Librarian's brush with FBI shapes her view of the USA Patriot Act

USAToday ^ | Wed May 18, 6:25 AM ET | By Joan Airoldi

[Redcitizen]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20050518/cm_usatoday/librariansbrushwithfbishapesherviewoftheusapatriotact

Gannett allows headline and URL only.

[Tailgunner Joe]

"In the 1980s, it was revealed that the FBI had engaged in a secret "library awareness" program to track the books borrowed by patrons who had emigrated from communist countries. Determined to prevent such activities in the future, librarians helped pass laws in 48 states that bar the surrender of customer information except in compliance with a subpoena."

These same commie-loving "librarians" will help hide the crimes of Jihadists as quickly as they will any other enemies of this country.

[SaveTheChief]

Unbelievable. Only liberals would be concerned about protecting the rights of terrorists over the rights of millions of Americans citizens.

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

I'm sure the Washingtonian librarian had no views of the Patriot Act before this.

She's about as innocent as that elderly couple driving around in Florida who just happened to have a scanner that just happened to pick up cell-phone bandwidth and just happened to be driving around a politician who just happened to be making a sensitive phone call.

Fishing expedition? I think the librarian is a WA Leftist trying to land a trophy fish: an apology from the feds.

[cynwoody]

This story offers a strategy to those of OBL's henchmen and fellow travelers who find themselves in the USA undetected: Patronize the local libraries and write quotes from your master in the margins of books you think curious infidels might want to borrow (but don't take them out yourself, or even sign up for a library card! and do try to stay clear of those pesky cameras, too!). Then have a chuckle as the FBI wastes resources investigating innocent citizens, fighting with librarians, and getting bad press!

[NavVet]

My mistake, I forgot about the NY district court, but I doubt that ruling will stand.

However, do you have any idea what you are talking about when you say, "...it can't "technically" respond to anything in the Constitution, because case law actually defines what's permitted..."

No the constitution states what is permitted. When the parties bring a suit to court it is because one of the parties has an argument that "A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT" HAS been violated. The court's job is to say yes or no, but the court doesn't determine what is allowed, the constitution does.

And I particularly like your argument, "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."

First of all starting off with, "obviously" or "clearly" is
generally for shorthand for, I can't actually make a strong argument for what I'm about to say. Secondly, "violates parts of precedent" Saying a law violates "parts of precedent" without describing the precedent makes no sense. Precedent is a higher court's interpretation of the law, that is then binding on lower courts, but without describing the particular prior holding that you believe has been violated, the phrase "violates" parts of precedent is meaningless.

Also, the phrase "violates the exclusionary rule" doesn't make sense. The exclusionary rule is a procedural rule that stands for the proposition that if evidence is siezed by means of an unlawful search, that evidence can not be used at trial, although there are exceptions to that rule. Threfore a law can not violate the exclusionary rule. The exclusionary rule is something that the courts apply during a trial after it has been determined that evidence was siezed improperly.


As for your argument, "In addition, four state legislatures, and 363 communities have issued resolutions that spurn the Patriot Act." "Well how many cities have passed resolutions not allowing local police to enforce federal immigration laws" And what percentage of do those numbers represent 8% of states and .0001 percent of communities.

As for your most mature argument,

"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."

Well I simply disagree, but then again if I couldn't articulate my argument very well, maybe I would just start calling people names. And speaking of paranoid, The FBI could be looking at your overdue copy of "Conspiracy Theory" right now.

And as for your, "some people want to be ruled by an authoritarian fist" comment. Well yes some people do, those people are cutting off the heads of American's in Iraq, but with legislation like the Patriot Act, their chances of getting what they want and imposing it on the rest of us is greatly reduced.

By the way, since most of the so-called contraversial portions of the Patriot Act, have actually been around in our counter drug laws for decades, I wonder how long have you have been outraged. The FBI has been able to conduct "sneak and peak" searches and "Roaming wire taps" on drug king pins for years and years, not a peep our of the far left, or the paranoid right. But we get those same laws extended to terrorist and we get the peanut gallery chanting, "They are coming to take me away."

As far as "Only lock step Bush supporters" support the patriot act. Well let's see, I oppose the president on his immigration policy, spending, so-called medicade reform, and his one man Clinton Rehab project just to name a few. Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't make them a kool aid drinker.

