Freedoms
Senator Levin (D-MI) said, "[T]he antiterrorism bill [Patriot Act] which the Senate is about to pass reflects the sentiments the American people have expressed since the events of September 11 -- that we must act swiftly and strongly to defend our country without sacrificing our most cherished values. The Senate antiterrorism legislation meets that test. It responds to these dangerous times by giving law enforcement agencies important new tools to use in combating terrorism without denigrating the principles of due process and fairness embedded in our Constitution." (Senator Levin, Congressional Record, October 25, 2001)
[view full statement]
The Patriot Act Fills the Gaps in Our Counter-Terrorism Strategy
Senator DeWine (R-OH) said, "It's imperative to provide our law enforcement agencies with the necessary tools to help protect Americans and prevent the types of cowardly acts that were committed against our great nation on September 11th. . . . This package goes a long way to fill the gaps in our national and international counter-terrorism strategy." (Senator DeWine, Press Release, October 25, 2001)
The Patriot Act Is a Common-Sense Update
Senator Fitzgerald (R-IL) said, "Much of the new anti-terrorism law is a common-sense update of existing procedures, adapting investigators' techniques - and the legal hurdles to which they are subject - to the new generation of technology. . . . Another important change made by the new law is the improved access that it provides to key information about terror suspects, especially information discovered in grand-jury proceedings. . . . Finally - and perhaps most importantly - the anti-terrorism legislation recognizes that we cannot hope to stop terror simply by catching terrorists only after they have infiltrated our enormous country. The new law increases immigration officials' power to make sure that terrorists never arrive and settle here in the first place." (Senator Fitzgerald, Op-Ed,
"Patriot Act Good Step in Fighting Terrorism," The Pantagraph, November 18, 2001)
The Patriot Act Allows Law Enforcement to Keep Up with Modern Technology
Senator Biden (D-DE) said, "The anti-terrorism bill we consider today is measured and prudent. . . . It takes a number of important steps in waging an effective war on terrorism. It allows law enforcement to keep up with the modern technology these terrorists are using. The bill contains several provisions which are identical or nearly identical to those I previously proposed." (Senator Biden, Congressional Record, October 25, 2001)
posted on April 29, 2004 02:06:23 PM new
Oh....I almost forgot the best quote:
The Patriot Act Helps Law Enforcement Target Terrorist Financing
Senator Kerry (D-MA) said, "I support the conference report before the Senate today. . . if one is going to cope with an al-Qaida, with a terrorist entity such as Osama bin Laden, who moves his money into this legitimate marketplace, law enforcement has to have the ability to be able to hold people accountable where it is legitimate to do so. . . .
With the passage of this legislation, terrorist organizations will not be able to move funds as easily and they will not be able to have their people move within our country with bank accounts that we cannot penetrate, with major sources of funding transferred to them from the Middle East or elsewhere to empower them to be able to do the kind of things they did on September 11." (Senator Kerry, Congressional Record, October 25, 2001)
------------------
But then again, maybe he's changed his position on this issue too????????? Can't keep up with his changes.
