“National security” head fake

Fight disinformation. Get a daily recap of the facts that matter. Sign up for the free Mother Jones newsletter.


Back in April 2004, the ACLU brought a case against the United States government in which they argued that the FBI had no right to demand sensitive customer information from an unnamed internet company. In the case, the FBI had claimed that the Patriot Act expressly gave the agency this power, and moreover, that it could prevent the internet company from even informing its customers of the info handover. Eventually, a New York judge, Victor Marrero, declared this portion of the Patriot Act unconstitutional, and ruled against the FBI.

As mentioned, this case took place way back in April, and Judge Marrero’s ruling made the headlines, but details of the case itself were placed under a gag order by the U.S. government. It was only yesterday that the ACLU released documents from the case. Apparently, the government wanted some of the documents kept from the public solely because they contained the words “sensitive,” “national security,” or “FBI”. Even an ACLU letter to Judge Marrero objecting to the gag order was kept from the public. Looking through the documents, it’s hard to find anything that appears to be “sensitive information,” besides perhaps the ACLU’s argument that the FBI was doing something unconstitutional.

In a related vein, the administration has also been attempting to use the “state secrets privilege” to avoid even having to defend its actions in court. It is a growing body of evidence that reveals a systematic governmental effort to obscure basic information regarding the constitutional nature of the government’s actions from the public. This is all being done in the name of national security. The legitimacy behind this censorship should certainly be called into question.

ONE MORE QUICK THING:

Or at least we hope. It’s fall fundraising time, and we’re trying to raise $250,000 to help fund Mother Jones’ journalism during a shorter than normal three-week push.

If you’re reading this, a fundraising pitch at the bottom of an article, you must find our team’s reporting valuable and we hope you’ll consider supporting it with a donation of any amount right now if you can.

It’s really that simple. But if you’d like to read a bit more, our membership lead, Brian Hiatt, has a post for you highlighting some of our newsroom's impressive, impactful work of late—including two big investigations in just one day and covering voting rights the way it needs to be done—that we hope you'll agree is worth supporting.

payment methods

ONE MORE QUICK THING:

Or at least we hope. It’s fall fundraising time, and we’re trying to raise $250,000 to help fund Mother Jones’ journalism during a shorter than normal three-week push.

If you’re reading this, a fundraising pitch at the bottom of an article, you must find our team’s reporting valuable and we hope you’ll consider supporting it with a donation of any amount right now if you can.

It’s really that simple. But if you’d like to read a bit more, our membership lead, Brian Hiatt, has a post for you highlighting some of our newsroom's impressive, impactful work of late—including two big investigations in just one day and covering voting rights the way it needs to be done—that we hope you’ll agree is worth supporting.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate