U.S. Subpoenas ACLU Over Possession Of Secret Document
Posted on December 13, 2006
Via the ACLU we find out the U.S. government is finally being proactive against the ACLU in protecting classified information from being leaked for our enemies to know.
The American Civil Liberties Union today announced that it has asked a federal judge to quash a grand jury subpoena demanding that it turn over to the FBI “any and all copies” of a December 2005 government document in its possession.
The ACLU called the subpoena, served on November 20 by the U.S. Attorney’s office in New York, a transparent attempt to intimidate government critics and suppress informed criticism and reporting.
“The government’s attempt to suppress information using the grand jury process is truly chilling and is unprecedented in law and in the ACLU’s history,” said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero. “This 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 three-and-a-half page document, issued in December 2005, is marked “Secret” and apparently is classified. The ACLU received the document, unsolicited, on October 23, 2006.
Apparently a document marked “Secret” is classified? You don’t say! Someone please tell me the ACLU is really this stupid. Quite a scary thing that such a dangerous organization like the ACLU has its hands on classified information. I think the ACLU has already demonstrated how reckless they can be with secret information. You can bet there would be no regard to National Security.
The ACLU think that exposing government wrongdoing is exposing to the enemy the governments efforts and techniques to secure our nation.
In legal papers, the ACLU said that while release of the document might be “mildly embarrassing” to the government, the ACLU’s possession of it is legal and its release could in no way threaten national security. To the contrary, the ACLU said, the designation of the generally unremarkable document as “Secret” “appears to be a striking, yet typical, example of overclassification.”
So who elected the ACLU to determine what should or shouldn’t be classified? And if the document is so “unremarkable” why are they fighting so hard to keep it? The ACLU then goes on to justify having classified information by stating that some of the biggest news of the past year came from leaks of classified information, like the NSA surveillance program, SWIFT, etc. I think we all remember how the ACLU handled these leaks. When it comes to National Security, the ACLU has created a dangerous reputation. I don’t think they should have any say so in what remains classified or not.
Rob at Say Anything sums it up:
So, basically, the ACLU is claiming that the Bush administration is trying to “suppress information†by getting some leaked classified documents back. But isn’t the government supposed to suppress classified information? Isn’t that the reason it is classified in the first place? I mean, if the government isn’t supposed to be suppressing classified information, then why are we classifying it in the first place?
And how does the government requesting leaked classified documents back violate the ACLU’s first amendment rights? Surely the ACLU isn’t suggesting that first amendment rights extend to illegal leaks of private information, otherwise I wouldn’t be able to stop someone who obtained my bank records from somebody at the bank who illegally divulged them from putting my private information on the internet.
I sometimes wonder if the ACLU even takes its own arguments seriously.
Although the ACLU has been told that it is not a target of the investigation, which I think it should be, it is interesting that the the subpoena refers to the Espionage Act. That is too bad. The FBI have their own concerns over the ACLU. Between the shady business of their funding issues, helping America’s enemies, spying on their own members, and FBI concerns; there are many reasons besides illegally obtaining classified information that the ACLU should be investigated.
I’m just glad to see the government being proactive to prevent classified information from falling into the hands of our enemies. If the ACLU has its way that is where it will end up.
Also see: Washington Post
NY Times
This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay at Jay@stoptheaclu.com or Gribbit at GribbitR@gmail.com. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 200 blogs already on-board.
» Filed Under Uncategorized
Trackback URL
Comments
36 Responses to “U.S. Subpoenas ACLU Over Possession Of Secret Document”
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Donate
Suggestions
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
For the principle. Also to highlight the fact that documents are routinely classified unnecessarily.
How can a democracy function without a large dose of transparency? Sure we can “choose” new representatives based on their promises to lower taxes or be more ethical, but it’s all just theater if the government can hide everything it doesn’t want us to know about.
Ok. Who should?
