Court rules FBI cannot issue "National Security Letters" under USA PATRIOT ACT

[BrainGlutton]

From the WaPo:

A federal judge today struck down portions of the USA Patriot Act as unconstitutional, ordering the FBI to stop issuing “national security letters” that secretly demand customer information from Internet service providers and other businesses.

U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero in New York ruled that the landmark anti-terrorism law violates the First Amendment and the Constitution’s separation of powers provisions because it effectively prohibits recipients of the FBI letters (NSLs) from revealing their existence and does not provide adequate judicial oversight of the process.

Marrero wrote in his 106-page ruling that Patriot Act provisions related to NSLs are “the legislative equivalent of breaking and entering, with an ominous free pass to the hijacking of constitutional values.”

<snip>

Marrero delayed enforcement of his order for 90 days to give the government a chance to appeal. Justice spokesman Dean Boyd said the department is “reviewing the decision and considering our options.”

<snip>

An internal FBI audit earlier this year found that the bureau potentially violated the law or agency rules more than 1,000 times while using NSLs to collect data about domestic phone calls, e-mails and financial transactions in recent years. Those findings followed an earlier audit by the Justice Department’s inspector general, which found a much smaller number of violations in a narrow sampling.

More than 19,000 NSLs were issued in 2005 seeking 47,000 pieces of information, mostly from telecommunications companies, according to the government.

1. Will the government appeal this decision?

2. If so, will the ruling be upheld or reversed?

[John_Mace]

@BrainGlutton

From the WaPo:

1. Will the government appeal this decision?

2. If so, will the ruling be upheld or reversed?

What do you think?

[magellan01]

Yeah, BrainGlutton, what do YOU think?

These Linda Richmond threads of yours are getting mighty old. Start off the discussion with a point of view and a rationale. Sheesh.

[BrainGlutton]

Who is Linda Richmond?

[BrainGlutton]

@John Mace

What do you think?

This.

Run along, now.

[magellan01]

@BrainGlutton

Who is Linda Richmond?

From SNL. Mike Myers played her, a talkshow host that would just bring up a topic and then say “discuss”.

[Marathon]

(Edit: Beaten to the punch.)

[elucidator]

BG, you must stop dragging innocent passersby by into your threads! This habit of yours of dragooning the disinterested into unwilling participation…well, it won’t do, it simply won’t do!

[Ludovic]

@elucidator

BG, you must stop dragging innocent passersby by into your threads! This habit of yours of dragooning the disinterested into unwilling participation…well, it won’t do, it simply won’t do!

Well, I for one don’t see much participation in this, so it must not be that successful.

[Sage_Rat]

BrainGlutton believes that the proletariat will rise up and destroy the fascist dictators. Arguments aren’t needed when the plain truth of the evilness is put on display for the masses. People will just understand.

[elucidator]

Well, then, I for one applaud any effort to rein in these goons. But TG, IANAL, and these threads have a tendency to veer into showcases for attorneys to display technical expertise. Not knocking it, mind you, but since I don’t know what bearing Section III, subparagraph C(3) has on the matter at hand, I prefer to butt out.

[An_Arky]

I think that referring to the *Washington Post * as “WaPo” is annoying. Could there please be some other way?

To answer the OP:

1. Yes

2. Reversed. Pigs and spooks nearly always get their way.

[Gala_Matrix_Fire]

I’m happy to see that somebody remembered about those national security letters. Barton Gellman’s expose about them led to a resounding silence, then a couple months later the nation was up in arms about NSA wiretapping.
I’ll never understand why the first story went unnoticed and the second one turned into a huge scandal.
For those who don’t know, a couple excerpts:

[Two FBI special agents] gave George Christian the letter, which warned him to tell no one, ever, what it said.
Under the shield and stars of the FBI crest, the letter directed Christian to surrender “all subscriber information, billing information and access logs of any person” who used a specific computer at a library branch some distance away.

“National security letters,” created in the 1970s for espionage and terrorism investigations, originated as narrow exceptions in consumer privacy law, enabling the FBI to review in secret the customer records of suspected foreign agents. The Patriot Act, and Bush administration guidelines for its use, transformed those letters by permitting clandestine scrutiny of U.S. residents and visitors who are not alleged to be terrorists or spies.

The FBI now issues more than 30,000 national security letters a year, according to government sources, a hundredfold increase over historic norms.

Issued by FBI field supervisors, national security letters do not need the imprimatur of a prosecutor, grand jury or judge. They receive no review after the fact by the Justice Department or Congress.

Senior FBI officials acknowledged in interviews that the proliferation of national security letters results primarily from the bureau’s new authority to collect intimate facts about people who are not suspected of any wrongdoing.

The House and Senate have voted to make noncompliance with a national security letter a criminal offense. The House would also impose a prison term for breach of secrecy.

[BrainGlutton]

@An Arky

I think that referring to the Washington Post as “WaPo” is annoying. Could there please be some other way?

I no more want to write it out every time than type “Wall Street Journal” instead of “WSJ.” Any suggestions?

@An Arky

To answer the OP:

1. Yes

2. Reversed. Pigs and spooks nearly always get their way.

Well, if you’ll read the linked story, this is the second time the National Security Letters have been ruled unconstitutional by the same judge. The first time, while appeal of the decision was pending, Congress stepped in and revised the PATRIOT ACT in hopes of correcting the perceived objection. Apparently the amendments did not satisfy Judge Marrero. So maybe this time appeal will resolve the matter, or maybe Congress (controlled by Dems this time) will act again.

[An_Arky]

I’ll believe it when I see it…everybody still cowers when the spooks/cops/military raise the spectre of “National Security”. It reminds me of that Voltaire quote “Those who can get you to believe absurdities, can get you to commit atrocities” in a weird way.

I don’t know what the best abbreviation for the Post should be…everything I can think of sounds like something else…The Post?..too much like the NY Post…WP? …doesn’t really convey what it is…

I know that when I google “Wapo”, the Post isn’t in the first few hits; when I google wash post, it’s first.

Anyway, WaPo sounds like a convenience store or something.

[E-Sabbath]

As far as I can tell, the specific part ruled objectionable was the inherent gag order. I applaud this.

[David_Simmons]

@elucidator

Well, then, I for one applaud any effort to rein in these goons. But TG, IANAL, and these threads have a tendency to veer into showcases for attorneys to display technical expertise. Not knocking it, mind you, but since I don’t know what bearing Section III, subparagraph C(3) has on the matter at hand, I prefer to butt out.

Not to mention Higgins v. Wiggins, US XXXX

They will appeal and in the meantime ignore it as not in conformity with the administration’s view of the needs of national security.

After all it is the president who is charged with national security, not the courts, and no two-for-a-nickel federal judge is going to be allowed to stand in the way.

[BrainGlutton]

@E-Sabbath

As far as I can tell, the specific part ruled objectionable was the inherent gag order. I applaud this.

So if Congress corrects that bit – would the NSLs be less objectionable?

[E-Sabbath]

Less objectionable? Yes: The person who gets one now can say “Speak to my lawyer”. Before, they could not.

[BrainGlutton]

@Sage Rat

BrainGlutton believes that the proletariat will rise up and destroy the fascist dictators.

Nah. The proles are too ignorant/complacent. It’s the vanguard, man, the vanguard! [puff] Shotgun?