Replies on Adrian Lamo, FBI using Patriot Act against reporters [fs]

[Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>]

---

Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 22:29:52 -0700
To: Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>
From: Steve Schear <s.schear () comcast net>
Subject: Re: [Politech] FBI has sent 13 reporters letters over Adrian
  Lamo, from AP

> A Sept. 19 letter from the FBI directs Associated Press reporter Ted 
> Bridis to preserve any documents pertaining to Adrian Lamo, stating that 
> the request is in anticipation of an order requiring materials to be 
> turned over to federal law enforcement authorities. The FBI said Wednesday 
> that similar letters went to 12 other reporters or news organizations, 
> which the agency did not identify.

Have any reporters, to your knowledge, archived their notes solely offshore 
and protected by a trust wherein presentment of a court order for access to 
archived materials triggers a distress clause, requiring the reporter to 
physically present themselves to the trust attorney to prove they are not 
under duress?

steve


"Liberty cannot be preserved without a general
knowledge among the people... Be not intimidated,
therefore, by any terrors, from publishing with the
utmost freedom...nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled
out of your liberty by any pretenses of politeness,
delicacy, or decency. These, as they are often used,
are but three different names for hypocrisy,
chicanery, and cowardice." -- John Adams


--

Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 09:20:27 -0700
From: "Curt Hagenlocher" <curt () hagenlocher org>
To: Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>
Reply-To: curt () hagenlocher org
Subject: Re: [Politech] FBI has sent 13 reporters letters over Adrian 
Lamo,     from AP

> WASHINGTON -- The FBI has notified 13 reporters that it might
> subpoena their records regarding a hacker charged with breaking
> into The New York Times' computer system.

The obvious and still unmentioned analogy --
"Gee, I wonder if that means that they'll be sending a subpoena
to Bob Novak about the Valerie Plame matter."

--
Curt Hagenlocher
curt () hagenlocher org

---

Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 13:48:42 -0700
From: Avi Bar-Zeev <cyranose () realityprime com>
Reply-To: cyranose () realityprime com
Organization: RealityPrime

Dear Declan,

Ignoring, for a second, objections to provisions of the Patriot Act that 
defy common sense, constitutionality, or even sanity, I'm wondering if this 
is going to be a clear-cut case of Bush administration double-standard.

In the case of Robert Novak publishing the name of an undercover CIA WMD 
expert, it seems at least plausible that Bush administration officials 
(two, and supposedly very senior) violated federal law and threatened 
national security for political purposes. So this begs the question: will 
the Justice Department now use these same provisions of the Patriot Act to 
force Novak to disclose his notes and contacts?

I'm not saying they should in either case, but since the Justice Department 
seems to have concluded it has this power, I'm interested to see if they'll 
choose to use it against potential criminals in the Bush administration. 
One would presume that any non-criminal administration would be interested 
in finding and removing any such people from positions of responsibility.

Sincerely,

Avi Bar-Zeev

---


Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 08:52:54 -0700 (PDT)
From: mairead <maireadbhean () yahoo com>
Subject: response to "FBI orders reporters to keep all notes on Adrian Lamo 
articles [fs]"
To: Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>

Dear Mark Rasch:

Welcome to the treatment tax reform activists have
come to know and love.  Rather, I should say "welcome
to the first volley."

The direct attacks upon people of your profession have
just begun.  Years ago, the actions against those who
ask legitimate questions of the taxation "authorities"
had already escalated far beyond the eye-opening but
relatively mild invasion you've just experienced.  One
example out of the legion of tactics I might mention
is a particular Bill proposed in Congress each year,
gaining support with each appearance.  If (when?)
passed, it would make even the mention of certain IRC
statutes punishable by a $5,000 fine -- that's $5K
*per mention.*

Your anger at the situation with which you've been
confronted is well founded, and many readers will
respond in surprise and disgust as well.  I, however,
am too "old" in these matters to feel anything except
recognition and commiseration.

Of course, your issue may be understood as an entirely
different one from that of tax reform activists.

My understanding comprehends the similarities.  I am
interested only in the answer to one question:

Will enough of you say NO to turn the tide back -- at
least for yourselves?


 - Mairead Hannon


_______________________________________________
Politech mailing list
Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)