The Washington Spectator
    HOME    
  Other Options  
    Article Archive   
    Subscription Information   
    About the Spectator   
    Contact Us   
  Gagged National-Security-Letter Recipients Find Their Voice
By Lou Dubose |  May 15, 2007   (page 2/3)

"Our lawyer told us the targets of national security letters don't have to be suspected of any criminal activity themselves," Chase said. "And the FBI doesn't have to show that this investigation has anything to do with national security.

"There is no oversight!" he said. "When we heard that, we said, no, no, no! We're not going to do this."

Their lawyer put them in touch with the American Civil Liberties Union. ACLU attorneys Ann Beeson and Jameel Jaffer drove up from New York—they didn't feel safe discussing the case over the phone. They told no one in their office where they were going, fearing an inadvertent leak that could result in charges being filed against the lawyers and their prospective clients. It wasn't clear that a recipient of a national security letter could speak with a lawyer.

The ACLU lawyers offered to represent the librarians and bring the ACLU in as a co-plaintiff. The Connecticut librarians became nameless plaintiffs in a John Doe, et al., v. Alberto Gonzales lawsuit. They argued that the FBI practice of knocking on a citizen's door and handing him a letter that included a perpetual gag order is a violation of First Amendment free-speech rights.

Their lawyers argued; they themselves could say nothing. As gagged plaintiffs in a federal trial, George Christian, Peter Chase and fellow Library Connection executive board members Barbara Bailey and Janet Nocek stepped into a through-the-looking-glass legal system. They were never bound and gagged in the courtroom, as sixties radical Bobby Seale was when he was tried in 1969 as one of the "Chicago Eight" (which became the Chicago Seven when Seale was jailed for contempt). The Hartford Four were rendered invisible. They watched their district court hearing in a federal courtroom in Bridgeport from a secure room in the federal courthouse in Hartford—on closed-circuit TV, unable to communicate with the judge or their attorneys.

After Justice Department attorneys inadvertently revealed the John Does' identities by leaving Peter Chase's name and a specific reference to the Library Connection in court filings and documents posted on the court's electronic docket, several enterprising journalists followed the trail to Chase. New York Times reporter Allison Leigh Cowan telephoned Chase at his home and opened with an innocuous question about his work as the library association's intellectual freedom committee chairman. Chase remained on the phone until the reporter asked if he'd seen the hearing in federal court in Bridgeport. The reporter had been in the courtroom and knew who was there. To answer yes, he feared, would identify him and violate the gag order. He hung up, confirming Cowan's suspicion.

Chase called his ACLU attorneys in New York. They ordered him to leave town for a few days. If the Times revealed his identity, he would be besieged by reporters. And the FBI might react by obtaining his phone records, which would reveal an extended conversation with the Times reporter, even if Chase didn't reveal his identity to her. The ACLU attorneys also told Chase they were retaining a criminal-defense lawyer to represent him.

Fortunately, Federal District Judge Janet Hall acted quickly. When the Assistant U.S. Attorney defending the FBI argued that the material supporting the demand for library records was classified, Judge Hall said she held a security clearance. She examined the material in her chambers and decided there was nothing that justified the FBI gagging the librarians. Her preliminary injunction, handed down exactly one month after the ACLU filed suit, pertained only to the gag order, the most urgent part of the suit.


previous   | 1 | 2 | 3 |   next    
print article     email article
Can't find what you're looking for?   Try searching for it.
Keyword(s):