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

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

[Celtjew Libertarian]

I missed the point earlier that it turns out that's near about a direct quote of OBL.

I'd have to see where it was written, but depending on the context, it could be that the person writing the marginalia was elucidating a point in the book by directly quoting OBL.

OTOH, if I were still librarian, I'd at least be annoyed that someone had damaged the book by writing in it. I sometimes write notes in books I personally own, but would never do that in a book I borrowed (except maybe to correct an obvious typo).

But getting the FBI to investigate book vandalism does seem a waste of federal resources.

[sarasota]

Good analysis. And very disturbing.

[freepatriot32]

Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here

[NCCarrs]

I do hope the Leftists, 5th Column-types "feel" something when one of our major cities gets vaporized, because they'll be culpable!

The terrorists who flew planeload of people into buildings on 9/11 lived among us for up to two years. They didn't change their minds, so the only means we have of protecting ourselves is to be aware of those doing odd things. These Lefties get their panties in a wade, but it is an "us vs. them" world. They'd like nothing more than to kill us -- through horrific means -- and we'd like to live. When you add up the numbers, the US has done more for Muslims in the past 10 years, than they have done for themselves in past 2000 years.

Bush has become Enemy Number One to Lefties, and they are applying Muslim principle of "enemy of my enemy is my friend." Very strange times indeed!

[NJ_gent]

Why don't we just do like England is doing: put CCTV cameras up all over the place and watch people every minute of every day.

By the way, that cover looks to be in rough shape. That's why I bought the hardcover from Amazon. :)

[af_vet_rr]

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. He carries out horrid attacks, our government talks about him for years afterwards and searches for him, and people who have enough curiousity to want to know more get on a federal list????

Not only is it Orwellian to think that people should not know who OBL, etc., it's dangerous. You must always strive to know as much about your enemies as possible, anything else leads to a sense of complacency.

As a matter of fact, a lack of knowledge about Bin Laden is what ultimately allowed 9/11 to happen. If people had studied him after the first WTC attack, under Clinton's watch, then there would have been no 9/11. People would have seen him as the danger he ultimately proved to be.

[NJ_gent]

"Do you seriously think the FBI has the time, resources , or interest in monitoring the book purchases of the average citizen?"

This is the reason some people never care when their government looks to start doing something that's illegal or unconstitutional: they don't think it affects them. Well, you're probably right that it doesn't affect you yet. Would you care if the government put together a massive computer system and integrated it with the computer systems of every major bookseller and library in the country by law so it could monitor everyone's book purchases and library checkouts? Probably not. Would you care if the government integrated that tracking system with every supermarket, movie rental store, convenience store, gas station, car dealer, computer shop, ISP, contractor, and gun seller in the country? Probably not because you don't believe you're doing anything wrong.

Let me ask you, what exactly was wrong with the society depicted in George Orwell's book '1984'? Was there anything wrong with it at all? Or was the only flaw in the society the lack of control over the proles?

"I read somewhere that in the first 16 months after the Patriot Act was passed, not one single library account was subpoenaed."

So it's ok to have illegal powers so long as you don't use them for a while after they're given to you? How about if we give the FBI the power to arrest and hold indefinitely anyone it thinks might be a threat to the country (a power apparently reserved to the President, according to the current administration, though I fail to see where that is in the Constitution either)? How long would the FBI need to hold off on random and indefinite, unchallengable arrests before it'd be ok for them to come bust down some doors of anyone it thinks might pose a problem? Let's see - how about if they hold off about 3 years? That might just put them on target to start the arrests during President Hillary's reign. You want them to have that power then? Do you want the President to have that power then?

Power always corrupts. Absolute power always corrupts absolutely.

[Publius Valerius]

I think you're talking to the wrong guy about that. I would have no problem whatsoever with a decriminalization of drugs, and besides that, I think that the federal government should have just about zero power to conduct criminal investigations; I think just about all federal criminal law is unconstitutional and unsupported by a enumerated power.

Criminal law is a state matter. While I would still say that my local state trooper should have no right to look at my library records, it would be less offensive than the Feds.

[WoofDog123]

It amazes me to read the posts on FR from the school of thought that if you don't have anything to hide, there is no real limit to what you don't mind fedgov doing/databasing/observing. This usually shows up on WOD and patriot act threads. Big government databases and lists of all activities by citizens(subjects) are a BAD thing.

[NavVet]

Spend some time in Amesterdam and tell me if you have the same opinion about legalized drugs. On the criminal law issue, sure the federal government has expanded way beyond what the framers could have imagined, but they did have federal criminal law, even back in the days of Jefferson.

[Publius Valerius]

I said just about all; there are certain crimes that the United States has constitutional power to prosecute, but they are mighty few and far between.

So like I said, I remain consistent. Show me something the FBI is doing, and unless it's punishing counterfeiting or something of the sort, chances are that I'll be opposed to it.

[Publius Valerius]

I will say, additionally, I don't think the intent of the commerce clause was to give Congress a hook on which to hang federal law.

However, I think that sometimes you simply have to cede to history--Congress has been doing it for too long to upset the apple cart at this point. I think, however, its powers to define criminal law under the commerce clause should be strict and narrow. No laws against handguns on school grounds or violence against women statutes, for instance.

[Redcitizen]

I never had any real interactions with Librarians. I go to a library, check books out and leave.

[NavVet]

The Commerce clause has been abused greatly over the years.

[Redcitizen]

CCTV cameras only record the crime after it is committed.
A lot of comfort that is to the victim. Makes for good entertainment for the police video shows.

[ozzymandus]

The old ladies and kids that work there are fine. The head librarians are usually full of themselves, and consider themselves "intellectuals", meaning leftists.

[BlackbirdSST]

RE your post #123, well said. Welcome to FRee Republic. Blackbird.