'); document.write('

National Security News

'); document.write('

Intelligence Official Acknowledges Policy Allowing Targeted Killings Of Americans
'); document.write('
ACLU Says More Information Needed On Policy That Grants President Power To Target Americans Abroad

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

NEW YORK – Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair acknowledged in a congressional hearing on Wednesday that the U.S. may, with executive approval, deliberately target and kill U.S. citizens who are suspected of being involved in terrorism. The American Civil Liberties Union expressed serious concern about the lack of public information about the policy and the potential for abuse of unchecked executive power.

The following can be attributed to Ben Wizner, staff attorney with the ACLU National Security Project:

"It is alarming to hear that the Obama administration is asserting that the president can authorize the assassination of Americans abroad, even if they are far from any battlefield and may have never taken up arms against the U.S., but have only been deemed to constitute an unspecified \'threat.\' This is the most recent consequence of a troublingly overbroad interpretation of Congress\'s 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force. This sweeping interpretation envisions a war that knows no borders or definable time limits and targets an enemy that the government has refused to define in public. This policy is particularly troubling since it targets U.S. citizens, who retain their constitutional right to due process even when abroad."

The following can be attributed to Jonathan Manes, legal fellow with the ACLU National Security Project:

"The American people have a right to know more about a policy that grants the president the unilateral authority to approve the killing of U.S. citizens. It is essential that more information be made available about who can be targeted for killing, who makes these decisions and on the basis of how much evidence, and whether lethal force can be used if arrest or capture are possible or have not been attempted. While there is little doubt that a U.S. citizen fighting for an enemy army could lawfully be killed on the battlefield in the course of fighting, this policy goes far beyond the ordinary parameters of battlefield combat. It appears to allow for the deliberate targeted killing of American citizens far away from any active hostilities, as long as the executive branch determines unilaterally that they meet a secret definition of who the enemy is."
'); document.write('
Legislation Introduced To Block Funding For Criminal Trials Of Accused 9/11 Planners
'); document.write('
Bill Mirrors Amendment Defeated Last Year

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (202) 675-2312; media@dcaclu.org
(212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

WASHINGTON – Late Tuesday, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) introduced a bill that would prohibit the use of Justice Department funds to prosecute the accused 9/11 plotters in federal court. Representative Frank Wolf (R-VA) introduced a companion bill in the House that would do the same thing.

Senator Graham attempted to attach a nearly identical amendment to the Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies Appropriations Act in November. That amendment was defeated by a vote of 54-45. The cosponsors of the bill introduced in the Senate today were the same senators who voted for Graham\'s failed amendment last fall. The proposal has not picked up any additional supporters.

Both the Senate and House bills would obstruct the Obama administration\'s plans to prosecute the 9/11 suspects in federal court, reopening the possibility that they would be tried in the discredited military commissions system instead. The American Civil Liberties Union strongly believes that the appropriate place to try terrorism suspects is in federal criminal court, and that the military commissions are a second class system of justice which should be shut down for good.

The following can be attributed to Christopher Anders, ACLU Senior Legislative Counsel:

"This is a case of déjà vu, with the same senators introducing the same legislation that was rejected by the Senate less than three months ago. The Senate already rejected this proposal, and there is no reason to play out the same scenario over and over again. Congress should stop trying to interfere with criminal prosecutions and let experienced Justice Department prosecutors go forward with criminal trials of the alleged September 11 plotters. The U.S. has successfully tried and convicted more than 200 international defendants on terrorism crimes in federal courts. We see no reason for Congress not to dismiss these bills as easily as Senator Graham\'s amendment was dismissed last year."

The following can be attributed to Ben Wizner, staff attorney with the ACLU National Security Project:

"Despite pressure from Congress and other sources, the Obama administration should stay the course and try the 9/11 suspects in federal courts, where they belong. The administration made the correct decision when it announced that the 9/11 suspects would be brought to justice in our federal courts, and reversing course due to political pressure would be a miscarriage of American justice. The Constitution does not include an on-off switch. Terrorists are criminals, not warriors, and the U.S. should try all terrorism cases in federal courts where they belong.

