Skip to comments.
Librarian's brush with FBI shapes her view of the USA Patriot Act
USAToday ^
| Wed May 18, 6:25 AM ET
| By Joan Airoldi
Posted on 05/18/2005 8:06:25 AM PDT by Redcitizen
Edited on 05/18/2005 8:17:50 AM PDT by Admin Moderator.
[history]
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20050518/cm_usatoday/librariansbrushwithfbishapesherviewoftheusapatriotact
Gannett allows headline and URL only.
TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: ala; fbi; investigation; jihadinamerica; leftistfifthcolumn; liberalpig; libraries; library; news; patriotact; police; policestate; privacy; rights; terrorism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160, 161-177 next last
To: Steve_Seattle
All it takes is one willing judge and some judge-shopping.
121
posted on
05/18/2005 1:41:00 PM PDT
by
Celtjew Libertarian
(Shake Hands with the Serpent: Poetry by Charles Lipsig aka Celtjew http://books.lulu.com/lipsig)
To: Steve_Seattle
122
posted on
05/18/2005 1:44:01 PM PDT
by
petercooper
(Put Mark Levin on the Supreme Court.)
To: NavVet
Uh, darlin' -- they've struck down, if I'm not mistaken, at least two broad provisions in the Patriot Act, already. It's not holding up so good. And yes, I am smarter than most of the senators and representatives.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-09-29-patriotact_x.htm
http://www.americanfreepress.net/02_02_04/Patriot_Act_Judged/patriot_act_judged.html
In addition, four state legislatures, and 363 communities have issued resolutions that spurn the Patriot Act.
In addition, even though parts have been upheld by the courts, this is not a PARTISAN issue -- both Republicans and Democrats are against all or some of it -- the smart ones, anyway -- and while it can't "technically" respond to anything in the Constitution, because case law actually defines what's permitted, it's quite obvious that the Patriot Act violates parts of precedent (an example would be the exclusionary rule in the forth amendment) in regard to the first, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth and tenth amendments.
The only people who support the Patriot Act are the naive, the paranoid, lockstep Bush supporters, and the spineless, opportunist Democrats that voted for it, because they're a. IDIOTS and b. worried about how they look.
As an above poster said -- if Clinton tried anything like this every state militia in the union would be ready to overthrow the government. I'm not so overtly partisan that I can't see when ALL government oversteps its boundaries.
Like I said, though -- some people want to be ruled by an authoritarian fist.
To: Redcitizen
I'm certain that the government reported the library section of the patriot act has never been used.
To: Leatherneck_MT
Yeah it sucks, but those who would give up a little freedom to achieve the slightest bit of safety deserve NEITHER.
Amen! A lot of jack booted laces being tripped over.
125
posted on
05/18/2005 1:53:17 PM PDT
by
jwh_Denver
(A source of alternative energy; windmills in front of liberals mouths.)
To: Steve_Seattle
Well if nothing else at least we can agree that Seinfeld was brilliant television :-)
I haven't bought the DVD sets yet but they're on my "must have" list. I still watch the reruns and no matter if I've seen an episode a hundred times it still gets me laughing. Some episodes were better than others but I can't think of a bad episode (save for clip-shows but those don't count).
126
posted on
05/18/2005 2:08:11 PM PDT
by
rattrap
To: GarySpFc
"Not responding to a court order is breaking the law."
They did respond; they responded by going to court to quash the subpeona. That's perfectly legal and it was probably done with the advice of their lawyers.
127
posted on
05/18/2005 2:34:16 PM PDT
by
NJ_gent
(Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.)
To: NavVet
...or perhaps you're just smarter than the 99 or 100 senators that voted for it, You might be interested to know that few of these fine public servants even read the proposed legislation before voting on its passage.
This abomination was rammed through the Senate as a knee jerk response to 9/11.
It had been sitting on the shelf for for several years until the right time.
Problem...reaction...solution.
128
posted on
05/18/2005 2:39:57 PM PDT
by
ActionNewsBill
("In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act")
To: Steve_Seattle
"Well, in the following hypothetical examples, contained in hypothetical emails, which - if any - of these "thoughts" would be a legitimate cause for a criminal investigation or a subpoena:"
These aren't thoughts - these are easily tracable, written expressions, transmitted over a medium generally not considered beyond government searches, which can, in some cases, be construed as threats. Making threats is not legal, though some (not necessarily myself) argue they should be protected free expression.
"In your opinion, would any of those emails - if they were brought to the attention of the governmnet - justify the government issuing a subpoena to check that person's library records, to see if perhaps they were doing research to carry out a hijacking?"
None of them. Why? Because there are 1001 other, better ways to go about the investigation of potential threats. The Secret Service has been investigating threats made against protected persons, including the President, for quite some time and for some odd reason, dropping by the library hasn't been high on their list of needs with regards to figuring out who's really a threat and who isn't.
