There is nothing, and I mean NOTHING I've seen that's scarier than this:

[Gabi Hayes]

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/29308leg20070411.html

I SAW these guys last weekend on CSPAN, and I almost shit my pants. Seriously. As they said, we have entered the land of Kafka:

here, and I'm going to include the whole page in the next few posts, cause it's testimony.

and I guarantee, it'll make your blood run cold, then BOIL

Testimony of ACLU Client and National Security Letter Recipient George Christian at a Hearing of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution (4/11/2007)


Testimony for the Record To the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution Hearing


Responding to The Inspector General’s Findings of Improper Use of
National Security Letters by the FBI

Submitted by

George Christian
Executive Director
Library Connection, Inc.


Thank you for this opportunity to share with you my experiences as a recipient of a national security letter. My name is George Christian, and I, along with three of my colleagues, are the only recipients of an NSL who can legally talk about the experience. We won the right to do so in Federal District Court and have now become known as the “Connecticut John Doe’s” or the “Connecticut Four.” Ours is a story that we hope will provoke serious thought. Though our gag order was lifted, several hundred thousand other recipients of national security letters must carry the secret of their experiences to their graves.

My colleagues and I would, at first, not seem to be likely recipients of an NSL. I am the Executive Director of Library Connection, Inc., a consortium of 27 libraries in the Hartford, Connecticut area. At the time, along with myself, our Executive Committee included Barbara Bailey, Board president and Director of the Welles-Turner Memorial Library in Glastonbury, Peter Chase, vice-president of the Board and Director of the Plainville Public Library (who is now the current Board president), and Janet Nocek, secretary of the Board and Director of the Portland Public Library. Our primary function is to provide a common computer system that controls the catalog information, patron records, and circulation information of our libraries. Having this information in a common system greatly facilitates sharing our resources. Most patrons treat our member libraries as if they were branches of a common library. At the time we were served with a national security letter, in July 2005, we were also providing telecommunications services to half our member libraries.

Before I tell our full story, I’d like to emphasize a few lessons learned from our experience. Our saga should raise a big patriotic American flag of caution about how our civil liberties are being sorely tested by law enforcement abuses of national security letters. The questions raised vindicate the concerns that the library community and others have had for over five years about the broad powers expanded under the USA PATRIOT Act. Our story should cause everyone to pause - to consider how we can prevent such abuses from continuing. We believe changes can be made that conform to the rule of law, do not sacrifice law enforcement’s abilities to pursue terrorists yet maintain civil liberties guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

did I miss the threads on this? there must have been some, but the CSPAN coverage of this was by far the scariest thing I've EVER seen. Really. They can basically do ANYTHING they want, and if they hadn't basically screwed this case up, we'd NEVER have heard about it,

more coming

I'll try to find the CSPAN link, if there's any way of seeing it, because the actual experience of watching them detail their experience is FAR more compelling than reading the transcript of their testimony, which I realized just took place two days ago. did anyone post on this at DU? If they did, I missed it. any other links would be appreciated.

thanks


EDIT: sidebar at ACLU, from the "truer words were never spoken" file.....

There has never been a more urgent need to preserve fundamental privacy protections and our system of checks and balances than the need we face today, as illegal government spying, provisions of the Patriot Act and government-sponsored torture programs transcend the bounds of law and our most treasured values in the name of national security.

[MadMaddie]

1. I remember hearing something about the Administration

spying on groups that had absolutely no terrorist ties but were vocally against the administration...

This case should by itself be enought to rid us of the cancer in the WH....it's criminal.

[Gabi Hayes]

33. Here's a good primer on the case of the four librarians against the power of our fascist regime:

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060627-7150.html

lots of links embedded, too

[Rhiannon12866]

61. See the movie: "Unconstitutional," if you want to get really scared.

I've heard the same thing, that groups like the Quakers are being spied on because they have protested the war. Now that's a dangerous group!:eyes:

Unconstitutional: The War on Our Civil Liberties
A documentary that investigates the ways in which the civil liberties of American citizens and immigrants have been rolled back since the September 11 and the Patriot Act.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0427989/

[D23MIURG23]

75. Yeah you have to watch out for those quakers.

They'll "hold you in the light" if you aren't careful, and if you are dick cheney that could mean 3rd degree burns.
:rofl:

[Rhiannon12866]

77. I know, LOL, Quakers can be really scary,

especially with their beliefs in non-violence...:sarcasm:

[vssmith]

80. Wasn't Nixon a Quaker?

[Rhiannon12866]

85. Yes, he was. And his Quaker upbringing did continue to affect his life and outlook,

especially the influence of his mother. I don't know how factual it is, but the Oliver Stone movie "Nixon" had a lot on this and was quite well done.:-)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0113987/

[Gabi Hayes]

89. Nixon Agonistes, by Garry Wills, is the best book I've read on Nixon

it came out before Watergate, and foreshadows all that came after

addtionally, the first few pages still linger in my mind, as compelling a political biography as I've ever read, combined with haunting imagery at the beginning

[Rhiannon12866]

90. Thanks for the recommendation.

It sounds fascinating. What did you think of the movie? I have only vague recollections of that time, so I was interested in knowing the truth, but I am well aware that most movies take a certain license. Thanks so much for the suggestion. I have read a lot of biographies, and will definitely check this book out...:hi:

[Gabi Hayes]

92. I've never been able to watcht much of it. I have a problem with most

movies like that, because they just don't ring true for me.

this one, in particular fits that bill, because I was sort of obsessed w/Nixon, beginning, really, with Wills' book, fueled by Hunter Thompson's Fear and Loatbing on the Campaign Trail, (serialized in Rolling Stone, then made into a book of its own...another great read), then plateauing with the long drawn out spectacle of Watergate. those were the days!

no actors could do the job for me, playing characters as rich and demented as Nixon, Colson, Liddy, Ehrlichman, Mitchell, Hunt, to name just the top few. I'd built up my own vision of them, as if the story unfolded on an old radio soap opera, where I'd imposed my own vision of what the characters would be like. Add the obviuos reality of their appearance in the video medium, and it made it impossible for me to accept their portrayal by any actors

EXCEPT, ha, in the movie "Dick," a farce about two teenyboppers who accidentally broke the Watergate case. from tragedy to farce.