"Our federal courts are more than capable of handling sensitive security issues while preserving American values and legal standards. On the other hand, even with recent improvements, the military commission system is designed to ensure convictions rather than fair trials, and still fails to ensure basic due process guaranteed by U.S. and international law."
'); document.write('
ACLU Opposes Proposed Legislation Making Constitution Optional In Terrorism Cases
'); document.write('
Criticizing the Obama administration\'s decision to charge accused Christmas Day attacker Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab in the criminal court system, members of Congress are calling for legislation requiring intelligence officials to be consulted about how to handle terrorism suspects after their capture, arguing that options other than the criminal justice system should be considered. The Washington Post, in an editorial on January 23, supported this approach.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

WASHINGTON – Criticizing the Obama administration\'s decision to charge accused Christmas Day attacker Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab in the criminal court system, members of Congress are calling for legislation requiring intelligence officials to be consulted about how to handle terrorism suspects after their capture, arguing that options other than the criminal justice system should be considered. The Washington Post, in an editorial on January 23, supported this approach.

The members of Congress calling for the legislation are Senators Susan Collins (R-ME), Joseph Lieberman (ID-CT), Robert Bennett (R-UT) and John Ensign (R-NV).

The following can be attributed to Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union:

"It is extremely disturbing that members of the U.S. Congress are essentially calling for Obama administration officials to discard the Constitution when a terrorist suspect is apprehended – as if the Constitution should be applied on a case by case basis. The whole idea of having constitutional protections is that they be applied across the board for all those accused of a crime. That is the only way for us to rely on our justice system and its results. Obeying the Constitution is not optional.

“The FBI was right to place Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab in the criminal justice system. Terrorism is a crime, and to treat terrorism that takes place far from any battlefield as an act of war is to propose that the entire world is a battlefield, to give criminals the elevated status of warriors and to invest whoever the current president may be with the authority to imprison a broad category of people potentially forever, without ever being afforded an opportunity to defend themselves. To abandon due process in terrorism cases turns the rule of law on its head and flies in the face of the values that we are fighting to protect in the first place. Our criminal justice system is fully capable of accommodating the government\'s legitimate security interests while at the same time providing fundamental rights to defendants.

“If we have learned nothing else over the last decade, we\'ve learned that disregarding the rule of law leads to tragic consequences. This country is still trying to deal with the repercussions of the previous administration’s illegal torture and detention policies, which did immeasurable damage to America’s standing in the world.

"We hope that Congress will heed these lessons and show faith in our justice system, which has successfully prosecuted over 200 terrorism suspects. We must not abandon our most fundamental values to the threat of terrorism.”
'); document.write('
ACLU Sues For Release Of Justice Department Ethics Report On \"Torture Memo\" Lawyers
'); document.write('
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@aclu.org

NEW YORK – The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit today to compel the Department of Justice (DOJ) to make public a report from the DOJ’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) that examines possible ethics violations by the lawyers who wrote the Bush administration’s “torture memos.” The ACLU filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in December seeking the release of the report, which Attorney General Eric Holder said in late November would be released imminently.

“Under the Bush administration, the Office of Legal Counsel issued a series of memos intended to permit interrogators to use methods that the United States had previously described as war crimes,” said Jameel Jaffer, Director of the ACLU National Security Project. “As a result of those memos, hundreds of prisoners were abused and tortured, and some were even killed during the course of interrogations. The public has a legitimate interest in knowing whether the authors of the memos violated ethical rules as well as the criminal laws, and in ensuring that those who wrote the memos, as well as those who authorized torture, are held accountable. The release of the ethics report is long overdue.”

