- Part of the Patriot Act, a central plank of the Bush
administration's war on terror, was ruled unconstitutional by a federal
judge Wednesday.
-
- U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero ruled in favor of
the American Civil Liberties Union, which challenged the power the FBI
has to demand confidential records from companies, like internet service
providers, as part of terrorism investigations.
-
- The move strikes down section 505 of the Patriot Act,
which gives the FBI power to demand information from companies without
a court order and bars recipients of the letters from ever revealing that
they received the FBI demand for records. Marrero held that this permanent
ban was a violation of free-speech rights.
-
- In his ruling, Marreo prohibited the Department of Justice
and the FBI from issuing special administrative subpoenas, also known as
national security letters. But he delayed enforcement of his judgment pending
an appeal that's expected to be filed by the government. The Department
of Justice said it was reviewing the ruling.
-
- ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero called the ruling
a "stunning victory" and said the timing was especially important
since Congress was deliberating on passing additional surveillance and
law enforcement powers this week.
-
- Jameel Jaffer, who argued the case in court for the ACLU,
said they based their challenge on Fourth Amendment rights, arguing that,
under the provision, individuals who received national security letters
weren't provided any opportunity to challenge the letters before a judge.
-
- Jaffer emphasized that the case wasn't about the kinds
of records the FBI could obtain but about what the FBI had to do in order
to get the records, such as go before a federal judge to justify its demand
for records. The government argued that it was possible to imply in the
legislation that recipients of the letters do have an opportunity to challenge
them, but the judge rejected that argument.
-
- The FBI first received power to get customer records
in 1986 legislation, but its power to obtain confidential data was greatly
expanded by the Patriot Act -- a controversial law the Bush administration
pushed through Congress after the 9/11 attacks to help it battle terrorism.
-
- The ACLU has been arguing since then that section 505
of the legislation was too broad because it could allow the FBI to obtain
records from any organization that allowed individuals to communicate over
the Internet, not just internet service providers. Jaffer said the FBI
could use the provision to obtain a political organization's membership
list, like the ACLU or NAACP, or to obtain the names of a person who communicated
anonymously or who communicated with a journalist over the Internet.
-
- Under the provision, the FBI did not have to show a judge
a compelling need for the records and it did not have to specify any process
that would allow a recipient to fight the demand for confidential information.
-
- The ACLU sued the Department of Justice, arguing that
the provision violated the Constitution because it authorizes the FBI to
force disclosure of sensitive information without adequate safeguards.
-
- The ACLU filed the lawsuit in part on behalf of a client
who received a national security letter from the FBI. But the organization
had to file the suit under seal to avoid penalties for violating the gag
provision. They were prohibited from talking to anyone about the suit.
-
- "Until today we were forbidden from even disclosing
the mere fact that a national security letter was served on our client,"
said ACLU Associate Legal Director Ann Beeson. "The government argued
that it would jeopardize national security for us to say that we represented
a client who had received a national security letter."
-
- They were able to reveal the existence of their client
and the national security letter after the ruling only because the judge
mentioned the client in his ruling.
-
- The ruling was the latest blow to the Bush administration's
antiterrorism policies.
-
- In June, the Supreme Court ruled that terror suspects
being held in places like Guantanamo Bay can use the U.S. judicial system
to challenge their confinement. That ruling was a defeat for the president's
assertion of sweeping powers to hold "enemy combatants" indefinitely
after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.
-
- - Reuters contributed to this story.
-
- © Copyright 2004, Lycos, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,65136,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_7
|
