Stamford — A federal judge on Friday lifted a gag order that shielded the identity of librarians who received an FBI demand for records about library patrons under the Patriot Act.

U.S. District Court Judge Janet Hall ruled in favor of the American Civil Liberties Union, which argued that the gag order prevented their client from participating in a debate over whether Congress should reauthorize the Patriot Act. Government officials have said they have not used the Patriot Act against a library, so the case could prove influential in that debate, the ACLU said.

“It's fabulous,” said ACLU Associate Legal Director Ann Beeson. “Clearly the judge recognized it was profoundly undemocratic to gag a librarian from participating in the Patriot Act debate.”

The ruling would allow the ACLU and its client to identify who received the request for records, but Hall stayed her decision until Sept. 20 to give the government a chance to appeal. Prosecutors said they were reviewing the decision and were considering an appeal.

Prosecutors said the gag order prevented the release of the client's identity, not the client's ability to speak about the Patriot Act. They also argued that revealing the identity of the librarians could tip off suspects and jeopardize a federal investigation into terrorism or spying.

Hall, in U.S. District Court in Bridgeport, rejected those arguments.

“The government may intend the non-disclosure provision to serve some purpose other than the suppression of speech,” Hall wrote. “Nevertheless, it has the practical effect of silencing individuals with a constitutionally protected interest in speech and whose voices are particularly important in an ongoing national debate about the intrusion of governmental authority into individual lives.”

The ruling rejected the gag order in this case, but it did not strike down the provision of the law used by the FBI to demand the library records. A broader challenge to that provision is still pending before Hall.

Hall, however, said she was troubled that the law was too broad and prohibits the client from ever disclosing its identity. She also noted that former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft had accused critics who feared abuse of the increased access to library records of “hysteria.”

“The potential for abuse is written into the statute: the very people who might have information regarding investigative abuses and overreaching are preemptively prevented from sharing that information with the public and with the legislators who empower the executive branch with the tools used to investigate matters of national security,” Hall wrote.

The Patriot Act, passed shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, allowed expanded surveillance of terror suspects, increased use of material witness warrants to hold suspects incommunicado and permitted secret proceedings in immigration cases.

Before the Patriot Act, the law allowed the FBI to get records of a person or group suspected of acting on behalf of a foreign power, or under 1993 amendments, the records of someone thought to be communicating with such a foreign agent about international terrorism.

The Patriot Act in 2001 removed the requirement that the records sought be those of someone under suspicion. Now an innocent person's records can be obtained if the FBI considers them relevant to a terrorism or spying investigation.

Last September in another ACLU lawsuit, a federal judge in New York struck down this provision of law as unconstitutional under the First and Fourth Amendments on grounds that it restrains free speech and bars or deters judicial challenges to government searches. That ruling is suspended pending an appeal to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

On an undisclosed date, the FBI delivered what is known as a National Security Letter to the ACLU's client, which maintains traditional library book records as well as records on Internet use by its patrons.

The letter demanded “any and all subscriber information, billing information and access logs of any person or entity related to” something or someone whose name is blacked out in the publicly released version of the letter. It said the information is relevant to an investigation of terrorism or spying.

Hall asked the government to provide her classified documents that would give her a better understanding of the investigation.

“Nothing specific about this investigation has been put before the court that supports the conclusion that revealing Doe's identity will harm it,” she wrote.

The intelligence package that Congress approved this week includes a series of little-noticed measures that would broaden the government's power to conduct terrorism investigations, including provisions to loosen standards for FBI surveillance warrants and allow the Justice Department to more easily detain suspects without bail.

Other law-enforcement-related measures in the bill -- expected to be signed by President Bush next week -- include an expansion of the criteria that constitute "material support" to terrorist groups and the ability to share U.S. grand jury information with foreign governments in urgent terrorism cases.  These and other changes designed to strengthen federal counterterrorism programs have long been sought by the Bush administration and the Justice Department but have languished in Congress, in part because of opposition from civil liberties advocates.

Justice Department spokesman Mark Corallo characterized the measures as "common-sense reforms aimed at preventing terrorist attacks."

"We are very pleased that the Congress agreed with us that despite having passed the Patriot Act right after 9/11, we still had work to do," Corallo said, referring to the anti-terrorism legislation approved in October 2001. "We have to constantly look at the laws and look at our vulnerabilities and make sure we are doing everything we can within the law to protect the American people."

But civil liberties advocates and some Democrats said the measures would do little to protect the public while further eroding constitutional protections for innocent people caught up in investigations.  Critics also say the proposed changes were overshadowed by the debate over other aspects of the bill, which puts in place many intelligence agency reforms proposed by the independent commission that investigated the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Some Democrats say they reluctantly approved the package because they favored the broader intelligence changes.

Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) said that while he voted for the bill because of its intelligence reforms, he opposed much of the expansion of law enforcement power. Most of it was not part of the Sept. 11 panel's recommendations.

