Court - “Secret” interpretation of the PATRIOT Act will remain secret.

The ACLU and New York Times have lost their lawsuit against the government that sought disclosure of the “secret interpretation” of the PATRIOT Act. District Judge William H. Pauley III of the Southern District of NY ruled that the government met its burden in claiming the requested memo was exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.

So we, the people, remain in the dark about how the DOJ is interpreting Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act – a law passed by our representatives. http://www.pogowasright.org/?p=28525

Court ruling: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/357380-patriot-pauley-opinion.html

Patriot Act Memo Will Stay Under Wraps.

Manhattan, NY - New York Times reporter Charlie Savage has lost his effort to expose the U.S. government's secret interpretation of a section of the Patriot Act, a federal judge ruled.

An attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union, a co-plaintiff in that lawsuit, said that he was still "hopeful" for a more favorable ruling on two other pending requests to unseal related documents that his organization requested separately.

"We are hopeful that the court will agree with us," said Alex Adbo of the ACLU, adding later, "You cannot have an informed democracy without the public knowing what the law says."

Meanwhile, the dismissal marks the second time that a Manhattan federal judge turned down Savage's attempts to unearth information about national security policies that have troubled civil libertarians.

Last November, U.S. District Judge Robert Patterson snuffed requests for the Federal Bureau of Investigation to break down how many of its inquiries looked into criminal activity versus national security threats.

On Thursday, a different district court judge declined to release a secret interpretation of the Patriot Act that Savage sought.

"Section 215 of the Patriot Act authorizes the Government to apply to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for an order directing the production of 'any tangible things' for certain investigations," Judge William H. Pauley III summarized in his order. "The Government contends that its use of this authority is critical to countering national security threats. It represents that public disclosure of the Report would expose sensitive intelligence sources and methods to America's adversaries and therefore harm national security."

The New York Times and ACLU countered that two U.S. Senators sitting on the Intelligence Committee, Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and Mark Udall, D-Colo., undermined that assertion in comments made on the congressional record.

While Judge Pauley's opinion quotes several of these statements, it leaves out much stronger words the senators shared with Savage in subsequent reports.

On March 18, Savage reported that the senators told him that Americans would be "stunned" to know what the government believed the Patriot Act authorized.

"We would also note that in recent months we have grown increasingly skeptical about the actual value of the 'intelligence collection operation,'" the senators said, according to Savage. "This has come as a surprise to us, as we were initially inclined to take the executive branch's assertions about the importance of this 'operation' at face value." http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/05/18/46630.htm