[MsJefferson]

However, do you have any idea what you are talking about when you say, "...it can't "technically" respond to anything in the Constitution, because case law actually defines what's permitted..." Why, yes, I do. No the constitution states what is permitted. When the parties bring a suit to court it is because one of the parties has an argument that "A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT" HAS been violated. The court's job is to say yes or no, but the court doesn't determine what is allowed, the constitution does. The Constitution does not say EXACTLY what’s permitted. How do you think that we got the “exclusionary rule” in the first place? Miranda v. Arizona -- that’s how. It doesn’t say anything about any “exclusionary rule,” in the Constitution -- it was defined by the court as a remedy against unlawful searches and seizures. And I particularly like your argument, "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." Also, the phrase "violates the exclusionary rule" doesn't make sense. The exclusionary rule is a procedural rule that stands for the proposition that if evidence is siezed by means of an unlawful search, that evidence can not be used at trial, although there are exceptions to that rule. Threfore a law can not violate the exclusionary rule. The exclusionary rule is something that the courts apply during a trial after it has been determined that evidence was siezed improperly. Of course a law can violate the exclusionary rule -- or, if semantics is important -- render it meaningless. If the Patriot Act broadens, or adds to the exceptions of the exclusionary rule, then it is adding to the prior rulings, which have layed out what the current exceptions are: plain sight, independent source, good faith, etc. Under the Patriot Act -- just about anything could be a legal search -- torture, extortion, entrapment -- we don’t really know, do we? At least our Senators and Representatives don’t. As for your argument, "In addition, four state legislatures, and 363 communities have issued resolutions that spurn the Patriot Act." "Well how many cities have passed resolutions not allowing local police to enforce federal immigration laws" And what percentage of do those numbers represent 8% of states and .0001 percent of communities. Irrelevant. I wasn’t using this as extensive proof that the Patriot Act is bad -- just trying to say that there is, at least, a movment that is against it. And, Mr. Ad Populum, just because a majority of people believe something, doesn’t mean it’s true. It’s quite possible that that .0001 percent have it right. As for your most mature argument, "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." You’re the one who challenged me with a contentious tone -- and I made an argument, which you tried to get around through semantics. In fact -- all you addressed were semantics, and not anything else. You don’t seem like a stupid person, and I would think that you would have heard the arguments against the Patriot Act, again, some of which have been substantial enough to strike down TWO broad provisions. Of course, I’ve heard the reactionary and hysterical arguments for it -- namely, that if we don’t turn this into a police state, then Jihadists are going to be hiding behind every end cap and pile-on. Well, no thank you. And as for your, "some people want to be ruled by an authoritarian fist" comment. Well yes some people do, those people are cutting off the heads of American's in Iraq, but with legislation like the Patriot Act, their chances of getting what they want and imposing it on the rest of us is greatly reduced. And the chances of our own government imposing anything on us is greatly increased. By the way, since most of the so-called contraversial portions of the Patriot Act, have actually been around in our counter drug laws for decades, I wonder how long have you have been outraged. The FBI has been able to conduct "sneak and peak" searches and "Roaming wire taps" on drug king pins for years and years, not a peep our of the far left, or the paranoid right. But we get those same laws extended to terrorist and we get the peanut gallery chanting, "They are coming to take me away." I’m against drug interdiction. I don’t like my tax money going to narco-pork any more than I like it going to Social Services. …his one man Clinton Rehab project LOL! That made me laugh, out loud. Hey, it’s cool, man. P.S. Can someone tell me how to put paragraphs in my HTML?

[NavVet]

Too lengthy to respond point by point, I guess this idiot and you will have to agree to disagree on the bigger picture of whether or not the Patriot act is a sword or a shield, but I will make one final point.

I have personally litigated motions to exclude evidence on many ocassions. I have never seen a single motion that alleged a statute violated the exclusionary rule. It is just not possible for a statute to violate a rule that essentially states, "A judge has a right to exclude unlawfully gathered evidence." If a judge says, "I'm not going to allow it in", how would the statute in question, override his decision and thereby violate the exclusionary rule? This isn't symantics, this is English. As Bill Bennett say, "Words matter."

Now, if a law was struck down, and the police nevertheless collected evidence under the law after it had been declared unconstitutional, that evidence would or at least could be exluded under the exclusionary rule, but the rule itself would, in this context, only exlude evidence that had been gathered in violation of the 4th amendment.

