IT and A National Security Letter Gag Order

fstyke writes "An article in the Washington Post (anonymous for obvious reasons) describes the trauma the president of a small US IT company faces after receiving a National Security Letter. This is sent by the FBI demanding information (140000+ have been sent between 2003/2005 according to the article). Makes for an interesting read of the side effects of receiving such a letter and its requirements for the recipient to remain silent about even the fact he/she has received it.'The letter ordered me to provide sensitive information about one of my clients. There was no indication that a judge had reviewed or approved the letter, and it turned out that none had. The letter came with a gag provision that prohibited me from telling anyone, including my client, that the FBI was seeking this information. Based on the context of the demand -- a context that the FBI still won't let me discuss publicly -- I suspected that the FBI was abusing its power and that the letter sought information to which the FBI was not entitled.'"

This must change

[AKAImBatman (238306)]

Having secret police and no accountability goes against the very grain of what the United States stands for, and what the Constitution says. Our forefathers explicitly ensured that we would have the rights necessary to overthrow our government if things got out of hand. The government exists to serve the people, not the other way around.

If you haven't done so already, I highly recommend contacting your representatives [house.gov], writing to your local newspaper, and otherwise telling anyone who will hear that this is unacceptable. We cannot have the government secretly snooping around in our private information and lives. Let's kick up a stormcloud and make sure this gets changed!

Re:This must change

[Hatta (162192)]

Having secret police and no accountability goes against the very grain of what the United States stands for, and what the Constitution says.

Absolutely. Also remember that in our system the only way to challenge a law as unconstitutional is to break it. Anyone who gets one of these letters has a moral responsibility to disobey it. The government issued over 140,000 of these letters with gag orders. We should have 140,000 people in jail right now for talking about them, nothing else could demonstrate how abusive these letters are.

Re:This must change

[OddThinking (1078509)]

Anyone who gets one of these letters has a moral responsibility to disobey it.

The problem is many of those 140,000 also have other moral responsibilities, such as providing for their children. I think a good 10,000 would do the trick.

Re:This must change

[eck011219 (851729)]

Indeed. There may be a moral responsibility to disobey the unconstitutional law, but there is at least technically a legal responsibility to obey it. While I applaud what this guy did (and it sounds like he's relatively unencumbered by family responsibilities, though you can't really know that from the article), I think about dragging my wife and daughter through this kind of thing and my skin crawls. And really, they are bigger than me -- could be that I'd fight the good fight, whittle away my and my family members' lives and resources, and then end up in jail anyway.

I'm not saying I wouldn't do it or that the guy was wrong to do it -- I think he's spot on in his reasoning and approach. But this administration and its worker bees throughout the rest of the federal government have shown an uncanny ability to destroy people -- a very scary thought. At least we have Congress starting to fight them now.

Re:This must change

[ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371)]

There may be a moral responsibility to disobey the unconstitutional law, but there is at least technically a legal responsibility to obey it.

Not really. If the law is unconstitutional to begin with, there's no onus on anyone to obey it. It's the government is acting illegally here, not you. Don't be so quick to kow-tow to imperial officials waving official orders about. You'll set a bad example.

Re:This must change

[eck011219 (851729)]

That is true in theory, but tell that to the agents at your door. I'm not saying one should follow unjust laws, nor am I suggesting one kow-tow to the officials. All I am saying is that the officials charged with the task of enforcing the law are going to do so until told otherwise by their superiors, which puts the average joe in a stinker of a position and leaves him making some difficult choices between doing what's right and doing what will preserve the safety of his family and himself.

It's actions like these by the FBI that exemplify the problems with the system. The government is going nowhere, and they have basically unlimited resources. They can just ride these things out. Look at the prisoners held indefinitely without trial or legal representation all over the place (Guantanamo is the most famous, but there are lots of places even in the states where it happens -- Cook County jail here in Chicago, for example). They're too scary for a lot of people, and therefore they get what they want. Simple oversight and adherence to the law by the agencies in question would fix a lot of this, but in the meantime, citizens, both innocent and otherwise, have some very real practical worries.

