#72 November/December 2004
The Washington Free Press Washington's Independent Journal of News, Ideas & Culture
Home  |  Subscribe |  Back Issues |  The Organization |  Volunteer 

FREE THOUGHTS

FIRST WORD by Doug Collins
What's Wrong With Us?

READER MAIL
Israel: not a charitable nonprofit, Bush's second big lie: social security, Good alternative to third runway was ignored, More guardianship abuses, Thanks for the Truth

NORTHWEST & BEYOND
Wild sky can't fly past Pembo, Oregon's Coos County pays in pipeline lawsuit, Poverty with a view, Roadless Rule revision postponed past election, Western Shoshone battle federal landgrab, Montana's Jewish communities embrace reform

"Just because..."
strange assertions observed by Styx Mundstock

CONTACTS

NORTHWEST NEIGHBORS
contact list for progressives

DO SOMETHING! CALENDAR
Northwest activist events

POLITICS AND ELECTIONS

9/11 Update: New York State Attorney General's office accepts 9/11 Complaint
by Rodger Herbst

Book Notice: Claiming the Mantle: How Presidential Nominations Are Won and Lost Before the Votes Are Cast
by R. Lawrence Butler

"Modern Poll Tax" is Challenged in WA: Ex-felons deserve the right to vote
from the ACLU of WA

Next Steps after the 2004 Elections
by Steven Hill

LAW

NutraSweet Hit by Lawsuits: Court action highlights health concerns about artificial sweeteners
by Doug Collins

Justice Department Manipulates Truth About Patriot Act Ruling
from the ACLU

After the Riot
anonymous account of prison conditions

WORKPLACE

Bon Macy's Fails Employees' Health-Care Needs
from SEIU Local 6

San Francisco hotel workers locked out
photos and story by David Bacon

Small Business Administration Fails in Commitment to Women-Owned Firms
from the US Women's Chamber of Commerce

IMMIGRATION AND MEXICAN LABOR

HOW U.S. CORPORATIONS WON THE DEBATE OVER IMMIGRATION
by David Bacon

Illegal Immigration: Another Way to Outsource Jobs?
opinion by Domenico Maceri

Salsa and Apple Pie
A U.S.-Mexican Union in the making
by Steven Hill

ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH

Existing Systems Do Not Protect Us
by Sarah Westervelt

Mercury on the mind: Want to avoid both autism and Alzheimers? Then forget the flu vaccine and avoid dental amalgams
by Donald W. Miller, Jr, MD

What Water to Drink? Tap water may be your healthiest option
by Seth Gordon

MEDIA

MEDIA BEAT by Normal Solomon
The Presidential pageant: "There he is, Mr. America..."

People Like This Paper! So why is it so small?
by Doug Collins

CULTURE

A New Yorker Trapped in Los Angeles
excerpt from Willaim Blum's book: "Freeing the World to Death"

Poetry by Robert Hosheit

Beatnik Books
poetic reviews by Robert Pavik

GOOD IDEAS FROM DIFFERENT COUNTRIES by Doug Collins
Polish Jokes

Justice Department Manipulates Truth About Patriot Act Ruling

from the ACLU

In what appears to be a concerted campaign to mislead the American public, the Department of Justice and some of its Republican allies in Congress are attempting to minimize the impact of landmark ruling this week against so-called National Security Letters and the provision of the Patriot Act that broadened their use by the FBI.

"The Justice Department should spend less time spinning this landmark decision and more time trying to fix the law," said Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union, which brought the successful challenge to the Patriot Act provision along with the New York Civil Liberties Union.

At issue is a Sept. 29 ruling by a federal court striking down a provision that gave the FBI virtually unchecked authority to issue "National Security Letters" to obtain sensitive customer records from Internet Service Providers and other businesses without judicial oversight. The Patriot Act dramatically expanded that provision by permitting the FBI to obtain records of people who are not suspected of any wrongdoing.

In an e-mail message sent yesterday to Senate leaders and their staffers, a Senate Republican Policy Committee analyst claimed that news reports that the ruling had invalidated a Patriot Action provision were "false." The analyst, Steven J. Duffield, said that because the court's ruling also struck down the underlying 1986 law that the Patriot Act amended, the decision should not be viewed as a blow to the Patriot Act, as reported by many national newspapers.

ACLU Associate Legal Director Ann Beeson called the e-mail message a desperate attempt to insulate supporters of the Patriot Act from criticism. "There is no question that the court struck down a provision of the law that was dramatically expanded by the Patriot Act."

Beeson noted that under the Patriot Act, national security letters (NSLs) can now be used to obtain information about entire groups of people who communicate online, including members of non-profit advocacy groups such as the NAACP or the Heritage Foundation.

In striking down the power, Judge Victor Marrero specifically pointed out that the FBI can now use NSLs to obtain lists of people who have e-mail accounts with given political organizations--a power that did not exist prior to the Patriot Act.

"The FBI theoretically could issue to a political campaign's computer systems operator a Section 2709 NSL compelling production of the names of all persons who have e-mail addresses through the campaign's computer systems," Judge Marrero said.

As enacted in 1986, the statute allowed the FBI to issue NSLs only where it had reason to believe that the subject of the letter was a foreign agent. Section 505 of the Patriot Act removed the individualized suspicion requirement and authorizes the FBI to use NSLs to obtain information about groups or individuals not suspected of any wrongdoing. The FBI need only certify--without court review--that the records are "relevant" to an intelligence or terrorism investigation.

In his ruling, Judge Marrero recognized that the Patriot Act represented a "major revision" to the NSL power because it replaced the prior requirement of individualized suspicion with a "broad standard of relevance to investigations of terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities."

Notably, Judge Marrero explicitly rejected the government's increasing move toward secret and coercive investigatory tactics in the post-9/11 environment. "It is precisely times like these that demand heightened vigilance, especially by the judiciary, to ensure that, as a people and as a nation, we steer a principled course faithful and true to our still-honored founding values."

The case is Doe and ACLU v. Ashcroft et al., No. 04-CIV-2614. Attorneys in the lawsuit are Beeson and Jameel Jaffer of the ACLU and Arthur Eisenberg of the NYCLU. An ACLU web feature about the case is online at www.aclu.org/nsl.


The Washington Free Press
PMB #178, 1463 E Republican ST, Seattle WA 98112
WAfreepress@gmail.com

Donate free food
Google
Search the Free Press archive:

WWW
Washington Free Press
Home |  Subscribe |  Back Issues |  The Organization |  Volunteer |  Do Something Directory