[Rhiannon12866]

93. The problem that I have with these movies, is that I never know what is fact,

and that's what I'm searching for. I do have memories of Reagan and Nixon, but wasn't paying much attention, back then, so I want to understand. I do watch a lot of documentaries, and used to read a lot, and this is more reliable...:-)

And thanks for the other recommendation; I have learned so much on DU...:-) As for the actors, I thought that David Pierce did a good job, but I'm prejudiced, since I remember him from Church School, LOL. But I take your point. Most of the actors, like James Woods, were just James Woods, not these complex characters, I agree, though I thought that Paul Sorvino made a real reach to portray Kissinger...:-)

And I did also see the movie,"Dick," a couple of times, and thought that it was pretty amusing. I prefer comedies, these days, since I prefer to laugh than to be depressed...:D

Rhiannon:hi:

[Gabi Hayes]

86. thanks...don't know how much more of this I can take, though.

remember the attacks on CISPES during the Reagan regime?

those criminals were trying to shelter political victims of the El Salvador death squads in churches, of all places, and were put under surveillance for their treasonous activities

no doubt they'd be sent a 'letter' by Mr. Meuller's Wunderkorps

[Rhiannon12866]

91. This movie, if you haven't seen it, mainly addresses the abuses of

the rights of Middle-Eastern immigrants, following 9/11. It was definitely disturbing, but something that we need to know...:-(

I was pretty unaware, politically, until after 9/11, which is what woke me up. I did know that the Reagan era had a lot of abuses, lies and political machinations, particularly in El Salvador, but I still think that this pales compared to what's going on now...:-(

[Gabi Hayes]

2. Part II

The path we chose in Connecticut is based on a longstanding principle of librarianship - our deep rooted commitment to patron confidentiality that assures that libraries are places of free inquiry, where citizens go to inform themselves on ideas and issues, without fear that their inquiries would be known to anyone else. The freedom to read is part and parcel of our First Amendment rights. To function, the public must trust that libraries are committed to such confidentiality. When the USA PATRIOT Act was signed into law, our Connecticut library community, like the American Library Association, many other librarians as well as booksellers, authors and others, were concerned about the lack of judicial oversight as well as the secrecy associated with a number of the Act’s provisions and the NSLs in particular.

Libraries are, of course, subject to law enforcement. Librarians respect the law and most certainly want to do the right thing when it comes to pursuing terrorists and protecting our country. We recognize and accept that, with appropriate judicial review, law enforcement can obtain certain patron information with subpoenas and appropriate court orders. We are not talking about absolute patron privacy. What has disturbed the library community in recent years has been the idea that the government could use the USA PATRIOT Act, FISA and other laws to learn what our innocent patrons were researching in our libraries with no prior judicial oversight or any after-the-fact review.

Because of the NSL gag orders, librarians receiving these letters are not able to inform patrons about specific or broad inquiries. Nor can we report the use of NSLs to local or Congressional officials as part of your oversight responsibilities to insure that abuses are not taking place, and assess the best uses of these legal tools. That is why I am here today with great appreciation for what you are doing to demand accountability on these important issues. If our gag order had not been lifted, we would not be able to share our story with you and the world.

Sometime after the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act, and before our own experiences in Connecticut, some observers dropped their concerns about investigative abuses when Attorney General Ashcroft declared that librarians were “hysterical” with their concerns and that the USA PATRIOT Act had not been used in libraries. You can imagine we were therefore quite shocked to be served with a national security letter! We were disappointed that Attorney General John Ashcroft’s assurances, echoed by his successor Alberto Gonzales, were inaccurate at a time when Congress was preparing to debate the renewal of the PATRIOT Act. But, because of the gag order, there was no way we could respond or tell our story at the time.

[Gabi Hayes]

3. Part III

The “Connecticut Four” continue to feel strongly that libraries were and should remain pillars of democracy, institutions where citizens could come to explore their concerns, confident that they could find information on all sides of controversial issues and confident that their explorations would remain personal and private. For example, a woman looking for information on divorce or breast cancer does not want those concerns known to anyone else; a student who wants to study about the Qur'an shouldn’t have to wonder if the government is second-guessing why he is interested in this topic; a business owner curious about markets for his products or services in the Middle East should not have to worry that by researching these markets at the public library he will arouse FBI suspicions. As one of my fellow John Doe’s put it: “spying on people in the library is like spying on them in the voting booth.”

Further, Connecticut is one of 48 states with laws protecting the privacy of library patrons and charging librarians with the responsibility of ensuring that privacy. We felt we would be violating this legal responsibility if we turned over patron information in response to a request made in a process not grounded on basic constitutional procedures.

It is widely believed that some civil liberties were restored in the revised PATRIOT Act, but they were not. Language in the revised law appears to protect the privacy of library records, but a loophole inserted into the wording allows the FBI to use a national security letter to obtain library records anyway. The revision states that a library functioning in a “traditional role” is not subject to an NSL UNLESS it is providing "electronic communication services," which the law defines as "any service that provides to users thereof the ability to send or receive wire or electronic communications.” Thus, any library providing Internet service can still be served with an NSL – that is essentially every library in the United States today. Robert Mueller, FBI Director, in a written response to a Senate Judiciary Committee inquiry, even stated that new language “did not actually change the law.”

While the re-authorized USA PATRIOT Act appears to provide a way to challenge the lifetime gag order imposed on anyone who is required to turn over records to the FBI via an NSL, a loophole in the wording makes it virtually impossible for anyone to successfully challenge the gag order. According to the revised PATRIOT Act, if the government declares that lifting the gag order would “harm national security”; the court must accept that assertion as “conclusive" and dismiss the challenge. Hence, there is no prior judicial review to approve an NSL and, with rare exception, no legal way to challenge an NSL after the fact.

[Solly Mack]

4. recommended

[Gabi Hayes]

5. Part IV

Like so many others, the library community believes that secrecy is a threat to open government and a free society. It is the secrecy surrounding the issuance of NSLs that permits their misuse. Because of the fact that all recipients of NSLs are perpetually gagged, no one knew the FBI was issuing so many. No one knew there was no public examination of the practice. No one could ask if over 143,000 National Security Letters in two years are necessary. No one could ask if the FBI could follow up on so many or whether it was the best use of their resources. These questions cannot be asked if gag orders and other forms of secrecy prevent even Congress from knowing what the FBI is doing with its powers. Secrecy that prevents oversight and public debate is a danger to a free and open society.

We urge Congress to re-consider the PATRIOT Act. Restore basic civil liberties. Restore constitutional checks and balances by requiring judicial reviews of NSL requests for information, especially in libraries and bookstores where a higher standard of review should be considered. National security letters are very powerful investigative tools that can be used to obtain very sensitive records. The FBI should not be allowed to issue them willy-nilly. It shouldn’t be allowed to issue NSLs unless a court has approved it and found that the records it seeks are really about a suspected terrorist. We believe that terrorists win when fear of them induces us to destroy the rights that make our country free.

The details of our story support my request to you. On July 8, 2005, an FBI agent phoned Ken Sutton, our systems and telecommunications manager, and informed him that Library Connection would be served with a national security letter, and asked to whom it should be addressed. Ken said it should be addressed to myself as the Executive Director.

While I had been aware of the cautions raised by the ALA, ACLU, and others, until Ken related this phone conversation to me, I had not really thought about the term “national security letter.” Nor are all attorneys familiar with the term. This is not surprising, since every recipient of a NSL is prohibited by a perpetual gag order from mentioning receipt of the letter or anything associated with it.