“Ok. Who should?” -Jeff Molby
Hmmm….I don’t know Jeff, how about the Department Of Defense. N
Funny how when the Democrats have clandestine meetings with Hamas your response is “I don’t ask for 100% transparency”, but when the ACLU comes to have papers marked SECRET by the D.O.D. we get “How can a democracy function without a large dose of transparency? Sure we can “choose†new representatives based on their promises to lower taxes or be more ethical, but it’s all just theater if the government can hide everything it doesn’t want us to know about.”. Usually we can count on you for intelligent arguments and counterpoints, but this is just plain and clear toeing the party line.
I’d like more transparency from the ACLU. See what they say when you ask for their policy guide Jeff.
If the executive branch demonstrated the ability to use the classification system appropriately, that would be fine. Human nature being what it is, they overuse (I’m tempted to say “abuse”) the system, so I need some meaningful oversight. If you want to empower the other branches to do this, I’m all for it. If not, I’ll continue to be grateful when insiders leak information that was incorrectly classified.
I don’t see the humor or the contradiction. I don’t ask for 100% transparency. I ask for a lot, but not 100%.
Here’s my position. Feel free to refer to it next time you feel I’ve contradicted myself on this issue.
- The burden of proof is on the classifier to demonstrate that the document would cause irreparable harm to our security if it was released.
- The classifier must also be able to demonstrate that the document does refers to programs and actions that are clearly legal. (Note: I’d probably be willing to overlook petty crimes if the first condition has been satisfied)
I reserve the right to amend that position, but at this point, I think the above points accurately describe how I feel about the subject.
Which party would that be? I hate it when anyone uses the classification system for anything other than protecting information on legal programs that require a high level of secrecy.
The ACLU seems convinced that this document doesn’t qualify and given that the government has a tendency to err on the side of classifying everything, I’m inclined to believe them.
I don’t mind them being subpoenaed though. I’m all for letting a judge review the situation.
I would too, but they’re a private organization. They don’t have to answer any more questions than Rush or the Seattle Seahawks.
Not 100% transparency! Not when its Democrats meeting secretly with our enemies! Only when the ACLU who defends our enemies thinks the government should be transparent. You should see the post below this one Jeff.
“If the executive branch demonstrated the ability to use the classification system appropriately, that would be fine. Human nature being what it is, they overuse (I’m tempted to say “abuseâ€Â) the system, so I need some meaningful oversight. If you want to empower the other branches to do this, I’m all for it. If not, I’ll continue to be grateful when insiders leak information that was incorrectly classified.” -Jeff Molby
Ok, prove the abuse and or misclassification.
The fact that they got “leaked” actual secret documents and did not turn them into the proper agency, to me, does not speak well of their intentions. Had they turned the documents in and then went through “legal” channels to have the document disclosed publicly, I would have no problem with their actions.
“I don’t see the humor or the contradiction. I don’t ask for 100% transparency. I ask for a lot, but not 100%.” -Jeff Molby
Maybe contradiction is the wrong term, double standard seems to fit better.
“Which party would that be? I hate it when anyone uses the classification system for anything other than protecting information on legal programs that require a high level of secrecy.
The ACLU seems convinced that this document doesn’t qualify and given that the government has a tendency to err on the side of classifying everything, I’m inclined to believe them.” -Jeff Molby
That would be the party line.
First and foremost, regardless of how you feel about the contents of a document, the fact that it is marked “SECRET” by the D.O.D. means that you should not have it (unless you have the proper clearance and the “NEED TO KNOW”. Because YOU want to know, or because YOU think it should be widely known doesn’t mean squat while that stamp is on it.
“I would too, but they’re a private organization. They don’t have to answer any more questions than Rush or the Seattle Seahawks.” -Jeff Molby
Yet another reason they should not be in possession of D.O.D. classified material. There are legal channels they should have gone through from the get go.