The OPR is responsible for investigating allegations of misconduct by DOJ attorneys. The long-awaited report relates to an OPR ethics probe that considers the work of three DOJ attorneys — Steven Bradbury, John Yoo and Jay Bybee — who authorized the torture and abusive interrogation of detainees in U.S. custody through legal memoranda the three authored while at the DOJ\'s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC). All served senior positions in the OLC. Yoo is now a professor of law; Bradbury is in private practice; and Bybee is a federal judge.

The Bush torture program has severely damaged America’s standing in the world,” said Alex Abdo, a legal fellow with the ACLU National Security Project. “We cannot move forward from that lawless era until we investigate and account for violations committed by those responsible for this illegal program. The results of the OPR’s ethics probe are a crucial part of that process. The report must be released now.”

The ACLU requested the ethics report under the FOIA in December 2009. The request was filed with the Justice Department and its Office of Professional Responsibility.

In the years since 9/11, ACLU lawsuits brought to enforce the Freedom of Information Act have played an invaluable role in informing the American people of outrageous conduct by their government in the name of the war on terror,” said Arthur Spitzer, Legal Director of the ACLU of the Nation’s Capital. “This case is the latest in that series.”

Lawyers in the case are Jaffer and Abdo of the ACLU National Security Project and Spitzer and Frederick Mulhauser of the ACLU of the Nation’s Capital.

A copy of today’s lawsuit is available online at: www.aclu.org/national-security/aclu-v-doj-complaint-injunctive-relief-relating-foia-request.
'); document.write('
Obama Administration Misses Deadline To Close Guantánamo
'); document.write('
ACLU Urges Closure Of Prison And End To Indefinite Detention

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

NEW YORK – The Obama administration missed the deadline today to close the prison at Guantánamo Bay. On his second full day in office, President Obama signed an executive order to close the prison within a year. Today, the date that the prison was to have been closed, the facility remains open.

According to news reports today, the administration has decided to continue to detain without trial nearly 50 of the 198 Guantánamo prisoners because a presidential task force concluded that "they are too difficult to prosecute but too dangerous to release." The American Civil Liberties Union disputes that any significant category of such detainees exists, and renews its call for the closure of the prison and an end to the illegal policy of indefinite detention without charge or trial.

The following can be attributed to Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU:

"An important deadline was missed today. One of the most shameful chapters of American history was to have been brought to a close with the shuttering of the prison at Guantánamo Bay. Sadly, the prison remains open. While the administration has encountered both external and self-imposed obstacles to closing the facility, it is critical that it not give in to a sense of inertia and that the prison be shut down as soon as possible.

"But just as important as closing the prison quickly is closing it right, and that means putting an end to the illegal policy of indefinite detention without charge or trial. While the administration should transfer prisoners to the U.S. for federal court trials, it should not create a \'Gitmo North\' by bringing them to facilities in the U.S. or anywhere else to be illegally held without due process. This practice was wrong in Cuba and would remain so here, reducing the closure of Guantánamo to a symbolic gesture.

"If the U.S. is to truly move forward and regain its moral footing, the administration must ensure that the shameful policies of the past are never repeated, on U.S. soil or elsewhere. It would be an error of historic proportions to miss this crucial window of opportunity for turning the page on the tragic policies of the past."

The following can be attributed to Jameel Jaffer, Director of the ACLU National Security Project:

"The Obama administration continues to insist that there is a substantial number of Guantánamo prisoners who are simultaneously too dangerous to release and too difficult to prosecute, but if there is credible evidence that these prisoners are dangerous, there is no reason why that evidence could not be introduced against them in criminal trials. The criminal laws, and the material support laws in particular, are broad enough to reach anyone who presents a serious threat, and the federal courts are fully capable of affording defendants fair trials while protecting the government\'s legitimate interest in protecting information that is properly classified.

"It\'s worth asking what the Obama administration really means when it proposes that prisoners are \'too difficult to prosecute.\' In at least some of these cases, the concern seems to be that the government\'s evidence has been \'tainted\' by interrogators\' use of methods that constitute cruel treatment or torture under domestic and international law. But that kind of \'evidence\' is not evidence at all. Our justice system excludes coerced evidence not only because coercion and torture are illegal, but because coerced evidence is unreliable. If evidence is too unreliable to justify detention after criminal trial, it is certainly too unreliable to justify indefinite detention without trial."

