A US federal court has struck down a section of the controversial Patriot Act, reports Tamam Ahmed Jama Earlier this month, a federal judge ruled unconstitutional the provision of the Patriot Act known as the National Security Letters (NSLs), which allows the FBI to secretly require businesses, mainly telephone companies, Internet service providers and financial institutions, to hand over the personal information of their customers, without court authorisation. The provision contains a gag order imposing silence on the recipients of the letters, forbidding them to tell the customers or anyone else what they are doing. In a strongly worded 103-page ruling, judge Victor Marrero of the federal district court in Manhattan, New York, said the provision was "the legislative equivalent of breaking and entering, with an ominous free pass to the hijacking of constitutional values". He said that imposing silence on the recipients of the NSLs violated the right to the freedom of speech, one of the most fundamental liberties enshrined in the First Amendment of the American constitution. "In light of the seriousness of the potential intrusion into the individual's personal affairs and the significant possibility of a chilling effect on speech and association -- particularly of expression that is critical of the government or its policies -- a compelling need exists to ensure that the use of NSLs is subject to the safeguards of public accountability, checks and balances and separation of powers that our constitution prescribes," Marrero said in the ruling. The judge also ruled that the process of issuing the letters undermined the role of the judiciary to act as a check on the power of the executive branch, thereby violating the principle of separation of powers, also guaranteed under the constitution. The case, Doe vs Gonzales, was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on behalf of an unnamed Internet service provider that had received a national security letter. Judge Marrero ruled unconstitutional the same NSLs provision of the Patriot Act in 2004. Congress then amended the provision and a revised version was sent back to Marrero last year. The modified version gave the recipients of the NSLs a limited right to challenge the legality of the gag order, but at the same time, required the courts to accept as conclusive the testimony of FBI officials who deemed that secrecy was necessary. Finding the gag order an unreasonable limitation of the right to free speech, judge Marrero struck down the provision for the second time and gave the government 90 days to appeal against his decision. It was not immediately clear whether the government was going to do so. According to documents released by the US Justice Department in March, the FBI issued more than 143,000 national security letters between 2003 and 2005. The ruling striking down part of the Patriot Act, a controversial law passed in the wake of the 11 September terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, came a week after the US attorney- general Alberto Gonzales announced his resignation following a prolonged standoff with Congress over botched FBI counter-terrorism investigations and the controversial dismissal of eight federal prosecutors. The ruling could mean a major oversight of the FBI's use of controversial investigative techniques and some analysts say that it is a legal setback for the Bush administration's war on terrorism. The administration has argued that the drastic provisions of the Patriot Act, and other draconian measures such as the rules governing Guantanamo Bay, are justified and necessary to confront the terrorist threat. Civil liberty groups say that the measures are unwarranted and unacceptable infringements on personal freedoms in the name of security. They have welcomed and praised judge Marrero's ruling. Reacting to the decision, Anthony Romero, executive director of the ACLU, which filed the lawsuit, said the ruling demonstrated, "the far- reaching efforts of this administration to use powers that are clearly unconstitutional." Jameel Jaffer, a lawyer for the ACLU who argued the case in court, added, "the decision reaffirms that the courts have an important and constitutionally mandated role to play when national security policies infringe on First Amendment rights."