Re:This must change

[Antique Geekmeister (740220)]

I love youngsters. I suggest that you examine what happens to people who provide medical marijuana, people who blow the whistle on illegal chemical and bacteriological warfare attempts by the US, people who exposed the CIA use of LSD in experiments as an interrogation drug in the 60's, the McCarthy era's hunt for "Communists" at the massive cost of civil liberties, the illegal imprisoning of foreign nationals without charges filed or the Geneva convention or the US code of military justice allwed to apply to them,

Brave people do stand up to such abuse: but the risk for a small business owner of refusing to cooperate is quite high, even if they win in court. Take a look at Steve Jackson Games and the old Secret Service raid on them for an example of how badly aimed such an investigation can be, and of how innocent people can suffer as they try to stand up for themselves in the IT world.

Re:This must change

[sustik (90111)]

I got the impression that the gag order became the more stressful aspect, he writes:

"Living under the gag order has been stressful and surreal. Under the threat of criminal prosecution, I must hide all aspects of my involvement in the case -- including the mere fact that I received an NSL -- from my colleagues, my family and my friends. When I meet with my attorneys I cannot tell my girlfriend where I am going or where I have been."

I wonder who can issue a gag order in the USA? An answer from a lawyer would be appreciated. It appears that the FBI thinks that they can issue gag orders without a judge's approval. I hope that a violation of such order is viewed leniently at least by a judge if not a jury. (On the other hand, violating the gag order may result in a terrorism charge and hence a loss of the right to the normal judicial process; and you do not want to wait 4+ years in military prison while Congress/Supreme Court/President figures the process out for you.)

He also complains that he was forced to lie:

"When clients and friends ask me whether I am the one challenging the constitutionality of the NSL statute, I have no choice but to look them in the eye and lie."

I wonder why that is. Does the gag order describe this in detail? Why cannot you stay silent and say nothing or say that you are not allowed to discuss the matter based on your attorney's advice? (Using the latter form if you consult an attorney about this, which I certainly would do.)

My point is: can any (even judge underwritten) gag order force you to actively protect the information by telling a lie? What if your religion instructs you not to lie? I have no exact numbers how popular such religions are in the USA, but some are surely affected... :-;

Re:This must change

[BJZQ8 (644168)]

Look up the case of Bill Cheek sometime. He was an electronics hobbyist producing a very simple box that sliced up PSK data streams so, for instance, a hobbyist could decode police dispatching systems. He produced them for sale. With absolutely no warning, FBI agents raided his house and took practically everything he had to make a living, from computers to paper records, and refused to let him touch them at all. The production of data slicers was not illegal, nor was it particularly serious. It was basically people in the government harassing someone. The government dragged his case out for months, until he died of lung cancer. He was saddled with thousands of dollars of legal fees, and eventually his wife was too. There is no way you can stand up to the government; they have unlimited resources and lawyers on tap. It may be a moral imperative, but that has to intersect with practicality for the individual, too.

Re:This must change

[Red Flayer (890720)]

Indeed. There may be a moral responsibility to disobey the unconstitutional law, but there is at least technically a legal responsibility to obey it

Depends on your philosophical roots. The Catholic Church, for example, explicitly stated that the moral responsibility to obey one's superiors supercedes other moral responsibilities. This was in the 4th century CE (IIRC, may have been the 5th century), but has so pervaded Western thought that it remains a huge problem today.

This is a major reason why a lot of fundamentalist Christians continue to support the President -- it's cultural, even if they are not fully aware of it. Europe was forced to face this problem and try to find a solution in the 1940s and 50s; this remains a large area of psychological study even today. In the US, we touched on the subject during and after Vietnam, but culturally it still remains a problem.

There are a couple of books that go into it in depth, one is Conservatives Without Conscience [amazon.com] light-ish read but very enlightening -- written by a former Nixon staffer, John W. Dean. Dean's book discusses more than this topic, but it's the foundation of his theory that the conservative movement has been taken over by people without an innate moral compass.

The Closing of the Western Mind: The Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason [amazon.com] -- the other, by Charles Freeman, is much drier, but really, in detail, explains the process by which the western culture became this way, with a focus on the church -- as well as the factors that led to these decisions being made. Not surprisingly, most of them came from a desire for security, an attempt to solidify power, or an attempt to destroy a rival.

I'm not saying that we don't have a moral responsibility to do the right thing even when ordered not to by our superiors (be they government, church, workplace, etc), I'm just saying that understanding the cultural reasons for people acting this way is the first step to rectifying the problem.

Re:This must change

[ifdef (450739)]

I don't know about the 4th century, but the current Catholic teaching that I was taught in a course on Christian ethics is that the duty to obey one's conscience is a higher duty than that of obeying orders.

St. Thomas Aquinas (1225 - 1274), taught that one has a DUTY to obey one's conscience, even if the conscience contradicts the law, and EVEN IF the conscience is in fact objectively wrong. Of course, one also has a duty to inform oneself as best one can, so that one's conscience will not lead one astray.

If one disobeys the law in order to follow one's conscience, one has to be prepared for the practical consequences of this, which may include prison or worse. Nevertheless, one has a DUTY to do so.

Re:This must change

[einhverfr (238914)]

I am a former Quaker and currently a Norse Pagan. This is one area where both my past religious tradition and my current one are in complete agreement (though the viewpoint may be different). Although I speak from the perspective of a Norse Pagan here, it could be rewritten to be a Quaker view as well.

I believe that principle and troth to principle are more important than troth to other people. There are times and places to stand up for what is right, regardless of family encumbrances. In the end the only think that matters is how we have lived our lives, and it is better to be heroic and lose than conform to that which is unjust.

If I were to decide to fight something like this, it would be dangerous for my son and my wife. But I think that it is better to inspire people (including and especially my son) with deeds well done than to sacrifice those for the sake of comfort and apparent security. In the end, I have to trust that others around me who would see actions as noble would make sure my immediate family was taken care of.

We, like trees, grow not only into the light but into the dark as well. Both are necessary, and both in balance make us strong.

Re:This must change

[russotto (537200)]

Exactly zero of those 140,000 have violated one of those administrative gag orders, here in the land of the free and the home of brave. Either the government has already gotten so terrible that to defy it is mere foolishness, or the people have gotten the government we deserve.

Re:This must change

[theonetruekeebler (60888)]

[M]any of those 140,000 also have other moral responsibilities, such as providing for their children.

How about their moral responsibility to provide their children a future where there isn't a secret police, with zero accountability, conducting secret investigations of their masters' political enemies?

There's an axiom that any law that can be abused will be abused. The current administration demonstrates this with jaw-dropping alacrity. Look at the U.S. Attorney firings. Look at the 30,000 investigations the FBI has admitted to conducting illegally. All done under the umbrella of laws designed to fight terrorism. Look at how they've repealed the Posse Comitatus Act, and wait until the goddamned Army is deployed in your neighborhood, because wouldn't you know it? some guy down the street from you smoked pot once, and the war on drugs is a national emergency. Or maybe it wasn't pot. Maybe he's using peer-to-peer to tell the world about other government abuses.

That ain't the country I want my children growing up in, and it's here. Now.

Re:This must change

[element-o.p. (939033)]

I'm not judging anyone who follows the law and obeys a National Security Letter--I'm not sure what I would do if I were on the receiving end of one--but did Martin Luther King, Jr. have children for whom he needed to provide? How about George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Paul Revere, and the rest of the "Founding Fathers"? Did Mahatma Ghandi? I honestly don't know about most of these individuals but I'm pretty sure MLK did. And as I recall, Thomas Jefferson said something to the effect of "we study war so that our children may study math and science and so that their children may study music and art" which at least implies that he may have had children.

Part of providing for our children is providing for their freedom and their future. I would die inside if I elected to back down in the face of a tough choice and some day in the future, my daughter suffers because I didn't make a stand when I had a chance.

It's a Fear

[eldavojohn (898314)]

Also remember that in our system the only way to challenge a law as unconstitutional is to break it.

And I'm certain that the people who you're asking to break these laws are afraid that they'll be the only one and end up in jail or worse.

We should have 140,000 people in jail right now for talking about them...

I would wager that the FBI sent out initial "test letters" about clients to companies that--if necessary--they knew they could get a court order to acquire anyways. Once the company complied, the FBI probably evaluated the resistance said company gave. A low resistance would indicate that at anytime, the FBI could keep playing the same card (probably on the same individual) and continually receive information whether a court order would back them up in the end or not. I'm guessing the number of letters does not reflect the number of individuals who partook in the release of information.

As perverse as it may sound, I would also wager that there are individuals out there who would reply to these letters instantly and with a sense of pride for serving their country. I am very interested if the letters convey this attitude about this request for information. If they do, in fact, inform the individual that this is a matter of national security & that they will be bringing justice to the enemies of the United States, then I hope they are eventually published so we can all have a good laugh and that they might serve as a reminder for victims of future schemes.

Re:It's a Fear

[Red Flayer (890720)]

Ephasis mine:

If they do, in fact, inform the individual that this is a matter of national security & that they will be bringing justice to the enemies of the United States, then I hope they are eventually published so we can all have a good laugh

I think you misspelled "cry".

But seriously,

and that they might serve as a reminder for victims of future schemes.

Serve as a reminder? I don't think this is a minor problem, this is a strong signal of the US's descent into a fascist state. Leaning on patriotism and fear of reprisal to get people to report on their neighbors (we're all neighbors in the digital era)? Sounds familiar.

I really don't want to Godwin the thread, but in this case there is a parallel that is best not ignored.

Re:This must change

[AKAImBatman (238306)]

Also remember that in our system the only way to challenge a law as unconstitutional is to break it.

"Four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo - use in that order." --Ed Howdershelt

This fellow did the right thing. He challenged it in court first. And he did get somewhere, but he's still under a gag order that he has not been able to change. Only then did he resort to breaking the law in order to challenge it.

Breaking the law comes with a lot of consequences, so choose your battles carefully. Only do it when you are sure you're getting the best bang for your buck. Otherwise you'll just waste away your ability to fight.

Re:This must change

[polar red (215081)]

We should have 140,000 people in jail right now for talking about them,

Provided They don't end up as enemy combatants. Oh you say they aren't enemy combatants ? How are you going to prove that ? You're not allowed a trial ! Yeah, vote republican !

Re:This must change

[dougmc (70836)]

Given how the US has the largest prison population per capita on the face of the earth,

Actually, the US is #2 -- Rwanda is #1 [mapinc.org].

Re:This must change

[Rob the Bold (788862)]

Given how the US has the largest prison population per capita on the face of the earth

Actually, the US is #2 -- Rwanda is #1.

Reminds me of whenever a US state is 2nd to last in something like education, arts support, % of citizens with their natural teeth, etc., we always say "Thanks, Mississippi".

Thanks, Rwanda.

Re:This must change

[truthsearch (249536)]

The corporation didn't read the letter, a human did. The corporation can't perform any actions to comply or resist, only a human can. Corporations are just collections of people. Those people can and should stand up for what they believe in, even if it means losing their job.

And before anyone pounces and says I wouldn't be willing to lose my own job for what I believe in, I already have.

Re:This must change

[finkployd (12902)]

Many would be willing to sacrifice their jobs and possibly freedom to stand up to a corrupt government, but how many are willing to financially devastate their families to do so? It always amuses me when (and I am not saying this is you) single college students look with distain at a middle aged homeowner with 3 kids who is not willing to chuck it all down the drain to stand up to a law he does not agree with.

It is simple risk analysis, when people see government terrorizing their own citizens and think "that could happen to me", that is when they stand up, damn the consequences. That is basically how it happens historically, but right now the abuse is not widespread (or public) enough to enrage the average citizen. In fact, I know more people thinking that a citizen revolt would be more likely triggered by the widespread (and blatantly public) abuse of eminent domain than patriot act abuses.

Finkployd

Re:This must change

[networkBoy (774728)]

As one of those parents (who has stood up to a particular insurance company) you need to understand what it would mean to see your wife and kids tossed out on the street because you are the wage earner of the family.
My kids are 3 and 4. My wife and I decided about 4 years and 9 months ago that she was going to stay home and go to school at night (when I'm home) so that our kids would always have a parent close. We made the choice to live "poor" so that we could be family centric, rather than both parents working and paying for daycare. If I got one of these letters I would contest it (through a lawyer) only so long as the real risk of lob loss and jail time were sufficiently low that I would not be concerned or could not back down and avert either.

I am loyal to my family first and above all else.
-nB

Re:This must change

[AKAImBatman (238306)]

I've said it before and I'll say it again - When we give up our freedoms to fight for them, we've already lost.

And when we've given up our will to fight for our freedoms, we have also lost them.

THINK for a moment, man! The revolutionists who made this country possible petitioned both King and Parliment first. They made every effort to bring the situation back under control before they pulled out their weapons and opened fire. Had they done nothing but shout a big 'ole "FUCK YOU" to the British government, it is likely that they would not have gotten the support necessary to fight the war. In fact, it's just as likely that the American people would have seen the revolutionaries as dangerous men to be around, and never would have ratified the Lee Resolution - the official act of separation from Britain.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume, among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

[...]

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

[...]

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

Soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Get the order right.

Re:This must change

[i.r.id10t (595143)]

BOSTON - National guard units seeking to confiscate a cache of recently banned assault weapons were ambushed on April 19th by elements of a para-military extremist faction. Military and law enforcement sources estimate that 72 were killed and more than 200 injured before government forces were compelled to withdraw.