The ACLU unveiled a new Web site today focusing on indefinite detention, and the need to either charge or release detainees that are not properly held under the laws of war. The Web site includes news and documents related to indefinite detention, as well as videos featuring former Guantánamo detainees speaking about their experience.

The ACLU\'s new online resource on indefinite detention can be viewed at: www.aclu.org/indefinitedetention
'); document.write('
ACLU Announces Winner Of \"Restore America\" Poster Design Contest
'); document.write('
Indefinite Detention-Themed Design To Be Used In New Campaign

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

NEW YORK – The American Civil Liberties Union today announced that a design by New York-based designer Christopher King is the winner of an ACLU poster contest to depict the restoration of civil liberties in America following the Bush administration. King\'s artwork will be featured as part of the ACLU\'s national campaign to draw attention to the indefinite detention of prisoners without charge or trial.

"I\'ve always felt the ACLU plays an important role in our society by giving a voice to those who might not otherwise be heard and holding the government to account for the rights and freedoms promised in our Constitution," said King. "When I heard about the call to help raise awareness for this issue, it only felt natural to contribute."

King\'s design features an American flag hung vertically, with a prisoner\'s hands grasping the stripes as though they\'re the bars of a cage. The text of the poster contains the ACLU slogan, "Indefinite Detention … No Charges? No Trials? No Justice." The ACLU asked artists last year to review the ACLU\'s transition plan for the incoming Obama administration to restore civil liberties back to America and to come up with a design that depicts the transformation of America into a country committed to fixing unconstitutional policies, holding its leaders accountable and reclaiming American values.

"The issues of prisoners\' rights and the prevention of abuse resonate strongly with me," said King. "I\'m not sure I\'ve ever been so disgusted as when I first heard the news coming from Guantánamo that prisoners were being held indefinitely, abused and tortured without charge or access to fair trials. Because it happens far away to people we can\'t see or learn much about, it\'s an issue that can be easy to ignore. As a graphic designer, I saw an opportunity to depict and raise awareness about the extreme injustices being committed."

"Christopher\'s design effectively communicates the tone of the complex issue," said Eric Schoenborn, Director of Web site communications at the ACLU. "It is gratifying to see artists engage in a meaningful review of the ACLU\'s policy recommendations, and discover new ways to communicate our issues."

The winning design and a showcase of the top entries can be viewed online here: www.aclu.org/national-security/restore-america-poster-contest-0

The ACLU\'s analysis of the Obama administration\'s record on restoring civil liberties and the original transition plan can be viewed online here: www.aclu.org/america-unrestored

Photo: Eric Ryan Anderson
'); document.write('
Internal Report Finds Flagrant National Security Letter Abuse By FBI
'); document.write('
Revelations Necessitate Congressional Oversight And Patriot Act Revisions

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (202) 675-2312; media@dcaclu.org
(212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

WASHINGTON – A report released today by the Department of Justice\'s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) on the FBI\'s use of National Security Letters (NSLs) and so-called "exigent letters" reveals a systemic, widespread abuse of power. The FBI\'s authority to issue NSLs was widely expanded by the Patriot Act and it has been increasingly used to collect private information on American citizens without court approval. Congress recently extended three unrelated provisions of the Patriot Act set to expire last year until February 28, 2010. There are several bills in both the House and Senate that address those provisions as well as the NSL statute.

Today\'s OIG report details the FBI\'s use of exigent letters, or emergency letters, to gain Americans\' private phone records for investigations when no emergency existed and has significant and troubling redactions in portions dealing with those phone records. The report also details the bureau\'s use of exigent letters to gain information on journalists in violation of the Attorney General Guidelines governing criminal and terrorism investigations. Today\'s audit follows two prior OIG reports on the FBI\'s use of NSLs that found serious breaches of department regulations and multiple potential violations of the law.

