Last November the FBI served a National Security Letter (NSL) on the electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)filed suit to force them to withdraw the NSL. The EFF reports that the FBI has been forced to withdraw the NSL and the gag order, permitting the EFF to describe the illegal actions of the FBI.
The gag orders accompanying such NSL's on libraries have no effective function beyond preventing the libraries and the targets of the NSL's to fight back against FBI overreaching. They are a totally administrative power given to the FBI designed to prevent negative publicity and Court challenge. The recipients of such a letter can't even discuss it with their congressional representatives.
This is just another panicky reaction to 9/11 by irrational frightened Republicans who feel powerless when someone is permitted to disagree with them. It is also a violation of the Constitution, but with the way the conservatives have packed the federal judiciary with their fellow frightened rats, it may take a generation for the courts to begin to properly enforce the Constitution. Roberts, Thomas and Scalia need to go, and the judiciary needs to be cleaned out of members of the Federalist Society. They are a special interest who represent only themselves to the detriment of the American people and the U.S. Constitution.
The failure of this NSL letter and the gag order is another victory for America and the Constitution. We need more of them.
Showing posts with label Patriot Act. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Patriot Act. Show all posts
Thursday, May 08, 2008
Saturday, March 24, 2007
This is totally UnAmerican!
The Washington Post publishes an anonymous letter from a recipient of a "National Security Letter" (with associated Gag Order) from the FBI.
Then, as indicated above, to petition Congress for redress becomes a crime against the gag order - a gag order never issued by a Judge. Some GS-11 or GS-12 FBI agent who wants (not necessarily needs) some additional information simply picks up a pre-written form, adds a name and address and signs it, then hands it to a clerk to act on. No investigator ever needs less information because you never know for sure where the next surprise will come from.
In the government investigations I performed as a Social Security Claims Representative, I always wanted more information on my target. Each new potential source of information was milked for every possible data item. I had routine methods of gathering information, and I was not an official investigator. I was trying to show that a crime might have occurred, in which case my boss would send my investigation and results to the Department of Justice for any action they thought necessary. But the motivation of the investigator is the same. You always want more data. The investigation itself is all the justification you need to try to obtain at least one more item of data. An outside evaluator - like a Judge - is needed to determine how far the investigation should be allowed to go and whether pushing for the next source of data is justified.
The Patriot Act made searching telecommunications into a routine data source, just like checking the phone book. Then, because the authors of that provision knew it would have a backlash, they placed an automatic gag order on it so that the recipient of the request (demand) for data was not allowed to complain.
This is giving too much trust to the government! Where were the Conservatives who distrust government? Oh, yeah. They were the guys who wrote this damned Bill and defend it today, aren't they?
The Justice Department's inspector general revealed on March 9 that the FBI has been systematically abusing one of the most controversial provisions of the USA Patriot Act: the expanded power to issue "national security letters." It no doubt surprised most Americans to learn that between 2003 and 2005 the FBI issued more than 140,000 specific demands under this provision -- demands issued without a showing of probable cause or prior judicial approval -- to obtain potentially sensitive information about U.S. citizens and residents. [Snip]The combination of the automatic gag order and the lack of any judicial review (or any other review outside the FBI) is especially pernicious. It allows people in the FBI to simply send the letters for any reason or no reason at all, then their actions are expected to never to be reviewed.
The inspector general's report makes clear that NSL gag orders have had even more pernicious effects. Without the gag orders issued on recipients of the letters, it is doubtful that the FBI would have been able to abuse the NSL power the way that it did. Some recipients would have spoken out about perceived abuses, and the FBI's actions would have been subject to some degree of public scrutiny. [Snip]
I found it particularly difficult to be silent about my concerns while Congress was debating the reauthorization of the Patriot Act in 2005 and early 2006. If I hadn't been under a gag order, I would have contacted members of Congress to discuss my experiences and to advocate changes in the law. The inspector general's report confirms that Congress lacked a complete picture of the problem during a critical time: Even though the NSL statute requires the director of the FBI to fully inform members of the House and Senate about all requests issued under the statute, the FBI significantly underrepresented the number of NSL requests in 2003, 2004 and 2005, according to the report.
Then, as indicated above, to petition Congress for redress becomes a crime against the gag order - a gag order never issued by a Judge. Some GS-11 or GS-12 FBI agent who wants (not necessarily needs) some additional information simply picks up a pre-written form, adds a name and address and signs it, then hands it to a clerk to act on. No investigator ever needs less information because you never know for sure where the next surprise will come from.