Actually, I will respond to one other point. The fact that you may favor legalization of narcotics, doesn't address the point I made earlier. My point was that nobody was protesting some of these same provisions, when they were applied to drug kingpins, but now that the provisions can be applied to terrorist, everyone is calling the ACLU hotline.

Oh, and if you ever want to check and see if you are wrong on an issue, just check and see if you are on the same side as the ACLU, if so, you might want to change positions.

[coconutt2000]

How will they ever be sure? Maybe a few people will end up on another list permanently as a result of the unresolved suspicion.

I understand your wariness, but keep in mind that being on some list isn't the end-all of your life. Take a look at John Kerry. The FBI files on him are extensive. He's managed to become a Senator.

I imagine the lists may sound sinister, but our legal system protects people from arbitrary uses of those lists. If we lived in any other country than the United States, I'd be adamantly opposed to the idea of any law enforcement agency keeping lists of possible suspects. But here, in our country, I could care less if I somehow end up on a list for investigation because some fool wrote something suspect in a book we both checked out. In fact, I'd be cheering on the FBI hoping they found that fool and made sure that that person wasn't a threat.... because in all probability, if they go to my public library, they probably live near me, and if they live near me, and they're a terrorist, they'll probably attack near me. So the FBI's not confirming either way the source of the writing worries me more than them finding out it was just a little kid writing down something they wanted to remember to put in their report.

[WoofDog123]

The major whammy list that I am aware of is the no-fly list. They will not say how you get on, though apparently you never get off.

" I understand your wariness, but keep in mind that being on some list isn't the end-all of your life."

[to_zion]

Why isn't the FBI investigating the purchases of consumers at Borders and Barnes & Noble? Seems like the next logical step according to some of the people who post here. Perhaps on the next trip to the library a few of the posters on this thread should borrow 1984 by George Orwell.

[coconutt2000]

Ah, I'm not all that worried about ending up on the no-fly list.

If the FBI ever starts a file on me, it will be entitled, "Right Wing Nut Job" or some such title.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

"Who would check out a biography of bin Laden knowing that this might attract the attention of the FBI?"

Who indeed, lassie.. Who indeed.

[WoofDog123]

Assuming credit card or discount card is used, what makes you think they don't have that info already? BN is a public company, they would cooperate.

[WoofDog123]

"If the FBI ever starts a file on me, it will be entitled, "Right Wing Nut Job" or some such title."

Not illegal yet :)

[MsJefferson]

LOL! :)

[plan2succeed.org]

This library has acted in accordance with ALA directives and statements. Here's evidence:

"When a public librarian in Delray Beach, Fla., recognized some of the suspected hijackers in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon as men who had used the computers in her small library, she immediately called the police. That broke a Florida law that guarantees confidentiality to library patrons. It also violated a cardinal principle of librarians never to tell the police, in absence of a court order, about who uses their rooms and what books they check out. But almost no one thinks Ms. Hensman did the wrong thing." Except, of course, the ALA. "Judith Krug, director of the American Library Association's Office of Intellectual Freedom, said, 'I would have felt better if she had followed the Florida law.'"

http://www.infoshop.org/alibrarians/public_html/article.php?story=01/12/12/3987276

The way I read this is that the ALA would have preferred the 911 terrorists library records were not made available to law enforcement until a law that should not apply to non-citizens trying to kill thousands of Americans was followed anyway.

[plan2succeed.org]

Us:
http://www.lifeandliberty.gov/

Them:
http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/ifissues/usapatriotact.htm

[FreeReign]

To think innocent americans should not feel ANY normal curiousity about who OBL is, where he came from, why he does the things he does, etc., is orwellian.

One of the people who borrowed the book wrote the following in the book margin;

"If the things I'm doing is considered a crime, then let history be a witness that I am a criminal. Hostility toward America is a religious duty and we hope to be rewarded by God."

Do you consider the follow statement to be a normal curiousity? I don't.

[WoofDog123]

"Do you consider the follow statement to be a normal curiousity? I don't."

To be very honest, I somehow missed that when i read (skimmed, apparently) the article the first time. My first post on this thread (which you quote) was before I had actually seen that. Subsequent posts I did make having read that part.

[ozzymandus]

I have often wondered why so many librarians are such anti-American leftist creeps.