"Given this report, there is absolutely no excuse for Congress not to reform the NSL authority during the current Patriot Act debate," said Michael Macleod-Ball, acting director of the ACLU Washington Legislative office. "Without an outside check, FBI agents are able to demand and obtain sensitive information at will. This is the kind of abuse that is inevitable when we broaden the government\'s surveillance power and don\'t modernize privacy standards. It has become very clear that the FBI cannot police itself. Congress must step in to institute and conduct rigorous and frequent oversight of the agency\'s use of NSLs and exigent letters."

In 2004, the ACLU and New York Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit on behalf of an ISP that the FBI served with an NSL. Because the FBI imposed a gag order on the ISP, the lawsuit was filed under seal. Although the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled in 2008 that the gag order provisions were unconstitutional, the "John Doe" NSL recipient in that case remains gagged.

"The Inspector General\'s findings make crystal clear that the FBI engaged in a systemic abuse of power and those responsible must be held accountable," said Melissa Goodman, staff attorney with the ACLU National Security Project. "This report demonstrates the dangers of not only unchecked surveillance power but also the FBI\'s unchecked gag power. By preventing NSL recipients from speaking out against the FBI\'s intrusive practices, the government was able to illegally demand the records of thousands of innocent Americans for years. The government must remove any unjustified and unnecessary gag orders from NSL recipients."

To learn more about the Patriot Act and the ACLU\'s work to reform it, go to: www.reformthepatriotact.org
'); document.write('
State Department Ends Unconstitutional Exclusion Of Blacklisted Scholars From U.S.
'); document.write('
Professors Adam Habib And Tariq Ramadan Likely To Be Readmitted To United States, Says ACLU

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

WASHINGTON – In a major victory for civil liberties, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has signed orders that effectively end the exclusion of two prominent scholars who were barred from the United States by the Bush administration. The American Civil Liberties Union challenged the denial of visas to Professors Adam Habib of the University of Johannesburg and Tariq Ramadan of St. Antony\'s College, Oxford University, in separate lawsuits filed on behalf of American organizations that had invited the scholars to speak to audiences inside the United States.

"The orders ending the exclusion of Adam Habib and Tariq Ramadan are long overdue and tremendously important," said Jameel Jaffer, Director of the ACLU National Security Project. "For several years, the United States government was more interested in stigmatizing and silencing its foreign critics than in engaging them. The decision to end the exclusion of Professors Habib and Ramadan is a welcome sign that the Obama administration is committed to facilitating, rather than obstructing, the exchange of ideas across international borders."

During the Bush administration, the U.S. government denied visas to dozens of foreign artists, scholars and writers – all critics of U.S. policy overseas and many of whom are Muslim – without explanation or on vague national security grounds. In a speech in Cairo in June 2009, President Obama addressed the relationship between the United States and Muslims around the world, calling for "a sustained effort to listen to each other; to learn from each other; to respect one another; and to seek common ground." The ACLU welcomed the State Department\'s orders as an important step toward achieving that goal.

"Given the orders issued by Secretary Clinton, we hope and expect that Professor Habib and Professor Ramadan will soon be able to come to the United States to meet and talk with American audiences," said Melissa Goodman, staff attorney with the ACLU National Security Project. "The Obama administration should now conduct a broader review of visas denied under the Bush administration, reverse the exclusions of others who were barred because of their political beliefs and retire the practice of ideological exclusion for good."

The orders signed by Secretary Clinton state that, in the future, Professors Habib and Ramadan will not be denied visas on the same grounds that they were denied them in 2006 and 2007. To enter the United States, however, the scholars will need to apply for visas – a process likely to take several weeks. The ACLU expects that, given Secretary Clinton\'s orders, the visa applications will be granted expeditiously.

Professor Adam Habib is a respected political analyst and Deputy Vice Chancellor of Research, Innovation and Advancement at the University of Johannesburg, as well as a Muslim who has been a vocal critic of the war in Iraq and some U.S. terrorism-related policies. The ACLU and the ACLU of Massachusetts filed a lawsuit in 2007 challenging his exclusion on behalf of the American Sociological Association, the American Association of University Professors, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee and the Boston Coalition for Palestinian Rights.

"My family and I are thrilled by Secretary Clinton\'s decision, and we are thankful to the many organizations that put pressure on the Obama administration to stop excluding people from the United States on the basis of their political views," said Habib. "This is not only a personal victory but also a victory for democracy around the world, and we hope this signals a move by the administration to begin restoring the liberties and freedoms that have been so badly eroded in recent times."

Professor Tariq Ramadan is Chair of Contemporary Islamic Studies at St. Antony\'s College, Oxford University. In 2004, he accepted a tenured position at the University of Notre Dame, but the U.S. government revoked his visa just days before he was to begin teaching there. The ACLU and the New York Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit in 2006 challenging his exclusion on behalf of the American Academy of Religion, the American Association of University Professors and the PEN American Center.

"I am very pleased with the decision to end my exclusion from the United States after almost six years," said Ramadan. "I want to thank all the institutions and individuals who have supported me and worked to end unconstitutional ideological exclusion over the years. I am very happy and hopeful that I will be able to visit the United States very soon and to once again engage in an open, critical and constructive dialogue with American scholars and intellectuals."

The ACLU will be in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York this afternoon for a status conference in Ramadan\'s case, Academy of Religion v. Napolitano. Attorneys in that case are Jaffer, Goodman, Judy Rabinovitz and Lucas Guttentag the national ACLU, Arthur Eisenberg of the NYCLU and New York immigration lawyer Claudia Slovinsky. At the conference, the parties will address the implications of Secretary Clinton\'s order for the long-running lawsuit.

Attorneys in the Habib case, American Sociological Association v. Clinton, are Goodman, Jaffer and Rabinovitz of the national ACLU and Sarah Wunsch and John Reinstein of the ACLU of Massachusetts.

More information about both cases is available online at: www.aclu.org/exclusion'); document.write('
ACLU Submits Statement On Aviation Security To Key Senate Committees
'); document.write('
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (202) 675-2312 or media@dcaclu.org

WASHINGTON – The American Civil Liberties Union submitted testimony to three key Senate committees who are meeting today to discuss counterterrorism and airline security in the wake of the attempted Christmas Day attack. The Senate Judiciary Committee, the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee and the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee will hear from government officials on counterterrorism strategy and aviation safety.

In the wake of the attempted attack, the government has announced intensified airport screening of the citizens of 14 nations flying to the United States and there have been calls for the across-the-board implementation of full body scanners for all travelers. In its statement, the ACLU expressed its strong concern over the substantive policy changes being considered, including the expanded use of terror watch lists. The ACLU believes that each of these technologies greatly infringes on civil liberties and faces serious questions regarding their efficacy in protecting airline travelers.

“The government must act quickly to take all reasonable steps to close any holes in our security, but it must also act wisely and in a manner consistent with our values,” said Michael Macleod-Ball, acting director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. “All of these policies should be thoroughly debated regarding their efficacy in protecting air travelers and combating terrorism. New security technologies must be genuinely effective, rather than merely creating a false sense of security, and must minimize privacy violations. We need to ensure that the government enacts procedures that are effective and do not unnecessarily infringe upon our civil liberties.”

The ACLU also pointed out that the efficacy of whole body imaging (WBI) devices, racial profiling and our watch lists must be weighed against both their impact on civil liberties and their impact on the U.S. ability to implement other security measures. The size of our watch list creates numerous false positives, wastes resources and hides the real threats to aviation security, while targeting innocent people. WBI machines, which create strikingly revealing images of the human body, are extremely expensive and a British government study concluded they would not work to comprehensively defend against terrorist threats. Racial profiling, while an assault on the American principle of equal treatment, is ineffective and, worse still, counterproductive to counterterrorism strategies. The time and money spent on these questionable policies is time and money not spent on intelligence analysis or other law enforcement activity.