Is it possible to gain valuable information by perfoming blanket searches of the nation's libraries? Sure. It's also possible to gain valuable information by breaking down doors house-by-house in random neighborhoods across the country. We, as a freedom-loving people, generally find both of those methods repulsive and un-American.
Bottom line? If someone sends an email to some buddies talking about how he's going to blow up a Federal building, the FBI probably needs to start looking into that person, possibly surveilling him and watching his financials. If he starts buying up fertilizer and looking into renting a big u-haul truck, they should probably look a whole lot more closely. If someone jots down a line from an old speech in a book, the FBI probably doesn't need to tear through the privacy rights of dozens or perhaps hundreds of people to find out if someone, somewhere, might have a bone to pick with the US.
To put it in context, imagine the FBI launching a full-scale investigation into everyone who's checked out a book on Hitler because someone wrote "We have been rendered defenseless: we are without rights: we have become the pariahs of the world" in the margins. Despite the fact that neo-nazis do indeed live today, I think you'd agree that such a thing would be a monsterous waste of time and resources, not to mention a potentially major invasion of privacy for a large number of people.
129
posted on
05/18/2005 3:01:53 PM PDT
by
NJ_gent
(Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.)
To: Redcitizen
Some people still don't see any harm in McCarthy. My grandmother still thinks he was a fantastic guy, despite the fact that he had the heart of Stalin.
130
posted on
05/18/2005 3:06:13 PM PDT
by
NJ_gent
(Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.)
To: rattrap
Better Red than Dead. Da.
131
posted on
05/18/2005 3:09:03 PM PDT
by
Redcitizen
(One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter)
To: NJ_gent
Reminds me of that lawyer joke: Why do Lawyers get buried 10 feet deep? Because deep down they are really good people.
I was not around during that era of McCarthy, but hey, I can imagine he had his supporters.
132
posted on
05/18/2005 3:14:05 PM PDT
by
Redcitizen
(One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter)
To: Voteamerica
We would not want that section to gather dust on the "shelves", so I guess someone had to "check it out" and get the Library section of the Patriot Act into "circulation".
133
posted on
05/18/2005 3:17:53 PM PDT
by
Redcitizen
(One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter)
To: Redcitizen
134
posted on
05/18/2005 3:18:37 PM PDT
by
Pagey
(Whether Hillary Clintons attacks on America are a success or a failure depends upon YOU TOO!)
To: Fledermaus
"One of the biggest myths of the Patriot Act is that they don't need court orders. They do."
The PATRIOT ACT was bad enough, but the Intelligence Authoritzation Act of 2004 is even worse. Hidden in that rather large, must-pass, super-secret gem (section 374) is the removal of the need for the FBI to get a subpeona. Now, they can just issue a National Security Letter to get just about anything they want.
For things they don't get with the NSLs, they have a handy rubber-stamp court called the FISA court - the secret court created by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act which meets in secret, hears secret one-sided arguments, and rubber-stamps secret court orders. Why do I say rubber-stamps? Because since the court was created in 1978, it has turned down one request for an order. That's right; one request refused in 27 years. Why did they refuse that one request? According to the court, which actually opened that particular opinion up to the public to draw attention to problems, the FBI was lying to them to get the order.
That order, by the way, was granted in the first time the FISA appeals court has ever had to meet. Stop trusting your government to police itself; it's not healthy and it's not safe.
135
posted on
05/18/2005 3:19:13 PM PDT
by
NJ_gent
(Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.)
To: Celtjew Libertarian
Yes I might want to go to Loompanics.com or Paladin Press and order a book. Then I might get put on a list for ordering books on the subjects that they publish.
Try these places. I wager that a lot of people don't know that they exist.
136
posted on
05/18/2005 3:31:41 PM PDT
by
Redcitizen
(One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter)
To: Redcitizen
Already familiar with them. In fact, some 10-15 years ago, I got a Loompanics catalog. I haven't checked them out recently, though.
137
posted on
05/18/2005 3:48:39 PM PDT
by
Celtjew Libertarian
(Shake Hands with the Serpent: Poetry by Charles Lipsig aka Celtjew http://books.lulu.com/lipsig)
To: Question Liberal Authority
The Weekly World News (a tabloid) can run a similar title called:
Abductee's Brush With Aliens Shapes Her View Of Border Security
138
posted on
05/18/2005 3:51:25 PM PDT
by
Redcitizen
(One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter)
To: billbears
I don't know about you, but I've put notes in the margin on books before. Most everyone has.True, there is certainly a possible benign explanation.
If so, an investigation will bear that out.
To: sarasota
You misunderstand.
Washington is where that sleeper cell was located not too long ago (remember about nine were arrested?). The librarian is desperately trying to give our enemies cover.
She's blustering to throw the scent away.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160, 161-177 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson