ACLU: Obama admin. will defend Patriot Act ‘gag order’ letters

http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/05/18/aclu-obama-admin-will-defend-patriot-act-gag-order-letters/


By Stephen C. Webster

Published: May 18, 2009
Updated 6 hours ago


The Obama administration will not ask the Supreme Court to review the national security letter provision of the Patriot Act, which has been criticized as unconstitutional by civil rights groups and curtailed by a lower court following a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union.

By not seeking a review, the ACLU said, the administration is committing itself to defending the Bush-era rule.

into a somewhat more conscientious approach?

Or do I mean: A lawsuit?

eom

See #4.

.

it looks good on you.

Further in the article:

“We’re very pleased that the government has decided not to seek further review of the appeals court’s decision,” said Jameel Jaffer, Director of the American Civil Liberties Union National Security Project. “The appeals court was right to find that the FBI can’t be given the unchecked power to impose gag orders on the recipients of national security letters, and the government’s decision not to seek Supreme Court review means that FBI gag orders will finally be subject to meaningful judicial review.

By not sending it to the Supreme Court, the lower court's ruling remains in place.

so I can guarantee they did not read the part you just highlighted and instead had a knee jerk reaction. Am I wrong?

One did indicate that this was one more example of how Obama is a conservative, so you at least get the small prize. I can't quite tell yet if you're going to get to trade up.

""By not seeking a review, the ACLU said, the administration is committing itself to defending the Bush-era rule.""

Defending Bush-era rule doesn't sound very positive to me.

I suspect that is what the other posters were reacting negatively to.

The Obama administration isn't defending anything. By not appealing to the Supreme Court, the lower court's ruling stands.

The summary in the Raw Story link is simply wrong. The information claimed is nowhere to be found in the actual ACLU press release or the statement made by the ACLU representative.

That was the last line in the post.

The reader is not responsible for incorrect items that are posted, the poster is.

Did you mean to respond to the OP or me?

But I was responding to your saying people should have kept reading.

The post was apparently deceptive, not the fault of the reader but of the poster of the OP.

I meant that they should have kept reading the story at the link. It sounded odd, which is why I clicked on it myself.

There was obviously more to the story - as you pointed out - than what was included in the OP. Your point, of course.

Just your typical online misparsing..

"Because the government has decided not to seek Supreme Court review, it will now for the first time have to defend the constitutionality of the gag order on the ACLU’s client. The FBI continues to enforce the gag order even though the underlying investigation is more than five years old and may well have ended, and even though the FBI abandoned its demand for records from the ISP more than two years ago."

“The next step is for the government to drop the unwarranted and unconstitutional gag on Doe,” said Melissa Goodman, a staff attorney with the ACLU National Security Project. “At this point it’s clear that the gag order serves no legitimate purpose.”

The two statements (the one you posted and this one) from the same press release seem somewhat contradictory. It sounds like they're saying that the Obama administration will have to defend the constitutionality, but at the same time, they don't really expect them to.

it may be a wish. I don't know them or our new administration well enough to interpret that.

If the government didn't appeal the ruling, however, it seems likely that they'll decline to defend the related gag order. In that sense, the quoted portion probably makes more sense than the "they'll have to defend it" section. Just a guess, though.

Either way, the summary on the link was pretty selective with its information. The tone of the summary and that of the press release are pretty dissimilar.

they don't know any better than we do.

I really don't know what to think any more.

I keep hoping for a major breakthrough anywhere on Bush-era legal policies.

Relying on the Judicial branch to do the right thing has OFTEN led to disappointment.

Obama Administration Will Not Ask Supreme Court To Take Up National Security Letter "Gag Order" Decision (5/18/2009)


Government Should Now Lift Gag Order On Internet Service Provider, Says ACLU

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

NEW YORK – The government will not ask the Supreme Court to review a decision that struck down Patriot Act provisions that allow the government to impose unconstitutional gag orders on recipients of national security letters (NSLs). NSLs issued by the FBI require recipients to turn over sensitive information about their clients and subscribers. A lower court ruled in 2007 that the gag order provisions were unconstitutional, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld that ruling in 2008. The government's time for petitioning the Supreme Court for review has now expired.

"We're very pleased that the government has decided not to seek further review of the appeals court's decision," said Jameel Jaffer, Director of the American Civil Liberties Union National Security Project. "The appeals court was right to find that the FBI can't be given the unchecked power to impose gag orders on the recipients of national security letters, and the government's decision not to seek Supreme Court review means that FBI gag orders will finally be subject to meaningful judicial review. As the last few years have shown us, the blanket of secrecy that cloaks the FBI's activities is an invitation to abuse. Judicial review may not end that abuse altogether, but it will certainly discourage it."

The lawsuit at issue, now called Doe v. Holder, was filed by the ACLU and New York Civil Liberties Union in April 2004 on behalf of an Internet service provider (ISP) that the FBI served with an NSL. Because the FBI imposed a gag order on the ISP, the lawsuit was filed under seal, and even today the ACLU is prohibited from disclosing its client's identity.

Because the government has decided not to seek Supreme Court review, it will now for the first time have to defend the constitutionality of the gag order on the ACLU's client. The FBI continues to enforce the gag order even though the underlying investigation is more than five years old and may well have ended, and even though the FBI abandoned its demand for records from the ISP more than two years ago.

"The next step is for the government to drop the unwarranted and unconstitutional gag on Doe," said Melissa Goodman, a staff attorney with the ACLU National Security Project. "At this point it's clear that the gag order serves no legitimate purpose."

Moreover, beyond the resolution of the gag that was imposed in this case, the appeals court decision will require the government to develop new procedures under which it will bear the burden of justifying any gag that it seeks to impose.

"We hope and expect that the new procedures will strike a constitutionally appropriate balance between free expression and national security," said Arthur Eisenberg, Legal Director of the New York Civil Liberties Union.

Attorneys on the case are Jaffer, Goodman, Eisenberg and L. Danielle Tully of the ACLU National Security Project.

More information on Doe v. Holder and NSLs is available online at: www.aclu.org/nsl

Because the government has decided not to seek Supreme Court review, it will now for the first time have to defend the constitutionality of the gag order on the ACLU's client. The FBI continues to enforce the gag order even though the underlying investigation is more than five years old and may well have ended, and even though the FBI abandoned its demand for records from the ISP more than two years ago.

* * *

The real story is less incendiary than the headline but more complicated than just letting the decision stand, afaik.

Thanks, the sparks are already flying on the thread, hopefully this will help a bit.

needs to work on his reading skills.

:)