[Gabi Hayes]

6. Part V

In considering how we should respond, I had learned that the District Court in New York had found the entire NSL statue unconstitutional because of prima facie violations of the 1st, 4th and 5th amendments. So, by the time the letter arrived, on July 13, 2005, I had made up my mind to oppose this effort. One of the two FBI agents served the letter on me, and pointed out that the letter requested information we had about the use of a specific IP address that was registered to Library Connection, Inc. He also pointed out the letter’s gag order prohibited Library Connection from disclosing to anyone that the FBI was attempting to obtain information from our library business records

We could not fathom any “exigent” nature for the FBI request. I was struck that: 1) the letter was dated May 19, almost two months before the FBI served the letter on July 13th and 2) it was addressed to Ken Sutton, the person they had called to get the correct addressee. The requested information was for use of an IP address five months earlier, on February 15.

At the same time, I did not want to impede the investigation of a perilous situation that endangered my country or my fellow citizens. Because the letter was dated two months before it was delivered to me, it seemed reasonable to conclude that the FBI was not in a rush to get the information they wanted. I told the Agent that I had reason to believe that the use of NSLs was unconstitutional, and that I wanted to consult my attorney before complying with the request. The agent wrote a phone number on the back of his business card and said my attorney could call that number.

After the FBI agents left, I called Library Connection’s attorney and asked what to do. The attorney informed me that the only way I could contest compliance with a national security letter was to go to court against the Attorney General of the United States.

I did not feel that I could take a step like that on my own. The by-laws of our corporation grant the Executive Director the authority to enter into contracts on behalf of the corporation. However, I did not feel it would be morally right to engage the consortium in a legal battle with the Attorney General on my own. Library Connection receives no Federal, state, county, or grant funding. Our annual budget is around one million dollars, and our entire financial support comes from our member libraries, which must take the expense of belonging to Library Connection out of their own operating budgets. For all I knew, suing the Attorney General might lead to a dispute that went all the way to the Supreme Court. Any costs associated with this effort would have to be borne by our member libraries, and I did not feel I had the authority to commit the libraries or their funds on my own.

[Gabi Hayes]

7. Part VI....there's a LOT more

I therefore decided to ask the Executive Committee of the Board of Directors to make the decision on behalf of Library Connection. I reasoned that the by-laws allow the Executive Committee to act on behalf of the board of directors in circumstances when the entire board could not be consulted, and that these circumstances certainly met those criteria. So I called an emergency meeting of the Executive Committee, which consisted of Barbara Bailey, board president and Director of the Welles-Turner Memorial Library in Glastonbury, Peter Chase, vice-president of the board and Director of the Plainville Public Library, and Janet Nocek, secretary of the board and Director of the Portland Public Library.

The next day, the Executive Committee met with our attorney. I informed them about the National Security Letter, and our attorney informed us that we were now all bound by its associated gag order. After learning that the NSL statute had been ruled unconstitutional in district court, the committee decided to resist complying with the request. The Executive Committee and I met with attorneys from the ACLU in late July of 2005. After discussing a variety of options, the Executive Committee decided to engage the National Office of the ACLU to seek an injunction relieving Library Connection from complying with the NSL and to seek a broader ruling that the use of NSLs is unconstitutional. The Committee also decided to seek relief from the gag rules associated with NSLs in order to 1) allow the Executive Committee's actions to be presented to the full Board, and 2) to allow the fact that an NSL was served on a library organization to become part of the national debate over renewal of the PATRIOT Act.

At this point I would like to make it clear that the four of us who comprised the Library Connection Executive Committee --- Janet Nocek, Barbara Bailey, Peter Chase, and myself --- were equally impacted as recipients of the NSL. and equally committed in our opposition to it and its associated gag order. The story of this NSL and the Library Connection became very personal to us on the Executive Committee and impacted our lives in different and personal ways.

We also felt we were defending our democracy by insisting that the checks and balances established in the Constitution be observed. We had no court order, and there was no evidence that an independent judge had examined the FBI’s evidence and found there to be probable cause justifying their request for information.

The national security letter asked for all of the “subscriber information” of “any person or entity related to” a specific IP address for a 45-minute period on February 15, 2005. We knew that the address was the address of a router at one of our libraries. Routers use address translation schemes to shield the true addresses of the computers behind them in order to make hacking into those computers more difficult. They do this by randomly assigning a different address to the computers behind them every time those computers are turned on. Since there was no way of tracing the path from the router to a specific personal computer, the FBI would have to find out who was using every computer in the library on that day. And since there was no way of determining who was using the computers in the library five months after the fact, we felt that “subscriber information of any entity related” to the IP address meant a request for the information we had on all the patrons of that library. That seemed like a rather sweeping request. Some would call it a fishing expedition.

[Gabi Hayes]

8. Part VII

Let me reemphasize: we did not want to aid terrorists or criminals. One of us, Janet Nocek, had actually lost a friend on one of the planes that crashed into the World Trade Center. All four of us were deeply affected by the September 11 attacks, and none of us wanted any further harm to come to our country or its citizens. But we did not feel we would be helping the country or making anyone safer by throwing out the Constitution either. All we wanted was some kind of judicial review of the FBI request.

I am not a lawyer; I manage a library organization. I understand from the attorneys that it is technically legal for the FBI to deploy NSLs without judicial review. However, as a law-abiding citizen and as a person committed to the principles of librarianship, it did not nor does not make sense to me that such intrusions into the privacy of our library patrons is reasonable, especially a wholesale request for information about many patrons, not necessarily a library patron that is the legally deemed to be specific target of an investigation. Avoiding such fishing expeditions should not be allowed in libraries, bookstores or other places of inquiry. As I understand it, there are other types of investigative letters without judicial review, but they do not have gag orders attached. In the 10 months that we contested our national security letter, the Justice Department never produced nor seemed to seek any judicial review.

In August, the ACLU filed suit in Federal District Court in Bridgeport, Connecticut. Peter Chase and I prepared affidavits to be filed with the suit. Imagine our surprise to learn we would not be allowed to attend the hearing in person because of the risk that we would be identified as the plaintiffs. Instead we had to watch the proceedings via closed circuit TB from a locked room in the Hartford Federal Court Building.

In the hearing, Judge Hall asked to review the government’s evidence for keeping us gagged. The government insisted on submitting secret evidence, which they would not provide to our attorneys or us. Like the judge in New York who had ruled on the issue, Judge Hall ruled that a perpetual gag amounted to prior restraint, and was therefore unconstitutional. She also ruled that her review of the evidence found no compelling national security reasons for keeping us gagged. Her ruling was immediately appealed by the Justice Department. While the case was under appeal, we remained gagged.

