January, 19 2010, 02:04pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Mandy Simon, (202) 675-2312; media@dcaclu.org
Robyn Shepherd, (212) 519-7829 or 549-2666; media@aclu.org
FBI Illegally Gathered Phone Records And Misused National Security Letters
Congress Must Curb NSL Abuse Through Patriot Act Revisions
WASHINGTON
According
to a report in the Washington Post today, the FBI routinely claimed
false terrorism emergencies to illegally collect the phone records of
Americans for four years of the Bush administration by abusing an
already expansive Patriot Act power. Using "exigent letters," or
emergency letters, to gain private records for investigations when no
emergency existed, the FBI seemingly violated the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act. The FBI also routinely issued National
Security Letters (NSLs) after the fact in an attempt to legitimize the
use of exigent letters.
The
NSL statute, widely broadened with the passage of the Patriot Act in
2001, allows the FBI to secretly demand personal records about innocent
customers from Internet Service Providers (ISPs), communications
service providers, financial institutions and credit reporting agencies
without suspicion or prior judicial approval. The statute also allows
the FBI to bar NSL recipients from disclosing anything about the record
demand. Congress recently extended three unrelated provisions of the
Patriot Act set to expire last year until February 28, 2010. There are
several bills in both the House and Senate that address those
provisions as well as the NSL statute.
In 2004, the ACLU and
New York Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit on behalf of an ISP that
the FBI served with an NSL. Because the FBI imposed a gag order on the
ISP, the lawsuit was filed under seal. Although the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled in 2008 that the gag order
provisions were unconstitutional, the "John Doe" NSL recipient in that
case remains gagged.
The following can be attributed to Michael Macleod-Ball, Acting Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office:
"The
FBI was given broad authority to issue NSLs in the Patriot Act, and to
flout even the minor privacy protections within that statute shows a
blatant disregard for the civil liberties of Americans. The FBI has a
notorious reputation for being unable to police itself and, in this
instance, its internal oversight controls clearly failed. Even after
being warned by their own lawyers, FBI supervisors continued sending
exigent letters even though no emergency existed and they had no
statutory authority for such letters.
FBI was given broad authority to issue NSLs in the Patriot Act, and to
flout even the minor privacy protections within that statute shows a
blatant disregard for the civil liberties of Americans. The FBI has a
notorious reputation for being unable to police itself and, in this
instance, its internal oversight controls clearly failed. Even after
being warned by their own lawyers, FBI supervisors continued sending
exigent letters even though no emergency existed and they had no
statutory authority for such letters.
"The
agency has shown time and again its contempt for internal guidelines
and restrictions, even when someone is looking over its shoulder. Worse
still is the evidence that higher-ups at the agency attempted to cover
up their wrongdoing. It is not enough to for the FBI to claim these
practices have ended; its ability to file exigent letters must be
narrowed and subject to increased oversight. With the reauthorization
of Patriot Act authorities now pending, Congress has an opportunity to
narrow the use of NSL powers and help avoid such abuses in the future.
Given what we now know, it would be unthinkable not to make such
changes in the law now while it's possible."
agency has shown time and again its contempt for internal guidelines
and restrictions, even when someone is looking over its shoulder. Worse
still is the evidence that higher-ups at the agency attempted to cover
up their wrongdoing. It is not enough to for the FBI to claim these
practices have ended; its ability to file exigent letters must be
narrowed and subject to increased oversight. With the reauthorization
of Patriot Act authorities now pending, Congress has an opportunity to
narrow the use of NSL powers and help avoid such abuses in the future.
Given what we now know, it would be unthinkable not to make such
changes in the law now while it's possible."
The following can be attributed to Melissa Goodman, staff attorney with the ACLU National Security Project:
"The
FBI showed flagrant duplicity in obtaining thousands of phone records
over several years without any legal basis or justification for doing
so. The FBI must be forthcoming and release information about its use
of exigent letters and NSLs in order to hold accountable those who
contributed to what clearly amounts to a systemic abuse of power. The
FBI should also lift unnecessary and unjustified gag orders that
continue to silence thousands of NSL recipients from speaking out about
the FBI's misuse of this intrusive record demand power, including our
John Doe client who has now been gagged for nearly six years."