“Though Congress feels enormous pressure to ‘do something,’ there is no one measure or magic solution, and carelessly surrendering constitutional principles and American values is never the answer,” said Christopher Calabrese, ACLU legislative counsel. “Invasive screening mechanisms, enlarging already bloated watch lists, targeting on the basis of national origin – none of these approaches goes to the heart of what went wrong on Christmas Day. They are a dangerous sideshow – one that harms our civil liberties and ultimately makes us less safe.”

The ACLU’s statement is available online at: www.aclu.org/national-security-racial-justice-technology-and-liberty/aclu-statement-record-aviation-security-subm
'); document.write('
FBI Illegally Gathered Phone Records And Misused National Security Letters
'); document.write('
Congress Must Curb NSL Abuse Through Patriot Act Revisions

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACT: (202) 675-2312 or media@dcaclu.org
(212) 519-7829 or 549-2666 or media@aclu.org

WASHINGTON – According to a report in the Washington Post today, the FBI routinely claimed false terrorism emergencies to illegally collect the phone records of Americans for four years of the Bush administration by abusing an already expansive Patriot Act power. Using “exigent letters,” or emergency letters, to gain private records for investigations when no emergency existed, the FBI seemingly violated the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. The FBI also routinely issued National Security Letters (NSLs) after the fact in an attempt to legitimize the use of exigent letters.

The NSL statute, widely broadened with the passage of the Patriot Act in 2001, allows the FBI to secretly demand personal records about innocent customers from Internet Service Providers (ISPs), communications service providers, financial institutions and credit reporting agencies without suspicion or prior judicial approval. The statute also allows the FBI to bar NSL recipients from disclosing anything about the record demand. Congress recently extended three unrelated provisions of the Patriot Act set to expire last year until February 28, 2010. There are several bills in both the House and Senate that address those provisions as well as the NSL statute.

In 2004, the ACLU and New York Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit on behalf of an ISP that the FBI served with an NSL. Because the FBI imposed a gag order on the ISP, the lawsuit was filed under seal. Although the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled in 2008 that the gag order provisions were unconstitutional, the “John Doe” NSL recipient in that case remains gagged.

The following can be attributed to Michael Macleod-Ball, Acting Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office:

“The FBI was given broad authority to issue NSLs in the Patriot Act, and to flout even the minor privacy protections within that statute shows a blatant disregard for the civil liberties of Americans. The FBI has a notorious reputation for being unable to police itself and, in this instance, its internal oversight controls clearly failed. Even after being warned by their own lawyers, FBI supervisors continued sending exigent letters even though no emergency existed and they had no statutory authority for such letters.

“The agency has shown time and again its contempt for internal guidelines and restrictions, even when someone is looking over its shoulder. Worse still is the evidence that higher-ups at the agency attempted to cover up their wrongdoing. It is not enough to for the FBI to claim these practices have ended; its ability to file exigent letters must be narrowed and subject to increased oversight. With the reauthorization of Patriot Act authorities now pending, Congress has an opportunity to narrow the use of NSL powers and help avoid such abuses in the future. Given what we now know, it would be unthinkable not to make such changes in the law now while it’s possible.”

The following can be attributed to Melissa Goodman, staff attorney with the ACLU National Security Project:

"The FBI showed flagrant duplicity in obtaining thousands of phone records over several years without any legal basis or justification for doing so. The FBI must be forthcoming and release information about its use of exigent letters and NSLs in order to hold accountable those who contributed to what clearly amounts to a systemic abuse of power. The FBI should also lift unnecessary and unjustified gag orders that continue to silence thousands of NSL recipients from speaking out about the FBI’s misuse of this intrusive record demand power, including our John Doe client who has now been gagged for nearly six years."

To learn more about the Patriot Act and the ACLU’s work to reform it, go to: www.reformthepatriotact.org

'); document.write('