Speaking after the clash Massachusetts Governor Thomas Gage declared that the extremist faction, which was made up of local citizens, has links to the radical right-wing tax protest movement. Gage blamed the extremists for recent incidents of vandalism directed against internal revenue offices. The governor, who described the group's organizers as "criminals," issued an executive order authorizing the summary arrest of any individual who has interfered with the government's efforts to secure law and order. The military raid on the extremist arsenal followed wide-spread refusal by the local citizenry to turn over recently outlawed assault weapons.

Gage issued a ban on military-style assault weapons and ammunition earlier in the week. This decision followed a meeting in early this month between government and military leaders at which the governor authorized the forcible confiscation of illegal arms.

One government official, speaking on condition of anonymity, pointed out that "none of these people would have been killed had the extremists obeyed the law and turned over their weapons voluntarily." Government troops initially succeeded in confiscating a large supply of outlawed weapons and ammunition. However, troops attempting to seize arms and ammunition in Lexington met with resistance from heavily-armed extremists who had been tipped off regarding the government's plans. During a tense standoff in Lexington's town park, National Guard Colonel Francis Smith, commander of the government operation, ordered the armed group to surrender and return to their homes. The impasse was broken by a single shot, which was reportedly fired by one of the right-wing extremists. Eight civilians were killed in the ensuing exchange. Ironically, the local citizenry blamed government forces rather than the extremists for the civilian deaths. Before order could be restored,
armed citizens from surrounding areas had descended upon the guard units. Colonel Smith, finding his forces overmatched by the armed mob, ordered a retreat. Governor Gage has called upon citizens to support the state/national joint task force in its effort to restore law and order. The governor also demanded the surrender of those responsible for planning and leading the attack against the government troops. Samuel Adams, Paul Revere, and John Hancock, who have been identified as "ringleaders" of the extremist faction, remain at large.

April 20, 1775

Just throw it away

[oglueck (235089)]

If the FBI denies its existance and you are not to speak about it, you can just silently throw it in the bin and forget about it, right? I mean they can't possibly sue you over something that doesn't even legally exist. Okay, maybe in a country like your they can.

Re:Just throw it away

[by Anonymous Coward]

Good luck. Since the issue concerns national security, you will get detained as an enemy combatant, and thrown into jail with no access to a lawyer, let alone a judge.

Re:Just throw it away

[voice_of_all_reason (926702)]

The enemy combatant classification (nor the non-enemy combatant which I think you probably meant) cannot be applied in this way.

And if it were to be, what are your options, noble grasshopper?

Re:Just throw it away

[Jtheletter (686279)]

The President can declare anyone an enemy combatant under the Military Commissions Act of 2006. Contrary to what some believe, this is NOT limited to non-citizens. Given how little judicial or other oversight or scrutiny that is able to be placed on the Presidents actions, even if the power were abused by declaring a civilly disobedient citizen an enemy combatant, how many years would they waste away in a secret prison before anyone was even able to find out what exactly happened to them or why?

USA = USSR

[brabo (409689)]

When I was a kid (10 odd years), I remember the Soviet Union; massive check-points at borders, customs officers that gave you a cavity check at will, and a police state that didn't care much for the privacy or rights of it's citizens... Remember KGB (FSB now) and GRU ?? Anyone ??

That nightmare is now over, and I can freely go to and from Moscow, to visit my grandmother and friends. Or, I can have them board a plane and come to Amsterdam... with almost no delays at the border(s)...

But hey, those KGB and GRU bastards were hired by... the white house, and their methods are now common practice in the USA and it's 'allies'..

You yanks didn't win the cold war, you lost... but you kinda don't get it... but I'm sure your children will, and they will look at you for answers.

Re:USA = USSR

[0x0000 (140863)]

You yanks didn't win the cold war, you lost...

Interesting you should say that - it's a point I've been trying to make for some years now - pretty much since the wall came down - We saw actual breadlines under Reagan and Bush I - not something that gets talked about much, but it always struck me that such were scenes straight out of the Cold War era anti-USSR propaganda disseminated in the US public schools...

but you kinda don't get it... but I'm sure your children will, and they will look at you for answers.

It's already happening - the answers areen't that difficult yet, since it's all right there in front of them - the hardest part is convincing the younger ones that it was ever any different.

Court Order

[rlp (11898)]

IANAL, but without a court order signed by a judge, it's a strongly worded REQUEST.

Re:Court Order

[jstomel (985001)]

You obviously havn't read the PATRIOT act or the national security survailiance act. They explicitly give the FBI the ability to issue "National Security Letters" which have the force of warrents but don't need to be signed by a judge. You can be arrested for failing to comply, so they are somewhat more than a "request".

Re:Court Order

[rlp (11898)]

> You can be arrested for failing to comply, so they are somewhat more than a "request".

Not true. Also under the reauthorization of the act, you can disclose the letter to your attorney (a good idea) to help you decide if you wish to comply. Disclosing the letter to anyone else (especially the subject of the investigation) will get you into serious trouble.

what happens if you ignore it?

[axus (991473)]

Do you get put on secret trial in a secret court? Or secret penalties from the IRS? What he should do is look at the info himself, and decide if something is suspicious. If it looks like something illegal going on, help out the FBI, if not then make them get a judge involved, and protect the privacy of his customer in the meantime.

My experience

[adnonsense (826530)]

Recently I received CONTENT REMOVED from the --- regarding one of my CONTENT REMOVED. It was delivered personally by two CONTENT REMOVED in a black CONTENT REMOVED and they CONTENT REMOVED terrorist CONTENT REMOVED you're not for us CONTENT REMOVED us.

Under the terms of the CONTENT REMOVED Act it appears I cannot CONTENT REMOVED or CONTENT REMOVED or even badgers. They said they had installed special CONTENT REMOVED on my CONTENT REMOVED connection and would be watching out for transgressions - even something as innocuous as calling G.W. CONTENT REMOVED failure or librarians CONTENT REMOVED CONTENT REMOVED Harry Potter in Syria. Since contacting my la +++NO CARRIER+++

yes

[Thaelon (250687)]

I suspected that the FBI was abusing its power and that the letter sought information to which the FBI was not entitled.

According to the Fourth Amendment [wikipedia.org] you're right.
According to the PATRIOT Act [wikipedia.org], you're not.

Re:yes

[lucabrasi999 (585141)]

as anything that conflicts with the Constitution in federal code is legally null and void.

PHEW! That makes me feel better. OK. This conversation is over, everyone! It appears that the FBI may have been conflicting with the Constitution and therefore, it's legally null and void.

You can go home now! Nothing to see here!

Bill Maher said it really well

[Dr. Manhattan (29720)]

"Liberals must stop saying President Bush hasn't asked Americans to sacrifice for the war on terror. On the contrary, he's asked us to sacrifice something enormous. Our civil rights... so when it comes to sacrifice, don't kid yourself. You have given up a lot. You've given up faith in your government's honesty, the goodwill of people overseas, and six-tenths of the Bill of Rights. Here's what you've sacrificed: search and seizure, warrants, self-incrimination, trial by jury, cruel and unusual punishment. Here's what you have left: hand guns, religion, and they can't make you quarter a British soldier. If Prince Harry invades the Inland Empire, he has to bring a tent...

But, look, George Bush has never been too bright about understanding 'fereigners.' But he does know Americans. He asked this generation to sacrifice the things he knew we would not miss: our privacy and our morality. He let us keep the money. But he made a cynical bet that we wouldn't much care if we became a 'Big Brother' country that has now tortured a lot of random people...

In conclusion, after 9/11, President Bush told us Osama bin Laden could run but he couldn't hide. But, then he ran and hid. So, Bush went to Plan B: pissing on the Constitution and torturing random people...

They say evil happens when good men do nothing. Well, the Democrats prove it also happens when mediocre people do nothing."

Full text here [hbo.com].

Re:Democrats have proven they want to take away...

[Dr. Manhattan (29720)]

I've got a little time to respond to a troll, so what the heck:

Every major attack against Christianity in the US...

There are no major attacks against Christianity in the US [blogger.com]. So long as I'm quoting comics, I might as well quote Jon Stewart: "Yes, the long war on Christianity. I pray that one day we may live in an America where Christians can worship freely, in broad daylight, openly wearing symbols of their religion, perhaps around their necks. And maybe - dare I dream it - maybe one day there could even be an openly Christian president. Or, perhaps, 43 of them. Consecutively."

...and the 3rd Amendment wasn't to protect us against having to quarter foreign soldiers in our homes, it was to prevent us from having to quarter US military in our homes and private property.