FBI showed flagrant duplicity in obtaining thousands of phone records
over several years without any legal basis or justification for doing
so. The FBI must be forthcoming and release information about its use
of exigent letters and NSLs in order to hold accountable those who
contributed to what clearly amounts to a systemic abuse of power. The
FBI should also lift unnecessary and unjustified gag orders that
continue to silence thousands of NSL recipients from speaking out about
the FBI's misuse of this intrusive record demand power, including our
John Doe client who has now been gagged for nearly six years."
To learn more about the Patriot Act and the ACLU's work to reform it, go to: www.reformthepatriotact.org
The American Civil Liberties Union was founded in 1920 and is our nation's guardian of liberty. The ACLU works in the courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to all people in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
(212) 549-2666LATEST NEWS
Trump Social Security Chief Applauds Budget Bill That Will Harm Social Security's Finances
"The Social Security Administration put out a statement celebrating a bill that would lead to faster insolvency of the Social Security Trust Fund."
Jul 04, 2025
U.S. President Donald Trump's handpicked Social Security chief issued a statement Thursday applauding the passage of a Republican reconciliation bill that analysts say would negatively impact the New Deal program's finances.
Social Security Commissioner Frank Bisignano called the Republican legislation, which Trump is expected to sign on Friday, a "historic step forward for America's seniors" and a reaffirmation of the president's "promise to protect Social Security."
But experts warned in the lead-up to the bill's passage that its massive tax cuts would bring forward the date at which Social Security will no longer be able to pay out full benefits in the absence of legislative solutions.
"By raising the standard deduction for all filers, and raising it even higher for some seniors, fewer Social Security beneficiaries will pay taxes on their benefits, and those who do will pay lower rates," said Kathleen Romig and Gbenga Ajilore of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. "Raising the standard deduction would deliver little to no benefit to lower- and moderate-income families while reducing income into Social Security's trust funds."
The Social Security Administration put out a statement celebrating a bill that would lead to faster insolvency of the Social Security Trust Fund pic.twitter.com/aRhLfcRiIv
— Bobby Kogan (@BBKogan) July 4, 2025
According to the latest Social Security Board of Trustees report—released ahead of the reconciliation bill's passage—the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund will be able to pay out 100% of benefits until 2033. Thereafter, if lawmakers don't act, the fund will be able to pay out 77% of total scheduled benefits.
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB), a conservative think tank, estimated in an analysis released last month that the Republican reconciliation package would accelerate the depletion of Social Security and Medicare's trust funds by a year. Compared to current law, the GOP measure would also result in "even deeper" cuts to Social Security benefits after the trust fund depletion date, the analysis projected.
Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.), a leading champion of Social Security Expansion in Congress, highlighted CRFB's findings in a video posted to social media a day before House Republicans secured final passage of the reconciliation bill.
"We have to act now, not just to protect Social Security but to expand the benefits," said Larson. "It needs to be protected, it needs to be enhanced—not cut and diminished."
Keep ReadingShow Less
NYT Runs Hit Piece on Mamdani Based on Tip From Proponent of 'Race Science'
Reports from multiple outlets show the Times is vastly underselling its source's extreme views on race.
Jul 04, 2025
The New York Times on Thursday published a story questioning New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani's past statements about his racial background based on a tip it received from a proponent of "race science."
The Times piece in question focused on Mamdani's college application to Columbia University in which he listed both "Asian" and "Black or African American" as his race.
Although both of Mamdani's parents are of Indian descent, he was born in the African country of Uganda and lived there for the first five years of his life. Mamdani told the Times that he checked the box on the application for "Black or African American" because he considers himself an American who was born in Africa. He emphasized that he does not identify as Black and argued that he found it difficult to express the complexity of his racial background given the options on the application.
