Yesterday, the House passed a one-year extension of three expiring Patriot Act provisions without making much-needed changes to the overly broad surveillance bill.

With this extension, Congress failed to address proper privacy safeguards in the Patriot Act, including:

• Amending the national security letter (NSL) statute to ensure that the government obtains financial, communication and credit records only of people believed to be terrorists or spies;
• Requiring the government to convince a court that a national security gag order is necessary;
• Terminating the "lone wolf" authority that permits the government to spy on people who are not part of a terrorist organization; and
• Ensuring that the so-called "library records provision" does not authorize collection of library and bookstore records if they contain information on a patron unless he is a terrorist or spy.

• Since the Patriot Act's passage in 2001, there have been several consecutive reports — including one released in January — from the Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General that have outlined widespread and blatant abuse of the statute. FBI agents routinely claimed false terrorism emergencies to use "exigent letters," or emergency letters, in order to gain private records for investigations when no emergency existed. The FBI also regularly issued NSLs after the fact in an attempt to legitimize the use of exigent letters.

  
  "Though the debate over reauthorizing the Patriot Act may be over this year, Congress still has the power to narrow the use of NSL powers and help avoid such abuses in the future," said Michelle Richardson, ACLU Legislative Counsel. "It's time to rein in the overbroad power of the NSL and bring the statute back in line with the Constitution."

  
  Although the outcome is not what we had hoped, we made progress. In the House, 97 representatives, 10 of which were Republicans, voted against extending the Patriot Act. Some members of Congress justified this extension by promising that the next year would provide time for real reform. You can bet we're going to hold them to their promise. And we'll be turning to you to help keep the pressure on.

  
  >> Learn more about the Patriot Act and the ACLU's work to reform it.

  back to top

  New National Security Distraction: Arabic Language Students

  	Flying with a Foreign Language College student Nick George was handcuffed, interrogated and jailed for hours at the airport when he tried to bring English-Arabic flash cards on the plane to study on his flight back to school. Now, he is an ACLU plaintiff. Watch a short video to learn more about his case.

  Recently, the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of Nick George, a Pomona College student who was detained and aggressively interrogated by Transportation Security Administration (TSA) authorities, by the FBI and by Pennsylvania police when he tried to board a plane carrying Arabic language flash cards.

  
  George, a physics major who's studying Arabic, was pulled aside for secondary screening at the Philadelphia International Airport as he tried to go through security. When he emptied his pockets, the inspector saw his flash cards — which had words such as "to smile" and "funny" on them. He was then arrested, handcuffed, locked in a cell for hours and aggressively questioned.

  
  During George's ordeal, no fewer than seven law enforcement officers took part in detaining and questioning him. The unnecessary arrest, detention and questioning of someone who poses no threat to flight safety makes everyone less safe by diverting resources away from real threats.

  
  "Nick George was handcuffed, locked in a cell for hours and questioned about 9/11 simply because he has chosen to study Arabic, a language that is spoken by hundreds of millions of people around the world," said Ben Wizner, staff attorney with the ACLU National Security Project. "This sort of harassment of innocent travelers is a waste of time and a violation of the Constitution."

  
  The lawsuit charges that the TSA officials, the Philadelphia police and the FBI violated George's Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizure and his First Amendment right to free speech.

  
  >> Learn more about Nick George's case.

  back to top

  ACLU's Adam Wolf Named California Attorney of the Year

  ACLU attorney Adam Wolf with client, Savana Redding.

  We are thrilled that California Lawyer magazine named ACLU attorney Adam Wolf Attorney of the Year! Wolf is being recognized for his historic work representing ACLU client Savana Redding, who at age 13 was strip-searched by school authorities looking for ibuprofen. Adam's win before the US Supreme Court set new limits on school searches and is the biggest victory for students' rights in 40 years.

  
  Congratulations, Adam!

  back to top

  We Agree with Ashcroft

  We can now count former Attorney General John Ashcroft, one of the ACLU's frequent adversaries, among our allies on the issue of using our regular civilian courts to handle terrorism prosecutions.

  
  Speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C., Ashcroft was asked about trying terrorism cases in civilian courts, and responded that such a venue "has use and utility."

  
  President Obama declared that he intended to try suspected terrorists in the American criminal court system - a system that has successfully prosecuted over 300 terrorism-related cases, unlike the flawed military tribunals that have only convicted three.

  
  But some members of Congress, the media and local politicians are putting pressure on the Obama administration to try suspected terrorists in the discredited military commissions system in Guantánamo.

  
  We were pleased when Attorney General Eric Holder announced in November that the trials of the accused 9/11 planners would be held in a federal court. But the pressure to reverse that decision is enormous. That's why freedom-loving people must raise their voices right now.

  
  >> Take action: Tell President Obama that you support federal court trials for the accused 9/11 planners.

  back to top

  Tell Google: No Deal with the NSA

  Google and the NSA. It is hard to imagine a more potent—or frightening—combination when it comes to the collection and safety of Americans' private information.

  
  Such an alliance is underway, however. As reported by the Washington Post, Google — the world's largest search engine company with access to intimate details of our lives — is negotiating an information security agreement with the National Security Agency (NSA) — the world's largest spying network.

  
  The implications of this deal are very troubling. The NSA — a component of the Department of Defense — is an intelligence collection agency with few effective checks against abuse and no public oversight of its activities. In the last decade, the NSA's vast dragnet of suspicionless surveillance has targeted everyday Americans, in violation of the law and the Constitution.

  
  The deal would reportedly allow the NSA to assist Google in securing its data from attack after some its accounts, including those of human rights activists, were accessed by hackers. Google has an obligation to protect its subscribers' personal accounts, but it can — and must — do this without turning to a military surveillance agency for help.

  
  Google needs to know that you do not want this deal to go through. Send a message to CEO Eric Schmidt that Google shouldn't be exposing its security vulnerabilities to a military spy organization like the NSA.

  
  >> Take action: Tell Google CEO Eric Schmidt that you don't want the NSA anywhere close to your personal information.

  back to top

  The Justification of Bush Torture Program? New Report Reveals the Details

  A report released last week by the Department of Justice's (DOJ) Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) reveals new details about the development of the Bush administration's torture program.

  
  The report considers the work of three DOJ attorneys — Steven Bradbury, John Yoo and Jay Bybee — who authorized the torture and abusive interrogation of detainees in U.S. custody through legal memoranda the three authored while at DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) during the Bush administration.

  
  It concludes that John Yoo and Jay Bybee exercised "poor judgement" when they wrote the legal authorizations for the use of abusive interrogation techniques on detainees in U.S. custody overseas.

  
  As you may recall, Yoo and Bybee are now well-known for their role in enabling the atrocities that went on in black sites and at Guantánamo, including waterboarding, extreme sleep deprivation, stress positions and in some cases, death — acts that violated domestic and international law, alienated America's allies and yielded information that was both unreliable and unusable in court.

  
  The OLC is tasked with providing the executive branch legal advice and gave senior Bush administration officials the false legal framework to knowingly authorize torture.

  
  The ACLU is calling on the Justice Department to expand its criminal investigation of the torture program.

  
  >> Take action: Tell the Attorney General to expand the criminal investigation.

  
  >> Learn more about the Bush administration's torture program.