<Firefly>Yeah, I know. It was just funny.</Firefly>

because this needs to be mirrored

[by Anonymous Coward]

My National Security Letter Gag Order

Friday, March 23, 2007; Page A17

It is the policy of The Washington Post not to publish anonymous pieces. In this case, an exception has been made because the author -- who would have preferred to be named -- is legally prohibited from disclosing his or her identity in connection with receipt of a national security letter. The Post confirmed the legitimacy of this submission by verifying it with the author's attorney and by reviewing publicly available court documents.

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. It did not, however, come as any surprise to me.

Three years ago, I received a national security letter (NSL) in my capacity as the president of a small Internet access and consulting business. The letter ordered me to provide sensitive information about one of my clients. There was no indication that a judge had reviewed or approved the letter, and it turned out that none had. The letter came with a gag provision that prohibited me from telling anyone, including my client, that the FBI was seeking this information. Based on the context of the demand -- a context that the FBI still won't let me discuss publicly -- I suspected that the FBI was abusing its power and that the letter sought information to which the FBI was not entitled.

Rather than turn over the information, I contacted lawyers at the American Civil Liberties Union, and in April 2004 I filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the NSL power. I never released the information the FBI sought, and last November the FBI decided that it no longer needs the information anyway. But the FBI still hasn't abandoned the gag order that prevents me from disclosing my experience and concerns with the law or the national security letter that was served on my company. In fact, the government will return to court in the next few weeks to defend the gag orders that are imposed on recipients of these letters.

Living under the gag order has been stressful and surreal. Under the threat of criminal prosecution, I must hide all aspects of my involvement in the case -- including the mere fact that I received an NSL -- from my colleagues, my family and my friends. When I meet with my attorneys I cannot tell my girlfriend where I am going or where I have been. I hide any papers related to the case in a place where she will not look. When clients and friends ask me whether I am the one challenging the constitutionality of the NSL statute, I have no choice but to look them in the eye and lie.

I resent being conscripted as a secret informer for the government and being made to mislead those who are close to me, especially because I have doubts about the legitimacy of the underlying investigation.

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. To be sure, not all recipients would have spoken out; the inspector general's report suggests that large telecom companies have been all too willing to share sensitive data with the agency -- in at least one case, a telecom company gave the FBI even more information than it asked for. But some recipients would have called attention to abuses, and some abuse would have been deterred.

answering by omission?

[ghostlibrary (450718)]

If one is under a gag order, does one have to lie? From the article, "When clients and friends ask me whether I am the one challenging the constitutionality of the NSL statute, I have no choice but to look them in the eye and lie."

I would hope you can use the neutral "I cannot comment." The order does not say "lie about us" but "you can not discuss it." Yes, evasive answers can confirm suspicions in people (why else would they not answer?), but that should still be legit.

Similarly, meeting with an attorney on a case you can't discuss, just say "I'm meeting with an attorney, can't discuss, sorry."

Anyone else run into being forced to lie?

Here's what you do

[fudgefactor7 (581449)]

Make multiple copies of the NSL, along with your story, set it all up so that in 30 days, if you do nothing, they get mailed out to all the media outlets, faxed out of the country to overseas media (BBC, et. al.) and then you go and hold a public announcement in front of the Capitol and say "Nope, not gonna do it." Utterly refuse to obey a law that is "evil."
 
The biggest weapon against overbearing government is transparency. If a government cannot withstand scrutiny, they are doing something very wrong. The PATRIOT act is the biggest piece of shit written, and Congress (most of whom never read it) just rolled over. Were they a computer, I'd FDISK them and start over.

Section 505 ruled unconstitutional

[by Anonymous Coward]

According to wikipedia:

Section 505 ruled unconstitutional

On September 29, 2004, U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero struck down Section 505--which allowed the government to issue "National Security Letters" to obtain sensitive customer records from Internet service providers and other businesses without judicial oversight--as a violation of the First and Fourth Amendment. The court also found the broad gag provision in the law to be an "unconstitutional prior restraint" on free speech, so it was turned down.

So, why can't this guy talk about it yet? the law has been struck down.

Re:Section 505 ruled unconstitutional

[nomadic (141991)]

Trial judge decisions aren't binding on anyone. They're just dispositive of that specific instance before the judge.

And this differs from a DA grand jury subpoena?

[HBI (604924)]

This is exactly the technique district attorneys use when summoning you before a grand jury in a sensitive investigation.

No judge. No accountability. Gag order. I was under one for 9 months in 1992.

It's a 'feature' of the system, and if they can't do it this way, the US Attorney will do it for them.

Re:Hopeful thinking....

[ScentCone (795499)]

...1/20/2009 - That's all I have to say.

Why is that all you have to say? You're hoping that the executive branch is then run by the opposing party? But, the opposing party's majority supported the PATRIOT act, and supported renewing it because they saw the need to do so. Have you heard a single person (a plausibly electable C-in-C) that has actually said that despite the fact that congress voted on and passed (more than once) the legal framework for a change in how counter-terrorism intel is gathered/processed/shared that they would ignore that legislation? They (your presumptive opposing-party-president-elect) doesn't have any power or authority to change the legislation. That's for your congress to do. And the opposing party is already in control of congress. And guess what: all they can do is talk about non-binding resolutions that stamp their feet in disapproval over the conduct of the conflict in Iraq, and get in a lather over how a handful of US attorneys (ALL of whom work entirely at the whim of every president and are political appointees, and ALL of whom the previous administration fired without so much as a minor hissy fit out of congress) were dismissed.

If you don't like the PATRIOT act, talk to you congress creatures. They're the ones that passed it, they're the ones that renewed it, and they're the ones that could kill it off any time they want. So: specifically ask John Edwards, or Hillary Clinton, or Barack Obama if they would ask congress to kill it off (since that's all they can do), and see what they say. Your date in 2009 won't change the fact that important changes the PATRIOT act brought forth are still going to be necessary. People can't bitch about the poor intelligence sharing/processing lapses leading up to 9/11, and also bitch about the piece of legislation that fixes the problem. I think there are some aspects of the act that should be changed - but only if another provision is put in place: we need a LOT more judges. Ones with the security clearances and training required to be a part of real-time counter-terrorism investigations/activities. These problems are not like normal criminal investigations, to say the least. If we all want judges to weigh in on when an IT shop should be, in the middle of security issue, asked to cough up some sort of information - well, we need a hell of a lot more judges who are able to constructively weigh in on that issue on a moment's notice, and with the IT-savvy skills to grasp the issues at stake. And those judges will all need infrastructure, staff, communications and all of the other high costs that go with making them available to the intel people that are trying to get the actual work done. There's a little more to it than Teh Evil Bush Wants To Document My Pr0n Habits So I'll Go To Gitmo.

Re:In liberal America ..

[Phreakiture (547094)]

In liberal America, the government (for the people, by the people) controls YOU !

Excuse me?!? Did you completely fail to notice that it was a conservative administration that did this shit? I'm a liberal, and I want my fucking rights back, motherfucker!

Re:Used to be a free country...

[slughead (592713)]

Used to be a free country... before the Patriot Act!

That's the thing: No, we didn't.

The government has been encroaching on our personal liberties one piece at a time for a century.

You may want to blame the government of the past 30 years, but here's a quote from former attorney general and later Supreme Court justice, Robert H Jackson in 1940--61 years before USA PATRIOT Act.:

With the law books filled with a great assortment of crimes, a prosecutor stands a fair chance of finding at least a technical violation of some act on the part of almost anyone. In such a case, it is not a question of discovering the commission of a crime and then looking for the man who has committed it, it is a question of picking the man and then searching the law books, or putting investigators to work, to pin some offense on him.

-Robert H. Jackson [roberthjackson.org]

Realize this was back in 1940, when the federal body of law was half what it is today.

I would argue that focusing on the last few decades of law is the exact reason why we can't get serious reform. Once the American people wrap their heads around how much and how long they've been screwed over the years, it'll really put the problem into the correct context.

Both parties have given incredible powers to the government over the years, and "the lesser of two evils" mentality is to blame. Once you realize how terribly they both have systematically and deviously plotted and executed their plans to control you, you'll realize that neither of the two can be trusted.

Of course, this all sounds like alarmist melodramatic BS... until you see this [cato.org].

We were robbed because we were afraid of what our fellow citizens were doing. By bowing to the the pressures of the 'crisis of the day,' we allowed the government to seize control. The alien and sedition acts made it a crime to criticize the federalist government. The FBI was doing (illegal) drive-by shootings on the homes of suspected KKK members. Alleged Communists were "convicted" without proper trial by the hundreds (sometimes 50 at a time). Alleged child molesters have been tracked down and their property searched and seized without proper warrants. Now, with the advent of the terrorist into our country, the executive branch doesn't even need to explain itself when it knocks down your door.