********************************************************* U.S. SUBPOENAS ACLU, ACLU FIGHTS BACK From the Desk of Anthony D. Romero Executive Director, ACLU ***********************************************************
Dear Friend,
I am writing to tell you about some breaking news of grave importance to the ACLU. Because it is going to be a big battle -- with fundamental principles at stake -- I wanted you to be the first to hear about it.
This week, the ACLU asked a federal judge to quash a grand jury subpoena that demands that the ACLU turn over to the FBI "any and all copies" of a December 2005 government document in our possession.
The three-and-a-half page document, issued in December 2005, is marked "Secret" and apparently is classified. We received the document, unsolicited, on October 23, 2006.
This attempt by the Bush Administration to suppress information using the grand jury process is truly chilling and is unprecedented in law and in our history as an organization. The subpoena serves no legitimate investigative purpose and tramples on fundamental First Amendment rights. We recognize this maneuver for what it is: a patent attempt to intimidate and impede the work of human rights advocates like the ACLU who seek to expose government wrongdoing.
The most significant thing about this legal face-off is not the content of the document, but the government's unprecedented effort to suppress it. No official secrets act has yet been signed into law, and the grand jury's subpoena power cannot be used to create one.
If the government can enforce a subpoena in this way, it could just as easily have subpoenaed the Pentagon Papers from The New York Times and The Washington Post. The effect of the subpoena is no different than a prior restraint and it is equally unconstitutional.
In the landmark Pentagon Papers case, the Supreme Court said that the government cannot seek to bar newspapers from publishing even classified documents unless the information would cause "direct, immediate and irreparable harm to our Nation and its people."
While release of the document in this case might be mildly embarrassing to the government, our possession of it is legal and its release could in no way threaten national security. To the contrary, the designation of the document as "Secret" "appears to be a striking example of the Bush administration's rampant use of claims of "state secrecy" and overclassification of documents and information to hide its actions.
As we note in our brief, many of the most important news articles of the past year (such as those concerning NSA eavesdropping, rendition of foreign prisoners of our nation to other nations, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld's views on the deteriorating situation in Iraq, National Security Advisor Hadley's assessment of Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki, and the report on the Iraq insurgency's funding sources) have been based on classified documents leaked to reporters, which could not be prepared and published as they have been were the government allowed to use subpoenas to confiscate "any and all" copies of classified documents it learns are in the hands of journalists and other public advocates and critics.
The ACLU is no stranger to the government's use of such tactics to try to silence their critics. You can rest assured that even with the full weight of the federal government pressing down on us, we will act with courage and conviction in the days ahead.
As in other historic ACLU efforts to defend freedom, our ability to stand firm in matters such as this is strengthened by the support from you and other ACLU members and activists.
Please stay closely attuned to developments in this serious matter and all of our other vital work to defend freedom.
Sincerely, Anthony D. Romero Executive Director ACLU
I feel the ACLU is every bit as bad as the Bush administration when it comes to eliminating the freedoms of American citizens. Why would someone think this one might ask? Well the answer is Hazelton Pennsyvania.When a group of American citizens attempt to exercise their rights to govern themselve in a sovereign country, by dealing with the blatant violation of immigration law and its undesirable effects and costs and are sued by the ACLU for doing so one has to question the motives and the funding of the ACLU.
The ACLU claims that towns cannot set immigration law and thus should be sued for attempting something that is out of its jurisdiction is completely flawed.The absolute proof of the ACLUs prejudiced views lies in the fact that when towns declare themselves safe havens for illegal aleins the ACLU does nothing. It may be possible that the ACLU has become just another corporate sponsored organization to fight for the hidden agenda of cheap labor for big business.
by
Gary Denson (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 247 comments)
on Thursday, December 14, 2006 at 4:42:37 PM
1 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