In the government investigations I performed as a Social Security Claims Representative, I always wanted more information on my target. Each new potential source of information was milked for every possible data item. I had routine methods of gathering information, and I was not an official investigator. I was trying to show that a crime might have occurred, in which case my boss would send my investigation and results to the Department of Justice for any action they thought necessary. But the motivation of the investigator is the same. You always want more data. The investigation itself is all the justification you need to try to obtain at least one more item of data. An outside evaluator - like a Judge - is needed to determine how far the investigation should be allowed to go and whether pushing for the next source of data is justified.
The Patriot Act made searching telecommunications into a routine data source, just like checking the phone book. Then, because the authors of that provision knew it would have a backlash, they placed an automatic gag order on it so that the recipient of the request (demand) for data was not allowed to complain.
This is giving too much trust to the government! Where were the Conservatives who distrust government? Oh, yeah. They were the guys who wrote this damned Bill and defend it today, aren't they?
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
How has WH been able to purge US Attorney's?
Last year the White House removed Arkansas US Attorney Bud Cummins without any reason given. This year the White House has removed the US Attorney in San Diego and another for the State of Colorado. From TPM Muckraker:
As near as I can tell, the new language allows the Attorney General to appoint a replacement US Attorney but he is no longer really temporary. The previous 120 day limitation on how long he or she serves is now gone. The only limit now is that the President can terminate the service of the temporary by appointing a new US Attorney and getting him confirmed by the Senate. This removal the time limit also removes the power of the Federal District Judge to appoint the U.S. Attorney when the time limit that used to be there expires. In other words, this is more centralization of power to the White House, focused on the ability to shut down federal investigations of corrupt Republican officials.
The problem this solves for the Republicans is that the U.S. Attorneys were investigating crooked Republicans. Lamm US Attorney in San Diego was instrumental in sending "Duke" Cunningham to prison and was investigating Rep. Jerry Lewis (CA - R). Since a Federal Judge cannot himself initiate an investigation of corruption, this has to be done by the US Attorney. This is a "protect crooked Republicans" move.
I wonder how long it will be until the Unitary Executive President asserts that the XXII Amendment to the Constitution [Limits President to two terms.] does not apply to a wartime President. The choices are just before the 2008 election, or right after and before the new President is sworn in.
Section 502 of the PATRIOT Act reauthorization, which was first drafted in July of 2005 and finally signed in March of 2006, changed the law regarding the appointment of U.S. Attorneys. Whereas before the relevant federal district court would have appointed a replacement within 120 days after the Attorney General picked one, now that pick stood without challenge.So what did the change in the Law do? Here is what one commenter posted as the language removed from the law:
Best I can figure here's the original Title 28, Section 546, and the italics represent the language that the PATRIOT Act removed:Since the italics he wanted to put in didn't work, the commenter Stealth then posted the new language. Here it is:
(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), the Attorney General
may appoint a United States attorney for the district in which the
office of United States attorney is vacant.
(b) The Attorney General shall not appoint as United States attorney a person to whose appointment by the President to that office the Senate refused to give advice and consent.
(c) A person appointed as United States attorney under this
section may serve until the earlier of -
(1) the qualification of a United States attorney for such district appointed by the President under section 541 of this title; or
(2) the expiration of 120 days after appointment by the Attorney General under this section.
(d) If an appointment expires under subsection (c)(2), the district court for such district may appoint a United States attorney to serve until the vacancy is filled. The order of appointment by the court shall be filed with the clerk of the
court.[Note: any italics were lost in the original comment.]
Okay, italics didn't work. Here's the new version:
(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), the Attorney General may appoint a United States attorney for the district in which the office of United States attorney is vacant.
(b) The Attorney General shall not appoint as United States attorney a person to whose appointment by the President to that office the Senate refused to give advice and consent.
(c) A person appointed as United States attorney under this section may serve until the qualification of a United States attorney for such district appointed by the President under section 541 of this title.
As near as I can tell, the new language allows the Attorney General to appoint a replacement US Attorney but he is no longer really temporary. The previous 120 day limitation on how long he or she serves is now gone. The only limit now is that the President can terminate the service of the temporary by appointing a new US Attorney and getting him confirmed by the Senate. This removal the time limit also removes the power of the Federal District Judge to appoint the U.S. Attorney when the time limit that used to be there expires. In other words, this is more centralization of power to the White House, focused on the ability to shut down federal investigations of corrupt Republican officials.
The problem this solves for the Republicans is that the U.S. Attorneys were investigating crooked Republicans. Lamm US Attorney in San Diego was instrumental in sending "Duke" Cunningham to prison and was investigating Rep. Jerry Lewis (CA - R). Since a Federal Judge cannot himself initiate an investigation of corruption, this has to be done by the US Attorney. This is a "protect crooked Republicans" move.
I wonder how long it will be until the Unitary Executive President asserts that the XXII Amendment to the Constitution [Limits President to two terms.] does not apply to a wartime President. The choices are just before the 2008 election, or right after and before the new President is sworn in.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)