"I am troubled by some provisions that were added in conference that have nothing to do with reforming our intelligence network," Feingold said. He later added: "This Justice Department has a record of abusing its detention powers post-9/11 and of making terrorism allegations that turn out to have no merit."

Charlie Mitchell, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, said the law enforcement measures are "most troubling in terms of the trend they represent." He added: "They keep pushing and pushing without any attempt to review what they've done."  Congressional aides said most of the law enforcement measures were included as part of the original House proposal for intelligence reform, which also called for wide-ranging changes in border and immigration policies. Although some of the most controversial provisions were removed in House-Senate negotiations, several remained in the bill.

Some of the changes were originally part of a legislative draft drawn up by Justice prosecutors in 2002 as a proposed expansion of the USA Patriot Act, administration and congressional officials said. The draft, leaked to the media and dubbed "Patriot II" by critics, was never introduced as a bill in its entirety. But portions were introduced as stand-alone legislation.  As with parts of the original Patriot Act, some of the new powers would expire at the end of 2005 or 2006 unless Congress renewed them.

One key change is a provision in the new intelligence package that targets "lone wolf" terrorists not linked with established terrorist groups such as al Qaeda. In language similar to earlier Senate legislation, the bill would allow the FBI to obtain secret surveillance and search warrants of individuals without having to show a connection between the target of the warrant and a foreign government or terrorist group.

The provision is aimed squarely at avoiding the quandary FBI investigators faced in the weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks, when government lawyers haggled over whether they could link Zacarias Moussaoui to a terrorist group and legally search his belongings. Moussaoui has since been charged in connection with the attacks.  Officials said other parts of the bill are direct responses to setbacks in the courts, where prosecutors have lost cases because of disputes over previous legislative language. For example, the legislation tightens the definitions of material support to terrorists in response to California federal court rulings that found the statute underlying such cases to be unconstitutionally vague.

Other provisions in the bill include:

• Suspects in major terrorism crimes automatically would be denied bail unless they show they are not a danger or a flight risk. Advocates say the provision is modeled on similar rules for certain drug crimes, but Mitchell said it would increase the possibility of indefinite detention in alleged terrorism cases.

• Penalties would be increased for such crimes as harboring illegal immigrants, perpetrating a terrorist hoax, and possessing smallpox, anti-aircraft missile systems and radiological "dirty" bombs. The measure also is more explicit than current statutes in making it illegal to attend military-style training camps run by terrorist groups.

• Federal prosecutors would be allowed to share secret information obtained by grand juries with states or foreign governments to protect against terrorist attacks. German authorities, among others, have complained about difficulties obtaining information from the FBI and other U.S. agencies about foreign terrorist suspects.

Research editor Lucy Shackelford contributed to this report

Teresa Younger, the state's first female and African American executive director of the Connecticut Civil Liberties Union, plans to resign at the end of the year for a position with the national ACLU, the CCLU announced Monday.

Younger, who joined the CCLU in July 2001, will become senior organizational development manager with the national organization.

"Teresa Younger has been a wonderful leader in Connecticut for 3½ years," said Barbara Hager, who chairs the ACLU in Connecticut. "She will now help other ACLU affiliates improve their organizations, as she has helped us."

Less than a year after taking on her CCLU role, Younger found herself lobbying in the General Assembly against a package of sweeping anti-terrorism proposals prompted by the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Younger cautioned that the measures would give too much power to law enforcement officials and infringe on citizens' rights.

During a March 2003 protest against the war in Iraq at the state Capitol, Younger warned that Americans' "willingness to trade peace for safety is a sham and a dangerous one."

Hager said a national search would be conducted for Younger's successor. People who are interested can contact Hager at ACLU of Connecticut, 174 Nearwater Land, Darien, CT 06820 or by e-mail at SearchACLUCT@aol.com.

We hope you got a chance to watch the Town TV recording of our Patriot Act Forum from Weston Library's Community Room (shown twice on Saturday and twice on Sunday the first weekend in December) - THANK YOU CHANNEL 79!

---

How did thePatriot Act Forum (live) turn out? A quick note from LWV of Weston Board:

Thank you to all for the support of the Patriot Act Forum!  According to the Weston FORUM, our effort to air the issue was a great success--and the newspaper's report was indeed a thorough retelling of the debate.

U.S. Attorney Kevin O'Connor called the League's program--"what democrary is all about" and apparently both speakers down-played the dire warnings that democrary was at risk--because this law has various sunset provisions.

The Board appreciated all the help with publicity and hospitality we received from the membership!  And it was good to see everyone playing host to the community as the audience arrived--and this time they arrived!  (No official number available yet [wait for newspaper reports]--but League had to put down more chairs--so, by this method of crowd size analysis, we can assume more people showed up than had been expected!!!)  The official newspaper count (usually on the low side) was 85, a full house being 100!

Feed-back from the attendees has been very good...extra thanks to Nancy who set up the recording and the mics for us. Thanks to Town of Weston TV volunteers for taping the event!!!