Absolutely! Well said Sevenseas. The proper channel that they usually go through is the Freedom of Information Act, where they have obtained most of their info. This is actually the first I’ve heard of them getting classified info from an unsolicited source.
As much as people may not like the government, they are still the government…full of checks and balances. If anyone has the right to deem what should or should not be secret it is DOD. The ACLU is not the DOD, far from it.
It’s inherently difficult to prove things you are forbidden to know, but I’ll take a stab at it.
Here, here, and here you will find three examples. The “Pentagon Papers” were released “illegally”, and SCOTUS eventually permitted them to be published. In the other two cases, the documents were eventually released under subpoena. Unfortunately, this is a limited tactic. You can only subpoena something if you’re aware of its existence.
It’s not unreasonable to believe that “unremarkable”, yet “mildly embarrassing” documents are frequently classified unnecessarily when you remember that the entire classification, maintenance, and review processes are all run by people who report to one man. It’s impossible to prove this with anything less than a massive declassification and research project, so it is easy to write it off as a conspiracy, but it’s not like I’m talking about UFOs.
It doesn’t take much imagination to think that humans with broad powers would regularly use them to cover up minor blemishes and occasionally to cover up huge blemishes.
That’s basically a reflection of your overall opinion of them. They believe they came into possession of it legally, so if proper intentions would be to do whatever the government would want, then yes, their intentions are clearly not compatible with your expectations. OTOH, if proper intentions are to do everything in their legal power to inform the people and defend the first amendment, it makes perfect sense that they would keep the document.
I offered a single standard which explains both positions. It was a bit off-the-cuff, so it probably isn’t perfect, but it was an honest attempt. I’m not foolish enough to say the world is black or white. I’m just trying to convey what shade of gray I think it is.
I suppose you can call it that if you like. I don’t deny that both the ACLU and I are skeptical of our governments by default.
Says who? The DoD and their bosses? The edict of one branch doesn’t carry much weight with me.
Whether they should or shouldn’t have it is irrelevant. To the best of my knowledge, it is not a crime to possess classified information. If it were, we’d all be guilty for knowing about any of the government programs that were leaked over the past few years.
These statements are false. FoIA specifically excludes classified material. The only “proper channels” are subpoenas, which are only useful when you already know a lot about the materials in question, and sitting around hoping the DoD declassifies the materials you want.
To the best of my knowledge, there are no checks or balances on the classification system except for subpoenas.
Sorry, forgot the links.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pentagon_Papers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_tapes
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/01/AR2006080101300.html?sub=AR)
Here’s one more that I found interesting. I don’t have time to read this thoroughly, so consider it bonus material, not intended to directly support my argument.
It has also been suggested that overclassification actually hurts national security. Yes, DHS was supposed to smooth all that out, but the jury is still out on whether much has actually changed.
http://foi.missouri.edu/classdeclass/toomuchsecrecy.html
To the best of my knowledge, it is not a crime to possess classified information.
Actually, it is. Here are two excerpts from two different cases…
“Kenneth Wayne Ford, Jr., age 34, of Waldorf, Maryland, was sentenced on March 30, 2006 to 72 months in prison, followed by 3 years of supervised release for unlawfully possessing classified information related to the national defense…”
and
“Franklin, 58, a specialist on Iran, pleaded guilty to two conspiracy counts and a third charge of possessing classified documents. As part of the plea agreement, Franklin has agreed to cooperate in the larger federal investigation…”
It is VERY illegal to possess classified documents if you have no security clearance to view/posses them. The ACLU has no right to attempt to determine what should/should not be classified. They are suppose to be an organization that battles for the civil liberties of U.S. citizens, not protecting the government from itself. It is always and forever the DOD’s decision to determine what is classified. We have checks and balances, and the ACLU is not one of them. They have no government authority and withholding a classified document is criminal. They should be forced to give up the document, and give a clear account as to how it came to be in their possession. What they are doing may even be interpreted as obstruction of justice. There is simply no defense for what they are doing.
