POLITICS: ACLU forced to change press release

In what had to be a blow to the ACLU and their overall goal of disclosing information and protecting rights, the Justice Department demated the removal of two paragraphs from a press release featured on their website. Considering this press release was in regard to the Patriot Act and its powers, it seems rather shady that the press release was censored by the Justice Department.

www.washingtonpost.com... (Free registration required)

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.

More and more it seems like a back and forth battle between groups such as the ACLU and the government over the Patriot Act. It seems that the actions of the Justice Department go directly against the ruling of the judge allowing the ACLU to disclose the powers of the Patriot Act and just how far it really can reach. Apparantly parts of the act even prevent the ACLU from publicly saying they have been asked to censor the release, under the all-encompasing guise of national security. What would interest me very much would any dialogue between the judge who made the ruling and the Justice Department. I wonder if this will get further news coverage or in light of the abuse scandal just get swept under the carpet like many things have recently.


[Edited on 14-5-2004 by Zion Mainframe]

Sounds like the ACLU just didn't do their homework. This from the link you posted:

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.

No censorship here. No cover-up. Nothing swept under the rug. The ACLU may still be able to publicize the two paragraphs if they follow protocol.

The ACLU is a scumbag organization anyway. I have no use for an organization or individual that would defend NAMBLA.

Originally posted by jsobecky
The ACLU is a scumbag organization anyway. I have no use for an organization or individual that would defend NAMBLA.

Is that the North American Man-Boy Love Association or the North American Marlon Brando Lookalike Association?

Originally posted by Flyer

Originally posted by jsobecky
The ACLU is a scumbag organization anyway. I have no use for an organization or individual that would defend NAMBLA.

Is that the North American Man-Boy Love Association or the North American Marlon Brando Lookalike Association?

Does it really matter?

It's typical of the ACLU actions. They always want to jump the gun or "sneak" something into the public arena. Or more simply, they don't feel the rules apply to them.

I believe there IS censorship going on here. These paragraphs are also from the same Washington Post article:

BEGIN QUOTE

"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."

AND...

"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. "

END QUOTE

Personally, I appreciate knowing that an organization is willing to challenge the legality of allowing the FBI to secretly demand customer records from Internet Providers and other businesses (which I assume could be as diverse as pizza delivery restaurants, book stores, sporting goods stores, paint ball arenas, repair shops, motels...whatever) but the kicker is - they can do it WITHOUT A COURT ORDER. On a hunch. Cuz they feel like it. Someone told them somethin'... Doesn't mean it's true...but hey, this is WAR.

And the partial resolution that was reached was hardly comforting. The ACLU was allowed to post the case's briefing schedule - whoopdee doo - BUT they were not allowed to post the very heart of the matter - and that is: Your name, Your screen name, Your address, Your email header info and God only knows what else - is their's for the asking. Period. No checks. No balance. Just police state tactics. In the land of the free.

(just pray your ex doesn't slip a note to the local FBI office that says she found you on your knees 5 times a day, in a direction towards the Middle East...and you like guns)