[file83]

70. Where is part VIII ? I see part IX, but not 8.

[Gabi Hayes]

88. Part VIII is here.....thanks for the catch.

The gag order caused us troubling dilemmas personally as well as professionally. We had no desire to talk about the specifics of the national security letter we received but we wanted to tell our fellow librarians that NSLs posed a threat to patron privacy as well as what it was like to be under a federal gag order. We wanted to tell our patrons that we were trying to protect their confidentiality. We also wanted to tell Members of Congress, at a time when you all were debating the renewal and sunset provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act, that the national security letter provision was being used against libraries, and that librarians felt this was a huge threat to the privacy that they and their patrons trusted to exist at libraries.

Being gagged was also frustrating on other professional and personal levels. I felt compromised since I could not reveal the problem to the full board nor to our member libraries or my own staff that had seen the FBI arrive, announce themselves and hand me a letter. No one could bring up the topic at Library Connection Board meetings, nor at meetings of the full membership. I knew that all the board members and all the member library directors knew of the case, and I suspected the Executive Committee and I had their approval. However, I had no idea whether the approval was unanimous, or whether there was a significant dissenting opinion.

I felt terrible I could not let anyone know that the struggle was not depleting our capital reserves and putting the corporation at risk. I could not even tell our auditors that the corporation was engaged in a major lawsuit—a direct violation of my fiduciary responsibilities. I pride myself on my integrity and openness. I worried if, knowing I was participating in this court case behind their backs, the members of the board and other library directors were starting to wonder what else I might be concealing.

Another one of the “John Doe’s” was compromised in his work as chair of the Intellectual Freedom Committee of the Connecticut Library Association. For example, he was often invited to debate the PATRIOT Act with Kevin O’Conner, a local Federal Prosecutor, who, ironically, became the attorney defending the government in our case. Mr. O’Connor felt free to continue to accept invitations to talk about the PATRIOT Act while my colleague, Mr. Chase, felt the gag order required him to decline such invitations.

[file83]

94. Thanks!

That part is important - it helps illustrate why these NSL's are so completely wrong and un-American.

[madokie]

9. yep, sure is

[Lone_Star_Dem]

10. I'm going to take a moment from my reading to recommend

I'm familiar with this, but I haven't read the actual testimony. Thank you for posting this.

[Gabi Hayes]

13. more than welcome....I sat stunned, watching CSPAN. I thought it was going

to be their typical, boring-but-somehow-interesting weekend rehash of a topic not of all that much import. But I couldn't stop, as I realized what was unfolding. this little man, who looked sort of like Ian Holm (who should play him in the movie that MUST be made of this. what a great double feature with the Sibel Edmonds story, but I digress), in his desultory manner/underplayed delivery, told a story STRAIGHT out of Stalin's Russia, Hitler's Germany, Mao's China, and, now, Bush's America.

He talked of (and I'll guess it's in the testimony) of over thirty THOUSAND of these letters having been sent already, and NOBODY can TALK about them, not even to their own family. HE COULDN'T tell his own son what was going on, when he got a call from the New York Times.

You HAVE to see the CSPAN recording of this

[Gabi Hayes]

11. Remember FBI's Mueller admitting that "mistakes were made?"

StumbleUpon » My National Security Letter Gag Order - ...Marcus-Lycus•Mar 25, 3:44pm: From the page: "My National Security Letter Gag ... to the article: this is an example of yet another outrage that has taken ...
www.stumbleupon.com/.../wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/22/AR2007032201882.html%3Fsub=AR - 29k - Cached - Similar pages

NPR : FBI's Use of 'National Security Letters' QuestionedAnd what's an example in which a national security letter would be used? ... And on Capitol Hill, we're also seeing a lot of outrage from both Republicans ...
www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7797106 - Similar pages

Let in the light - The Boston Globe... the gale of outrage over the US attorney scandal, his FBI is conceding abuse of the records checks allowed by warrantless national security letters not ...
www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2007/03/22/let_in_the_light/ - Similar pages

F.B.I. HEAD ADMITS MISTAKES IN USE OF SECURITY ACT - Free Preview ...By DAVID STOUT (NYT); National Desk. Late Edition - Final, Section A, Page 1, Column 1, 1077 words. DISPLAYING ABSTRACT - Bipartisan outrage erupted on ...
newstandardnews.net/content/ion/?action=offsite_relay&bulletinid=6583 - Similar pages

My National Security Letter Gag OrderMy National Security Letter Gag Order ... this is an example of yet another outrage that has taken place in silence void of journalists doing their job in ...
www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/comments/display?contentID=AR2007032201882 - Similar pages

F.B.I. Head Admits Mistakes in Use of Security Act - New York TimesWASHINGTON, March 9 — Bipartisan outrage erupted on Friday on Capitol Hill as Robert S. ... The report found many instances when national security letters, ...
www.nytimes.com/2007/03/10/washington/10fbi.html?ex=1331182800&en=847bc959c663dfbf&ei=5088&pa... - Similar pages

FBI Director Admits To Improper Use Of Patriot ActWASHINGTON - Bipartisan outrage erupted on Friday on Capitol Hill as FBI Director ... Fine's office found that the number of national security letters ...
www.tbo.com/news/nationworld/MGBJWE0L3ZE.html - 29k - Cached - Similar pages

Schneier on Security: FBI Issued Illegal National Security Letters ...Under the Patriot Act, the national security letters give the FBI authority ... They should have instead reacted with outrage. I suspect some did::many were ...
www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/03/fbi_issued_ille_1.html - 111k - Cached - Similar pages

My National Security Letter Gag Order | MetaFilter... the personal details dilute the sheer moral outrage at what's going on here. ... The article is called "My National Security Letter Gag Order," not "My ...
www.metafilter.com/59705/My-National-Security-Letter-Gag-Order - 62k - Cached - Similar pages

DOJ: FBI understated Patriot Act use - USATODAY.comThe estimated number of national security letters requested by the FBI, ... The audit results caused near-immediate outrage on Capitol Hill today. ...
www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-03-08-patriot-act_N.htm - 45k - Cached - Similar pages

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=national+security+letter+outrage&btnG=Google+Search

[malaise]

12. I posted a thread about this during the program

I was in total shock. Thanks for posting this.

[Gabi Hayes]

15. Amen...did you bookmark it? can you bring it back?

I'd love to see what the reaction was.

Didn't just the act of SEEING what they had to say have far more impact than merely reading dry testimony?

I know that was the case during Watergate and Iran/Contra, not to mention the disgusting 911 Hearings, when they tried to eviscerate Richard Clarke, yet pretty much (with a few admirable exceptions)let the likes of Condi and St. Rudy spew whatever they liked

[malaise]

56. No you wouldn't

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=591728

Really glad to see you raise this again.

Add.

[pacalo]

68. If what you & Gabi saw was a discussion held at the U of Vermont, I've found the C-Span video...

http://www.c-span.org/search/basic.asp?ResultStart=1&ResultCount=10&BasicQueryText=Patriot+Act+library+records

[malaise]

97. That's it n/t

[DemReadingDU]

31. Could you post a link to your thread? n/t

[Jcrowley]

14. Does this mean

that the Constitution is in danger? Has been put in jeopardy? Has been violated?

Seems so.

So if this is the case is it not the obligation for those who "swore to protect" to do just that and Impeach the criminals? If they are not doing so, regardless of rationale, are they not violating their sworn oath?

Where the hell is that table?

Sorry for the rhetorical questions.

K&R

[Gabi Hayes]

17. couldn't agree more, and this was the straw for me.

I didn't see the point in impeachment, merely because of time constraints

but these people WILL turn this country into a national security state the likes of which even Orwell couldn't imagine in his most febrile nightmares

I can't imagine Conyers, etal don't see the writing on the wall. they KNOW better than we the extent of their ambition/depredation

I think it's MUCH worse than even those of us here, who have a better handle than most, realize

[BeHereNow]

28. And you are correct in thinking so- the border closing is not about keeping people out-

it is about keeping Americans from fleeing.
Rule number one in establising a fascist dictatorhip.
BHN

[Gabi Hayes]

16. Part IX

At various times we had to go to extreme measures to keep from talking with the press or answering questions from colleagues and family. One of the John Doe’s even had his son ask “Dad, is the FBI after you?” All he could say was that he was involved in a court case and it was extremely confidential.

It is difficult to convey the very detrimental impact that the gag order had on our lives and on our families and colleagues, as well. Everyone in the library community knew Library Connection had received an NSL and that we were involved in litigation to contest it. They also knew we were gagged, and that to talk about it carried severe risks. Practical information we could have shared with them, about the risks they faced from NSLs, could not be shared. And, of course, there were always our ongoing concerns about losing the trust of our library patrons who continued to expect appropriate confidentiality about their library records.

After our court hearing, all of this became even more difficult, as the national and local papers were full of stories about a library consortium in Connecticut that had taken the Attorney General to court over receipt of an NSL and its associated gag order. The consortium was described as “John Doe,” as our case was officially known as Doe v. Gonzales. There are only four library consortia in Connecticut, so speculation about the identity of John Doe was swarming all around us.

Things soon got worse because the government had been careless in redacting identifying information from the papers associated with the court case. At the hearing itself on August 31, 2005, our attorneys discovered that the government had failed to redact Peter Chase’s name in an affidavit. As officers of the court, they notified the court and the government, who then redacted it.

[Gabi Hayes]

18. Part X

Within a few weeks, the New York Times discovered that Library Connection’s identity as the plaintiff had been inadvertently disclosed on the court’s web site. The Times published a story revealing Library Connection’s name on September 21. This led to a further examination of the documents available to the public and to further redactions. However, the press soon discovered my name among the documents and a reference to one of the other plaintiffs as “chairman of the Intellectual Freedom Committee of the Connecticut Library Association.” Only one person could fit that description, Peter Chase. Papers around the country picked up articles identifying Peter and me from the New York Times and AP wire services.

On November 6, the lead story on the front page of the Sunday Washington Post started with my name. This was the first article to give us some inkling of how pervasive the national security letter issue had become. The article reported that since the revision of the NSL statute in the USA PATRIOT Act, NSLs had been issued at the rate of 30,000 per year.

The whole world now knew us as the John Doe plaintiffs in a suit over being gagged for receiving a national security letter, yet we remained prohibited from speaking to Congress or our fellow librarians and library patrons or our own families about what had happened to us.

We were soon deluged with phone calls from the press at work and at home. Initially this was a very delicate situation. Our attorneys had cautioned us that even a “no comment” was tantamount to admitting we were John Doe. Our attorneys felt it was therefore better just not to discuss the issue. Everyone who read the New York Times, the Washington Post, and many other papers throughout the country knew about the Library Connection, Inc. I even received letters and clippings from around the country. Yet still we could not share our experience with Congress while Congress was debating the renewal of the PATRIOT Act.

[Gabi Hayes]

19. Part XI

The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in New York heard our case in November 2005. At least this time we were allowed to be present at our own court case. However, we had to conceal our identities by entering and leaving the court building and the courtroom separately, not sitting together, and not establishing eye contact with each other or our attorneys.

In court the government argued that merely revealing ourselves as recipients of a national security letter would violate national security. Our attorneys filed more legal papers to try to lift the gag, and attached copies of the New York Times articles. The government claimed that all the press coverage revealing our names did not matter because 1) no one in Connecticut reads the New York Times, and 2) surveys prove that 58% of the public disbelieves what they read in newspapers. To add to the absurdity, the government insisted that the copies of the news stories our attorneys had submitted remain under seal in court papers.

Even though our names were not thoroughly redacted from the court documents, the government did redact from our affidavits our claim that 48 states had laws protecting the privacy of patron library records. We could not understand the threat to national security this information posed, but we did note that Attorney General Gonzales claimed to Congress that there was no statutory justification for claims of privacy.

It appeared that Congress would vote on the renewal of the PATRIOT Act before the Appellate Court would rule on our gag order. Our attorneys took the case all the way up to the Supreme Court in an emergency attempt to lift the gag. Though clearly troubled by the case, the Court refused to lift the gag at that point.

[Gabi Hayes]

20. Part XII....last one

On March 9, 2006, President Bush signed into law the revised USA PATRIOT Act. A few weeks later the government decided that our silence was no longer needed to preserve national security. They told the Second Circuit that the FBI would lift the gag order, and then they tried to get Judge Hall's decision vacated as moot. The Second Circuit refused to erase Judge Hall's decision from the books, and expressed concern about the breadth of the NSL gag provision.

Judge Cardamone of the Second Circuit wrote, "A ban on speech and a shroud of secrecy in perpetuity are antithetical to democratic concepts and do not fit comfortably with the fundamental rights guaranteed American citizens.… Unending secrecy of actions taken by government officials may also serve as a cover for possible official misconduct and/or incompetence.” The court referred the rest of our case back to district court. Justice Hall’s original opinion that our perpetual gag order was unconstitutional now became part of case law.

A few weeks after that, the FBI said they no longer needed the information they had sought from us and thus abandoned the case completely. In doing so, they removed the PATRIOT Act from the danger of court review.

We held our first press conference on May 31, 2006 at the offices of the ACLU in New York City. Since then, we have tried to accept every invitation to library groups, colleges and civic organizations. We want people to know that the FBI is spying on thousands of completely innocent Americans. We feel an obligation to the tens of thousands of others who received National Security Letters and now will live under a gag order for the rest of their lives. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We want you to take special note of the uses and abuses of NSLs, in libraries and bookstores and other places where higher First Amendment standards should be considered. Ours is a story we hope will encourage the U.S. Congress to reconsider parts of the USA PATRIOT Act and in particular, the NSL powers that can needlessly subject innocent people to fishing expeditions of their personal information with no judicial review. Because of the gag order, you, our Senators and elected representatives and the American public, are denied access to the stories and information about these abuses. This is information you need to conduct oversight, work for appropriate changes to current law and seek to protect our constitutional rights.

Thank you for this opportunity to testify. I hope that the story of our experience will help you in your ongoing efforts to rebalance our civil liberties with the need for protecting our national security.

[Gabi Hayes]

22. and, as BAD as this thing, is, the KEY to the case, IMO, is contained above

the FBI pulled the trick of ABANDONING the case, therefore taking it out of the purview of the court.

in other words, the challenge raised by these brave....librarians....has been mooted, and we may NEVER see this in court again!

see bolded sections above

[hang a left]

21. Thanks for the post Gabi

It is crazy, is it not. I remember this story however has no idea they testified before congress. Not a peep anywhere, including the blogs I read.

Imagine a corrupted justice department issuing NSLs every single day. Hot damn they have the whole freakin system turned upside down.

Don't dare whistleblow

Don't dare question their authority

Don't dare be of the opposition party

Don't dare question bushco

Bizzaro World!

It just didn't piss me off as much as you. My chin was on the desk. It is just one more of the daily assaults this admin serves up.

I need a drink.

[Gabi Hayes]

23. your penultimate sentence sums it up for me, too.

the DAILY outrages are just too much for the average person to absorb, much less DEAL with in a positive way.

I remember posting elsewhere that a dem president should establish a CABINET LEVEL post dedicated to investigating, then UNDOING EVERY single fascist action undertaken by this criminal enterprise disguised as a government

they truly are the VERY WORST thing ever to happen to this country, and who ever is in second place isn't even on the track.

[hang a left]

24. Absolutely excellent idea about the cabinet post.

I nominate Russ. Somebody send Gore an email ;-)

[Gabi Hayes]

26. any savvy dem pres cand should make that the CORNERSTONE

of their campaign, and have these librarians accompany them whenever possible

PATRIOT II is the END of democracy, and the beginning of FASCISM

think I'm exaggerating?

the unPatriotic Act and its sequel(s)The USA PATRIOT Act is similar to the Enabling Act passed in Germany in 1933 ... also known as "Patriot Two" - would be closer to Hitler's Enabling Act. The ...
www.oilempire.us/usapatriot.html - 53k - Cached - Similar pages

Enabling Act of 1933 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaHitler decided upon the proposal of an "enabling act" that would give the cabinet legislative power for four years. The Reichstag Fire Decree had already ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933 - 41k - Cached - Similar pages

Patriot Act vs. Hitler's Enabling ActOn March 23, the newly elected Reichstag met in the Kroll Opera House in Berlin to consider passing Hitler's Enabling Act. It was officially called the "Law ...
www.customscorruption.com/hitler.htm - 18k - Cached - Similar pages

comeDonChisciotte - politica e informazione - USA Patriot Act and ...USA Patriot Act and the Nazi Enabling Act Postato il Domenica, 12 giugno @ 17:50:03 EDT di comedonchisciotte. USA On March 23, 1933, Adolf Hitler pushed the ...
www.comedonchisciotte.org/site/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1076&mode=thread&or... - 69k - Cached - Similar pages

Patriot Act vs. Enabling ActHow the USA Patriot Act compares to the Nazi Enabling Act, ten key dangers of ... The Enabling Act granted Hitler the power he craved and could use without ...
1933key.com/news/patriot_act_vs_enabling_act.html - 42k - Cached - Similar pages

Secret Patriot Act II to give Hitler's Powers to Bushthe incredibly broad Section 802 of the First USA Patriot Act isn?t broad ... HOW THE PATRIOT ACT COMPARES TO HITLER?S ERMÄCHTIGUNGSGESETZ (ENABLING ACT): ...
www.infowars.com/articles/ps/patriot2_hitler_powers_bush.htm - 41k - Cached - Similar pages

Federal Observer Articles - Federal ObserverIn other words, the Patriot Act (like Hitler's "Enabling Act") expunges our Fourth Amendment protections against illegal searches and seizures and our right ...
www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=9925 - 24k - Cached - Similar pages


Similarities Between...USA / The Patriot Act and the German Enabling Act? What is your view? ... the establishment of Hitler's dictatorship following the Enabling Act (see below). ...
www.bordeglobal.com/foruminv/index.php?showtopic=13148 - 80k - Cached - Similar pages

Shocking Parallels Between The US Patriot Act & the Nazi Enabling ...The Enabling Act granted Hitler the power he craved and could use without objection from the ... Title: Re: USA Patriot Act and the Nazi Enabling Act ...
www.newmediaexplorer.org/.../06/22/shocking_parallels_between_the_us_patriot_act_the_nazi_enabling_act.htm - 94k - Cached - Similar pages

not vouching for any of these sources, but I HAVE done some reading on the Enabling Act, and some of these links go into detailed comparisons, especially regarding section 802

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=USA+Patriot+Act+Hitler+enabling+act

[Straight Shooter]

25. That gag order was a nice little slipknot noose around the necks of NSL letter recipients.

Fighting a slipknot only makes the situation worse. Or perhaps a more apt description is a bouncing betty. You can't move; you're stuck there or it all blows up in your face, and absolutely no one can help you. This is absolutely heinous and goes completely against the foundation of justice.

Thanks for posting, Gabi. I'm going to print this and take it to my local librarian.

K&R

[Gabi Hayes]

27. Section 802-814, USA PATRIOT Act....they can do ANYTHING, charge you

for just about ANYTHING, and.....

FOREVER!

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/Section802.html#802


Sec. 3286. Extension of statute of limitation for certain terrorism offenses


`(a) EIGHT-YEAR LIMITATION- Notwithstanding section 3282, no person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for any noncapital offense involving a violation of any provision listed in section 2332b(g)(5)(B), or a violation of section 112, 351(e), 1361, or 1751(e) of this title, or section 46504, 46505, or 46506 of title 49, unless the indictment is found or the information is instituted within 8 years after the offense was committed. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, offenses listed in section 3295 are subject to the statute of limitations set forth in that section.

(b0 NO LIMITATION- Notwithstanding any other law,) an indictment may be found or any information instituted at any time without limitation for any offense listed in section 2332b(g)(5)(B), if the commission of such offense resulted in, or created a forseeable risk of, death or serious bodily injury to another person.'.


!!!!!!!!!!

'any informations...any time WITHOUT LIMITATION for ANY OFFENSE'!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

'foseeable risk????????'

WTF does THAT mean?

[DemReadingDU]

29. I'd like to watch this on CSPAN

Hope you can find a link.
Bookmarking for reading tomorrow.