Must I start paying attention to the moronic comments left here again. Once again we have a leftist POS moron who likes to spew his venom here instead of getting his own effin forum.
Jeff… BUZZ OFF! Your rantings are NOT welcomed by right thinking people. Your ignorance and defense of the indefensible is nauseating.
Perhaps you need a history lesson (or better yet a swift kick in the [edited]). Either way, I haven’t the time nor the inclination to deal with your infantile lunacy. So… don’t go away mad… just go away.
Oh, and just so you know.. Wikipedia isn’t known as a very reliable source on the net. Try again troll.
Then why a subpoena instead of criminal charges? The ACLU doesn’t dispute that they have the document.
I’m sorry, but I don’t accept unchecked power in anyone’s hands.
I missed you too, Gribbit.
It’s fairly reliable, but I agree that it isn’t authoritative. I hesitated to do it, but it was already well after midnight and the examples aren’t very controversial. The watergate tapes, pentagon papers, and 9/11 ATC tapes all exist and they were all originally classified.
Jeff, seriously, come back and talk when you can actually talk sense again.
Everyone has stated their opinions, so I’ll agree to disagree and drop it.
I’m curious though. Which part didn’t you understand? That was one of the most concise posts I’ve ever made.
“Then why a subpoena instead of criminal charges? The ACLU doesn’t dispute that they have the document.”
I’m guessing the criminal charges would come in if the ACLU refuses to acknowledge the subpoena.
“I’m sorry, but I don’t accept unchecked power in anyone’s hands.”
You’ll just have to deal with it, because that is the law. You also already acknowledged that there is a check and balance, the subpoenas. In any event, it certainly doesn’t justify the ACLU holding on to classified documents.
I don’t have a crystal ball, but I find that unlikely. There is a long history of private organizations possessing classified material. My understanding is that the charges are virtually always targeted at the leaker, rather than the possessor.
Indeed, As you’ll have to live with the leaks, because the law makes it fairly easy.
The truth is that I don’t believe leaks are the right answer. It really shouldn’t be up to a private organization to decide what will hurt our national security, but in the absence of meaningful oversight (again, I don’t believe the subpoena qualifies) from another branch, I’m grateful when overly classified material is leaked.
Again… more rantings from someone who likes to complain on someone else’s forum, but alas no forum of his own.
Jeff… if you haven’t noticed by now, I don’t like people like you who come to someone’s forum and comments without a forum of their own. People like you who pontificate but yet don’t allow others to do the same on yours.
So I must ask, if you have so much to say, why is it that you cannot construct a forum of your own?
On my blog, there is a rule, no link no voice. And that is pro or con. On my posts here, the same goes. So why is it that you feel that you have a right to lecture on someone else’s dime? Why do you think that it is ok to go to a site paid for by someone else and start commenting?
Here are the realities, you are an insignificant twig in the forest of life. Defending this organization when there is no logical defense for it is not only annoying, it shows your total lack of knowledge.
As for Wikipedia, ummm there is a reason why the founder is setting up a rival to it now. He says that his former brainchild has become unreliable. Go figure. When libs like you are permitted to revise history at will.
I have personal reasons for not doing so yet. But even so, this blog covers topics that I’m concerned about and it has an audience of thoughtful people. As long as the owners of the blog welcome me, I will continue to interact with them.
I’ll respect your rules.
This blog allowed me to create an account and post comments. I have posted many such comments without being banned, so I think it’s safe to say that my presence is tolerated, if not welcomed. If that changes, I will leave quietly. I don’t profess to have any inherent right to comment on this, or any other, blog.
I’ll restate. On the whole, the content of Wikipedia is largely accurate, but as you mention, it is easy to manipulate and therefore cannot be entirely relied on.
Having said that, I still believe the information that I cited within Wikipedia in this instance are substantially accurate.
Be careful with your assumptions. I have voted in every general election that I was eligible for and have yet to cast a single vote for a Democrat. The vast majority were for Republicans.
Jeff… watch out for my rules…
You’ll find out shortly why…
Next, blogging platforms are available for free. If you have time to pontificate on this blog, you have time to write one of your own. Tease and link.
And as for my assumptions, anyone who defends the ACLU is a freakin socialist. Plain and simple.
Founded by socialists, have socialist goals, have been the driving force in implementing the 45 goals of the Communist Party for the take over of America, AND all 10 planks of Communism as outlined in the Communist Manifesto.
So, care to debate? My show is on midnight - 2 am EST on wideawakesradio.
Oh and just so you know, I’ve voted in 5 Presidential elections, wisdom comes with experience.
Indeed, but I wouldn’t have time to do both. This forum suits my needs and desires, so why reinvent the wheel if I’m welcome here?
Guilt by association? I don’t really defend the organization. I’m sure they step out of line at times and I’m sure they advocate things I disagree with.
When I speak up here, it’s usually because I think their policy on a particular matter is being unfairly criticized. I can assure that that won’t happen on a matter that can be accurately labeled as “socialist.” I don’t share any views they might have of that nature.
As I mentioned to Jay a couple weeks ago, I’m not really fond of radio shows. The pace of the forum makes it too easy for nonsequiturs to derail the discussion.
But I do appreciate the invite and I’ll keep it in mind.
Indeed, but it is not the sole factor. I don’t profess to be more, less, or equally wise as you. I don’t engage in discussions in an attempt to “educate misguided fools” or anything like that. I’m here because I want to discuss constitutional issues with intelligent, open minded people. I have no doubt that we will all learn things along the way and become more wise in the process.
Then here is your option… get your own forum, or shut the hell up.. You said that this forum suits your needs, but it isn’t here for you to pontificate. But you do anyway. What is difficult for you to understand.
You obviously have enough time to leave your novel length comments, then you have the ability to write a post, drop buy, leave a link and a teaser. This is NOT YOUR FORUM. It is ours.
And again… scroll up to the contributors in the right sidebar… take a look at the names…. Pay attention… Get your own forum… And if you care to stand by your words, whether you like radio or not, that is where you debate. Anonymous forums are not debate. Put your entire reputation at risk. We do.. But you don’t.
I think you are a coward. If not prove it… toll free and my phones are going to be open specifically for you tonight. 1-888-407-1776.
You don’t like radio, that is a cop out. Prove you aren’t a coward and call in…
Of course, it’s not here specifically for me, which is why I’m not authorized to make top-level posts. It does, however, offer me a place to submit comments in regards to top-level posts. I appreciate that you folks give me that opportunity, so I do my best to keep my posts polite and on-topic.
Of course it is, but I assume that you allow comments in addition to trackbacks because you wanted to encourage some degree of discussion.
I stand by all of my words, except for the occasional retraction. I attach my name to every comment I make, so I don’t see how there is anything anonymous about it. My reputation is at risk. A Google search will list every comment I’ve made here. That makes them several orders of magnitude more permanent and more attached to my reputation than any comments I might make on a radio show.
I’m also confused by the distinction you draw between blogs and radio shows. You say I shouldn’t voice my views on a someone else’s blog, yet you challenge me to do so on your radio show. Why is one a suitable place for outside opinions if the other isn’t?
The truth is that I don’t believe leaks are the right answer. It really shouldn’t be up to a private organization to decide what will hurt our national security, but in the absence of meaningful oversight (again, I don’t believe the subpoena qualifies) from another branch, I’m grateful when overly classified material is leaked.
That is your opinion. We have discussed the fact that both Houses of Congress have oversight committees. There is also this; National Archives Information Security Oversight Office
The bases are covered. You just don’t like what’s there or don’t agree with it.
That’s correct, I’m not satisfied with the status quo. You are; That’s fine, we can drop it.
NARA does not have the authority to declassify a document if the originating department disagrees with its assessment. It also doesn’t have the authority to make redacted versions of a document if the originating department disagrees.
So yeah, it’s good that there are some eyes on the task, but if they don’t have any authority, it doesn’t accomplish much.
In fact, your link only illustrates my concern. It focuses only on documents that were declassified and later reclassified, but it lends support to the notion that a significant percentage of documents are unnecessarily classified.
Gribbit, Jeff is alright. He’s not here starting any trouble. He’s just having fun debating. I like having someone to debate…it keeps my brain from rusting. I’m glad to have someone that is polite while they debate. He’s not the guy to go after. We do still have some of the hateful ignorants that come around…and please bash them. I know you think he should have a blog to be allowed to comment, and on your posts that can be enforced. I don’t agree that people should have to have a blog just to state their disagreements with me on the blog. I provided a comment section for discussion. They already remain too empty…I’m glad some debate is back and that it is polite.
Make sure when Meatbrain comes around though…just delete and bash to your heart’s content.
It focuses only on documents that were declassified and later reclassified, but it lends support to the notion that a significant percentage of documents are unnecessarily classified.
I haven’t said that it’s not flawed but it is considerably better than allowing an organization that is not representative of the people, and has an agenda to boot, to determine what should be classified or not and what should be divulged.
You are advocating for the ACLU and saying that you are not comfortable with the oversight that is in place.
What oversight is the ACLU subject to?
As I pointed out in comment 45, I don’t think any part of the status quo is good. Private organizations are not the proper way to handle this sort of thing, but at this point, it’s the only method we have of getting information that the government really doesn’t want us to have.
IMHO, he is no different than any other moron who defends the indefensable. He is here not to stir up debate, but to dominate the comments section of this blog.
My point is this, if he has time to write novel length comments, then he has time to have his own forum. I have mine, in addition to being a contributor everywhere. My problem is I don’t have time to write everywhere. But he can at least write at one.
Blogger is free
Blogsome is free
typepad is free
wordpress.com is free
There is no excuse not to have a blog.
And again, debate cannot be done in text form over the internet. It does not hold the individual to an argument because of the anonymity involved.
Since you enjoy having a pet troll, than enjoy your pet Jay. I’ll just go back to not paying the comments any attention. It seems silly to me to allow those who wish to dump all over your thoughts unfettered access to do so without holding them accountable in some way.
Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free.
Usually that applies to women, but I think it is rather fitting here.
The “indefensible” being anything you don’t happen to agree with?
I’m here to converse with intelligent people. I suppose I could spout my opinion in one post and leave it at that, but what good would that do?
I have no desire to dominate anything. In fact, I wish there were a few more like-minded folks around here so that I wouldn’t be Lobo’s and Jay’s only foil. It is tiring.
I have several reasons, thank you. I don’t comment or make assumptions about your personal business and I expect the same in return.
I still don’t understand this statement. My name and IP address is attached to every statement I make, which is kept for an indefinite period of time. You guys know exactly who I am and what positions I’ve taken.
Jeff, there are some that come around, just not as often as you. There are some that I don’t put up with. I think you met meatbrain.
Jeff,
your action will not be noticed by most. I am the only one who scours the site to a great extent. Mostly because I don’t post much and have more time for it.
Is your blog mocking or conciliatory?
Since you didn’t announce it, I’m thinking mocking.
P.S. Civil Liberties are a Good ThingTM.(Too good to entrust to anyone who despises them)
Understood. I know the audience isn’t particularly large and most of it doesn’t agree with me. My comments serve several purposes, though. First and foremost, these conversations help to educate me and clarify my own beliefs. Also, it helps me better understand those that see things differently. It also gives me something to do when I need a break from work.
A dose of both, I suppose. The only reason I didn’t announce it was cuz I figured you guys would notice. A subtle punchline is always better.
Indeed. I entrust them to no one. I do, however, appreciate any help I get in their defense.