Patriot Act court orders made public
WASHINGTON — The Justice Department is declassifying portions of some secret court orders concerning the government's authority to seize records under the Patriot Act.
The department revealed its decision to declassify the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court opinions in a filing with the federal court in the Northern District of California. The government says it will provide hundreds of pages of documents to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, an Internet civil liberties group that had filed a lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act.
The release of the records is in response to an order issued by a federal judge in California. In its filing, the Justice Department said it was “broadly construing” that order and is declassifying a larger set of documents than the ruling required.
The Justice Department said it would provide the document by Tuesday.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation is seeking documents about the government's interpretation and use of Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which allows the government to seize a wide range of documents. That section requires the government to show that there are “reasonable grounds to believe” that the records are relevant to an investigation intended to “protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.”
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Senate fails to override Obama veto of Keystone pipeline bill
- Winter storm swirls from Texas to New England
- Defense strategy for Boston Marathon bombing defendant Tsarnaev is to avoid death penalty
- McConnell wants EPA rule rejected
- Congress investigates Hillary Clintons use of private email
- U.S. clears police officer in Ferguson case, criticizes police force
- Md. man accused in 5 random shootings
- Top Senate Republican to states: Ignore EPA carbon rules
- Tsarnaev’s lawyer admits he carried out Boston bombing
- Ferguson’s white officer justified in shooting black man, feds find
- Lawmakers press Veterans Affairs for improved access to rural health care