However, what is stirring controversy about the Times piece isn't so much its content but the source of its information. The Times acknowledges that the information on Mamdani was culled from a large hack of a Columbia database and that it received a copy of Mamdani's application from "an intermediary who goes by the name Crémieux on Substack and X," whom it describes as "an academic who opposes affirmative action and writes often about I.Q. and race."
A report from The Guardian's Jason Wilson published earlier this year shows that the Times is vastly underselling its source's extreme views on race. As Wilson documented, the "Crémieux" cited by the Times is a man named Jordan Lasker, whose writings regularly defend the work of "race scientists" who use I.Q. test results to argue that Black people are mentally inferior to other races.
"Crémieux runs a Substack also featuring posts on the supposed relationships between race and I.Q.," Wilson explained. "A prominently featured post there seeks to defend the argument that average national IQs vary by up to 40 points, with countries in Europe, North America, and East Asia at the high end and countries in the global south at the low end, and several African countries purportedly having average national IQs at a level that experts associate with mental impairment."
Another report from Talking Points Memo's Hunter Walker found that Lasker has regularly posted about a racial "I.Q. gap" and has even suggested that there are "genetic pathways of crime." On his X account, Lasker has mused about the differences in brain sizes between Black and white Americans and between women and men more generally.
Brandon McEuen, a historian at Wayne State University who specializes in teaching about the history of the eugenics movement, slammed the Times for not only relying on Lasker as its source for the story on Mamdani but also for granting him anonymity.
"The decision to keep Lasker anonymous is ridiculous since his name has already been published in other outlets that don't provide softballs for eugenicists," he wrote on his Bluesky account.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Sanders Says Every Republican Who Backed Trump-GOP Budget 'Must Pay a Price at the Ballot Box'
"They do not deserve to be re-elected and they must be defeated," said Sen. Bernie Sanders.
Jul 04, 2025
As communities across the United States braced for impact after congressional Republicans approved the biggest Medicaid and nutrition assistance cuts in the nation's history, Sen. Bernie Sanders said Thursday that every lawmaker who supported the budget legislation "must pay a price at the ballot box" in the 2026 midterms and beyond.
"This bill includes the largest cut ever to Medicaid in order to pay for the largest tax break for billionaires that we have ever seen," Sanders (I-Vt.), who is working to recruit progressive candidates for office, said after the House passed the legislation, sending it to President Donald Trump's desk.
"Make no mistake about it: This bill is a death sentence for working-class and low-income Americans," said Sanders.
While some GOP lawmakers in the House and Senate voiced concerns about the bill's massive cuts to Medicaid and other programs as the measure moved through Congress, the legislation ultimately garnered near-unanimous support from the Republican caucus when it came time for the final votes. Just three out of 53 Republican senators and two out of 220 GOP representatives voted against the completed bill.
Analysts and advocates expect the legislation to inflict major damage across the country, shuttering rural hospitals, stripping health coverage and food aid from millions, raising costs for Medicare recipients, and devastating local economies.
Some of the pain will be concentrated in swing districts currently represented by Republican supporters of the budget package. For example, 64% of Rep. David Valadao's (R-Calif.) constituents in California's 22nd Congressional District rely on Medicaid.
Valadao is one of 10 Republicans targeted by an ad push that the advocacy group Protect Our Care launched following Thursday's vote in the House. The other targeted lawmakers are Reps. David Schweikert (R-Ariz.), Young Kim (R-Calif.), Ken Calvert (R-Calif.), Nick LaLota (R-N.Y.), Andrew Garbarino (R-N.Y.), Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.), Ryan Mackenzie (R-Pa.), Rob Bresnahan (R-Pa.), and Dan Newhouse (R-Wash.).
Brad Woodhouse, president of Protect Our Care, said in a statement that "these Republicans just voted for the largest healthcare cuts in history in order to fund tax breaks for billionaires and big corporations, and we're going to make sure that every single one of their constituents knows it."
"These Republicans betrayed their constituents and working Americans' healthcare for billionaire tax cuts," Woodhouse added, "and we're ready to go from the grassroots to the airwaves until every last one of them is held accountable."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular