ACLU Sues Over PATRIOT Act

Fox News ^ | Tuesday, November 26, 2002 | AP

[Sparta]

WASHINGTON — The government agreed to tell the American Civil Liberties Union by Jan. 15 which documents it would release about increased surveillance in the United States under a law passed in response to the terrorist attacks.

In response to a suit brought by the ACLU and other groups, the Justice Department also said it would supply a list of documents that it would keep confidential, citing national security concerns. The ACLU could challenge the decision to withhold any documents.

The agreement was reached Tuesday before U.S. District Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle, who is hearing the case growing out of an Aug. 21 request filed under the Freedom of Information Act.

The civil liberties group wants to know how the government is carrying out the USA PATRIOT Act, passed in response to Sept. 11. The new law gives the government new powers to obtain personal information about U.S. citizens in an attempt to stop future terrorist attacks.

ACLU lawyer Jameel Jaffer asked for a specific date for the Justice Department to provide the information, saying that another federal judge set a deadline for the Energy Department to release documents and e-mails concerning Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force. "It's reasonable to ask for a fixed date," he said.

Justice Department lawyer Anthony J. Coppolino said the government needed until mid-January because the ACLU request was being reviewed by several agencies. He said the government had produced 163 pages of information, but needed to check with the various agencies, including the Immigration and Naturalization Service, intelligence and the criminal division to see if the information could be released.

Huvelle said the government was working toward meeting the ACLU's request.

"This is a matter of great public interest," Huvelle said. "I am not unimpressed by the efforts of the government to comply. The government is moving heaven and earth to get what you want."

The ACLU asked the Justice Department for the number of times it has asked libraries or bookstores for lists of purchases or for the identities of those who have bought certain books; how many times law enforcement officials have entered people's homes without letting them know until later; how many times they have approved phone traces of people not accused of any crimes; and how many times they have investigated Americans for writing letters to newspapers, attending rallies or other First Amendment-protected activities.

[dirtboy]

Really? It looks to me that the 4th Amendment has been thrown out, and parts of the 1st.

Show me the specific sections. Not claims from an editorial column, but actual cites.

[dirtboy]

It is. The government has the power to surreptitiously enter a suspects home. If that isn't burglary, what is?

Two factors. First of all, what you are talking about is probably in the Patriot Act, not HSA. And second, burglary is typically defined as entering a home with criminal intent. The offense that would apply would be more along the lines of unlawful entry.

[watcher1]

First of all, what you are talking about is probably in the Patriot Act, not HSA.

That's not important.
The big questions are:
How long to we keep these unconstitutional laws on the books?
Why was there no "sunset" clause on the entire legislation?
How do we get rid of them after the war? Can we ever get rid of them after the war?
How and when will it be determined that the war is over?
History has shown that once a gov gets more power it almost never relinquishes it.

[dirtboy]

That's not important.

Really? Facts are not important?

The big questions are: How long to we keep these unconstitutional laws on the books? Why was there no "sunset" clause on the entire legislation? How do we get rid of them after the war? Can we ever get rid of them after the war? How and when will it be determined that the war is over? History has shown that once a gov gets more power it almost never relinquishes it.

I think that is changing. In many ways, HSA stopped the expansion of federal power after 9/11 - that is why it is important to quit claiming that HSA was such a draconian bill - instead, it halted a lot of stuff such as TIPS and a national ID card, and armed pilots in the cockpits. So this process is not inexorable or relentless, and we should build upon the POSITIVES of HSA and work to reverse the more obnoxious sections of the Patriot Act during the next session.

[billbears]

Well, at least you are subtly admitting that you were wrong about government "Wars" lasting forever and never dying.

Well, no I'm not. Except for the War on Alcohol, none were government led

Your eyes may yet be opened.

My eyes are opened. I used to trust the government as much as you. I used to believe a party change would make a significant difference. It made a difference alright. The direction of power grabbing changed, that's about it

[dljordan]

Me to. I saw one at the last Rally I was at, with a video camera down by his side trying hard to look inconspicuous. I told the other guys and Zig went over and started harassing him. It was a hoot.

[ohioman]

I wish the ACLU all the worst. May this worthless organization be relegated to the dustbin of history.

[dirtboy]

Hey, maybe Barr and Armey can Trojan Horse conservative values into that bunch. I think it's worth a shot.

[Southack]

"Burglarizing a home is OK under HSA. The government has the power to surreptitiously enter a suspects home. If that isn't burglary, what is?"

Most people would simple call what you are doing as "lying".

I asked for you to show me the paragraph in the HSA bill that legalized "burglary" (your word, not mine) per your wild-eyed claim.

And you, you can't show such a paragraph because it doesn't exist.

Your ENTIRE rant against the Homeland Security Act is based upon a lie, your lie.

Show me the paragraph in the HSA bill that backs up your wild-eyed claim, or else admit that you are just another Chicken Little running around trying to scare innocent people into believing that "lies" equal "facts".

You disgust me.

[Southack]

Well, at least you are subtly admitting that you were wrong about government "Wars" lasting forever and never dying. - Southack

"Well, no I'm not. Except for the War on Alcohol..." - billbears

And hence, because you admit that the War on Alcohol has ended, that means that you ARE INDEED subtly admitting that you were wrong that ALL government "Wars" last forever and never die.

[watcher1]

Before you resort to name calling and personal attacks tell me that the government Cannot surreptitiously enter a home or business. Tell me that's a lie

Show me where that's allowed in the 4th Amendment.

Show me the sunset clause on these laws before you call me chicken little.
Just because you are content to live with your head in the sand, don't expect others to.

[watcher1]

and work to reverse the more obnoxious sections of the Patriot Act during the next session.

LOL....... To say I'm extremely skeptical is an under statement

I am a betting man....care to wager nothing get done? Care to wager the gov only takes more powers?

[watcher1]

"care to wager nothing get done?"

SB nothing gets done

[dirtboy]

Considering that HSA killed off TIPS, forbade a National ID card and created a Privacy Officer within the new agency to ensure adherence to privacy law, I think there is a good chance. Bob Barr, now that he is working with the ACLU, was already pushing that idea yesterday. Seriously, the HSA is actually pretty tame, I will re-read the entire bill now that it has been signed and post my analysis, but IMO our effort needs to be next revisit the Patriot Bill and get parts of that revised or eliminated.

[dirtboy]

Before you resort to name calling and personal attacks tell me that the government Cannot surreptitiously enter a home or business. Tell me that's a lie

The problem was that you claimed the HSA provided for this. It does not.

[billbears]

And I see you bother to argue semantics on the one war that has ended and ignore the other seven. Picky, liberal fighting tactic. The fact is that the 'war on alcohol' as you call it was in full swing for many years before the federal government got involved. But it's two decade stint was there admittedly. Now how about these 'other' wars you bring up? Jim Crow war? Don't remember that one. War on Slavery? Nope don't remember that one either. But I do remember in my lifetime the War on Poverty,Illiteracy,Drugs,Smokers, and now Terrorism. Considering all of those except terrorism have been going for at least 30 years, when can we expect those to end great Karnac? And considering past history, what makes me think my children and grandchildren will not be fighting this war on terror?

[watcher1]

And considering past history, what makes me think my children and grandchildren will not be fighting this war on terror?

Well said
And Big Brother will be watching

[watcher1]

The problem was that you claimed the HSA provided for this. It does not.

It could have been the patriot act.
The bottom line is that the government can surreptitiously enter a home or business.
Each day the gov has more power and we have less rights, and there is no end in sight.

[Southack]

"Before you resort to name calling and personal attacks tell me that the government Cannot surreptitiously enter a home or business. Tell me that's a lie"

Why don't you just admit that you made it all up?

I asked you to show the paragraph in the HSA that would back up your wild-eyed claim, and you've failed to do that.

[JoeFromSidney]

Let's start calling it the USA Police State Act.