[Gabi Hayes]

32. I'm looking...found this, and it's sad, as you'll see. nobody here paid attention last week

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x592004

[Gabi Hayes]

30. more from ACLU: the original PATRIOT greatly expands use of 'domestic terrorism' rubric.

http://www.aclu.org/natsec/emergpowers/14444leg20021206.html

''Seizure of assets - Sec. 806: Section 806 of the Act could result in the civil seizure of their assets without a prior hearing, and without them ever being convicted of a crime. It is by far the most significant change of which political organizations need to be aware. Section 806 amended the civil asset forfeiture statute to authorize the government to seize and forfeit: all assets, foreign or domestic (i) of any individual, entity, or organization engaged in planning or perpetrating any act of domestic or international terrorism against the United States, or their property, and all assets, foreign or domestic, affording any person a source of influence over any such entity or organization or (ii) acquired or maintained by any person with the intent and for the purpose of supporting, planning, conducting, or concealing an act of domestic or international terrorism against the United States, citizens or residents of the United States or their property or (iii) derived from, involved in, or used or intended to be used to commit any act of domestic or international terrorism against the United States, citizens or residents of the United States, or their property.

This language is broad enough to authorize the government to seize any assets of any individuals involved in the Vieques Island protests or of any organization supporting the protests of which the person is a member, or from any individuals who were supporting the protesters in any way. Possible supporters of the protesters could include student organizations that sponsored participation in the demonstration, the Rainbow/Push Coalition, the Rev. Sharpton's National Action Network, and religious or community organizations that provided housing or food to the protesters. ''

stuff like this is obviously old news, but it doesn't make it any less FASCIST!

and who was the ONLY member of the Senate to vote against this?

the ONLY one......

[Altean Wanderer]

60. Was it Paul Wellstone? Pray tell. n/t

[hfojvt]

74. It was Feingold, but Landrieu didn't vote for it either

Surprised that Wellstone did
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00313

[slipslidingaway]

34. Thank you, this may be the c-span link.

"Discussion on the USA Patriot Act and Libraries
Peter Chase, Library Connection, Board of Directors President & George Christian, Library Connection, Executive Director talked about their experience in challenging a Federal Bureau of Investigation demand for library patron records. This program, titled ?Gagged by the Government?Two Librarians Tell How They Resisted the USA PATRIOT Act,? was the Vermont Library Association?s biannual John Swan Intellectual Freedom Lecture.
3/20/2007: BURLINGTON, VT: 1 hr. 23 min."

http://www.cspan.org/search/basic.asp?ResultStart=1&ResultCount=10&BasicQueryText=George+Christian&image1.x=24&image1.y=8


If the above link does not work then use the video search link with the name George Christian.

http://www.cspan.org/homepage.asp

[DemReadingDU]

35. Thanks!

I just found the same thing by searching CSPAN.

[slipslidingaway]

36. YW, I'm half listening/watching now. n/t

[Gabi Hayes]

46. that's exactly how I started out....almost changed channels, then I realized

how Orwellian this situation was, how utterly, Kafkaesquely fascistic the tactics of OUR government have become, in service of WHAT?

I just couldn't believe what I was seeing, and the irony of the story being told by a fricking liBRARian made it all the more compelling.

the most sadly, in a way, compelling moment was at the end, when a lone woman stood during the final applause, and the rest of the small audience VERY slowly stood as one to salute the bravery of these people. A lonely crowd saluting lonely heroes, about almost everybody hasn't heard word one.

we ignore these people and their story at GREAT peril.

we really have reached a turning point, and if we don't force congress to reveal the depth and breath of the constitutional rape and TREASON being committed, we're going to end up like the victims of Bernays' and Goebbels' marketing schemes over seventy years ago.

[slipslidingaway]

51. So true, in service of WHAT? Surely not the people. n/t

[Breeze54]

37. C-SPAN VIDEO - “Gagged by the Government—Two Librarians Tell How They Resisted the USA PATRIOT Act"

Discussion on the USA Patriot Act and Libraries
Peter Chase, Library Connection, Board of Directors President & George Christian, Library Connection,
Executive Director talked about their experience in challenging a Federal Bureau of Investigation
demand for library patron records. This program, titled “Gagged by the Government—Two Librarians Tell
How They Resisted the USA PATRIOT Act,” was the Vermont Library Association’s biannual John Swan
Intellectual Freedom Lecture.

3/20/2007: BURLINGTON, VT: 1 hr. 23 min.

http://www.c-span.org/VideoArchives.asp?CatCodePairs=Current_Event,Terr&ArchiveDays=365&Page=2

-----------------

On Edit - just viewed all the posts and saw someone already posted this 10 minutes before me.
Oh well... ;)

[MountainLaurel]

38. I heard them speak at the American Library Association conference

Last year. There they were able to announce, about 30 minutes prior to the formal announcement by the FBI, that the bureau was rescinding the NSL and was giving up on its fishing expedition. But I concur on how frightening their story was. I could not imagine being threatened with federal prison under terrorism laws simply for looking at your attorney in the courtroom, AFTER the FBI had leaked their identities to the press. Hell, I couldn't imagine telling my husband that I wasn't going to work that day because I had to drive into the city and not telling him why (they weren't allowed to divulge to their spouses that they were part of this case).

[Gabi Hayes]

42. this has happened to AT LEAST THIRTY THOUSAND People!

US citizens, and they can NEVER, EVER discuss it!

even with their family members!

and the FBI has SEEN to it that, unless they fuck up again, the judicial system will NEVER be able to review it!

WHERE Are the fffffing Dems on this?

[MountainLaurel]

65. That is such a good question

With the exception of a few (I'm thinking of Bernie Sanders' work on freedom of information in libraries), I guess they're too busy cozying up to the religious reich and defense contractors to worry about little things like civil liberties.

[Mme. Defarge]

72. 30,000 a year?

[bonito]

39. These NSL's should find their way to the Judiciary committees

of both the house and senate, this administration doesn't represent the people or the constitution, so abiding by their criminal behavior would be like aiding it.

[HuffleClaw]

40. truly the scariest thing i've heard of in ages

how this HASN'T been dealt with by the courts i don't know. the secrecy thing would seem to be blatantly illegal.

[slipslidingaway]

41. The Justice Department's false statements

snip>>

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/03/12/nsl/index.html

"Based on the DOJ's false assurances, Congress dismissed away the concerns of Russ Feingold and The Post and overwhelmingly voted to re-authorize the Patriot Act. In doing so, they re-authorized the dramatically expanded NSLs, which were first authorized (in expanded form) in September, 2001.

But now, as we know, the assurances given by the DOJ were completely false. As a result, when the Inspector General's Report was issued last week, the Assistant Attorney General, Richard Hertling, simultaneously sent a letter to Senators Specter and Leahy retracting the DOJ's prior statements about NSLs, and specifically retracted large parts of the November, 2005 letter sent by the DOJ designed to dispute the Post article.

That retraction letter is here (.pdf) (link fixed). This is the last paragraph:"

[Gabi Hayes]

43. so will Gonzales have Mueller arrest himself for making false statements to Congress?

I'm not kidding.

Libby is going to jail for that.

[slipslidingaway]

48. So many should be in jail, too bad the hearing with Feingold

was not aired, somehow we need to keep better track of what is going on and not get caught up in the story of the day.

[nam78_two]

44. K&R-Thank you for posting this.nt

[havocmom]

45. . (mark for later)

[Disturbed]

50. Is Feingold the only one that read all of this anti-Constitutional

Fascist crap?

[Gabi Hayes]

53. well, he's the ONLY one who voted against it in the Senate.

He apparently read enough to realize how truly dangerous it is.

and they reAUTHORIZED it just recently, under the DEM congress!

it's even WORSE than it was before, despite some cosmetic changes

[Jonathan50]

47. I know something scarier..

So scary people at DU refuse to discuss it.

The most important characteristic of a police state is that it has a lot of people caged like animals.


http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0818/p02s01-usju.html

US notches world's highest incarceration rate

A report highlights extent to which many citizens have served time in prison.

By Gail Russell Chaddock | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

WASHINGTON – More than 5.6 million Americans are in prison or have served time there, according to a new report by the Justice Department released Sunday. That's 1 in 37 adults living in the United States, the highest incarceration level in the world.

It's the first time the US government has released estimates of the extent of imprisonment, and the report's statistics have broad implications for everything from state fiscal crises to how other nations view the American experience.

If current trends continue, it means that a black male in the United States would have about a 1 in 3 chance of going to prison during his lifetime. For a Hispanic male, it's 1 in 6; for a white male, 1 in 17.

The numbers come after many years of get-tough policies - and years when violent-crime rates have generally fallen. But to some observers, they point to broader failures in US society, particularly in regard to racial minorities and others who are economically disadvantaged.

"These new numbers are shocking enough, but what we don't see are the ripple effects of what they mean: For the generation of black children today, there's almost an inevitable aspect of going to prison," says Marc Mauer, assistant director of The Sentencing Project, a nonprofit advocacy group based in Washington. "We have the wealthiest society in human history, and we maintain the highest level of imprisonment. It's striking what that says about our approach to social problems and inequality."

[femrap]

76. We have become the old Soviet Union....

Just call us Soviet Union West .

Now can we Impeach, Indict, Imprison?

[slipslidingaway]

49. Without the ACLU we would not even be reading or listening to

this now.

[Gabi Hayes]

52. Thanks! I forgot to include this at the top:

http://action.aclu.org/site/PageServer?pagename=FJ_donationhome

Our rights depend on our willingness to defend them. By joining the ACLU today, you'll be doing your part to protect our basic freedoms.

[lonestarnot]

67. Don't forget to donate if you have some extra bucks.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

54. Given how the FBI folded on this one, maybe they would fold on more if more spoke out.

Given how the FBI folded on this one, maybe they would fold on more case if more people spoke out. No question it takes courage to stand up like these librarians.

Our constitution defended by librarians while supposedly braver people cave.

The true pillars of society are often the quiet people like Rosa Parks and the librarians.

[H2O Man]

57. Well said. n/t

[CrispyQ]

62. Rework your post a little & you have an excellent LTTE!

:thumbsup:

You make an excellent point. We should all pen something to our local paper as well as send sections of this thread to our libraries.

k&r

[SarahB]

55. I live in this area.

I've checked out many, many progressive political books in the past 10 years.

Wonder if I'm on the "list"? :tinfoilhat:

I'd kind of like my Constitution back. :(

[cooolandrew]

58. Not all Alex Jones says is accurate but with patriot act he had every right for his outrage.

[file83]

71. Can you imagine 130,000 Americans have been issued these letters!?!

Alex Jones has been waving the red flag on so many issues - including the Patriot Act from the beginning. Many Americans thought "Alex Jones is paranoid" - and yet - 130,000 Americans are being prevented for the REST OF THEIR LIVES from talking about whatever abuses on freedom OUR GOVERNMENT maybe involved in.

Think about that. Total immunity from law & public awareness. Carte Blanche authority to do whatever they want without fear of exposure. We all know what history has taught us when governments have that kind of power.

Alex Jones may get a little hyper every now and then, but rare is it when his analysis is faulty.

[nolabels]

81. Okay, lets just think about it for a moment

Alex Jones along with a whole lot of other people have said things that were not all correct. The hard part is the acknowledgment that they were correct if even just some. You don't really have to be a nut, just put two and two together like a person like Alex does. Do you believe all them rich cats would be spending all this money on ownership of media infrastructure if there was not going to be a big payoff in the future?

Using the instrument of Corporate mass-media the rich can virtually chose who will be elected and please tell me that isn't a very evil clout :shrug:

Alex Jones is sniffing around the edges checking the stuff that hasn't just fit in yet. He is trying to see what the plans the rich and greedy have in the future and then telling the rest of us in the process. He mostly looks kooky because of the Kooky power drunk operators he is investigating.

[terip64]

59. kick

[CrazyOrangeCat]

63. kick

[ThomWV]

64. I Watched It Online As It Was Going On. I Was Simply Stunned

I thought it was the most important thing I had ever seen on C-Span.

[ms liberty]

66. A very important story, one that every American should hear, but won't...K&R n/t

[BrklynLiberal]

69. Scary as hell is right!!!

[roody]

73. DONATE to ACLU!!!!!

[toddaa]

78. kick

This really is one of the most important posts I've seen on DU in a long while.

[Faygo Kid]

79. Anyone who thinks this gang will give up power easily better read this

We talk about an election in 2008 like it's a done deal. I don't think so. One more attack on U.S. soil - by anyone - and we may not have to worry about election fraud, because there may not be one. I listen to the right wing nut jobs on Fox and talk radio solely to get the talking points. They are not getting friendlier towards defending the Constitution, that's for sure. Bush ought to watch "Seven Days in May," and be reminded that not everyone in power will go along with his taking this country down in a dictatorship.

[Cetacea]

82. Kicking eom.

[IWantAChange]

83. K&R - this is as important a story as anything that has come to light in years...

somehow, someway this has to make it before Leahy, Conyers or Waxman as part of the AG inquiry...

[tyedyeto]

84. Another Kick

This is too important to let slide to page 2 or 3 of GD.

[Kool Kitty]

87. Kick for the latenight crew.

Please read. I saw these guys on C-Span and it was really frightening.

[Gabi Hayes]

95. same here. it's hard to describe how my response went from one of casual

boredom...typical CSPAN gathering...to, "wait a minute, this is HEINOUS!".....too, you can't get much MORE fascistic, more Kafkaesque than this....how can this story not be amongst the biggest outrages of the year, if not the entire crooked junta?

It STILL is getting zero national publicity, except what it got in the NYT, which, as I remember watching, seemed to be trying to nail the one librarian whose name they had, almost LURING him into saying things that the FBI would prosecute him for

[Gabi Hayes]

96. this isn't going away, unless people just forget about it.

call your congressperson!

[Gabi Hayes]

98. na ga let go

run its course?

nobody cares anymore?