Posted on 06/21/2005 7:58:19 AM PDT by Diana in Wisconsin
The U.S. House of Representatives dealt a blow to Big Brother last week.
The House voted 238-187 to protect our library records and bookstore receipts from willy-nilly government perusal.
The bipartisan vote sent a clear message to the U.S. Senate and to President Bush that the privacy rights of law-abiding American citizens must be respected even as the hard work of fighting and preventing terrorism continues.
Congress and the president are preparing to extend the Patriot Act, an anti-terrorism law quickly approved after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The president has threatened to veto the measure if Congress makes changes. The Senate should call the president's bluff by accepting the House change.
Libraries and bookstores are not havens for terrorists. They are learning centers for vast numbers of Americans who shouldn't have to worry about which titles or authors they happen to be reading.
Quirky taste in reading material shouldn't prompt or prop up bogus investigations of innocent bookworms. If the Justice Department or the FBI has good reason to suspect someone of terrorism, they should be able to convince a judge that a search warrant for library and bookstore records is warranted. The House change wouldn't prevent that.
A majority of Wisconsin's House members, including all four Democrats and Republican U.S. Rep. Tom Petri of Fond du Lac, voted to block easy government access to our reading records. Those favoring broad government power to peruse our library and bookstore records were U.S. Reps. Mark Green, R-Green Bay - who wants to be Wisconsin's next governor - Paul Ryan, R-Janesville, and James Sensenbrenner, R-Menomonee Falls.
The federal government hasn't even used the provision to obtain library or bookstore records, according to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. If that's the case, why leave this broad, invasive power in place? By the government's own admission, it hasn't done any good and hasn't been needed despite significant and numerous terrorism warnings issued by the government in recent years.
In all likelihood, a potential terrorist would use the Internet to find information for their plot - not the public library or a Borders. And accessing the Internet takes little more than a cheap computer plugged into a phone line at a motel.
Adding to the uselessness of government snooping powers at libraries is the fact that many libraries regularly purge from their computers everything but overdue items.
Even if staunch proponents of a sweeping Patriot Act remain unconvinced, the House threw them a bone. The House version of the Patriot Act carves out permission for government to seek records on Internet use at libraries.
We doubt that power will be any help in terrorism prevention and prosecution, either. But it's less offensive because many libraries limit access to certain Web sites, such as those devoted to pornography.
The Patriot Act may still be needed to make sure our nation is adequately protected. But it's continuation must be coupled with careful thought and concern for the privacy rights of ordinary Americans.
The House vote last week was a welcome step toward protecting people's lives and their liberty.
I'm still undecided on this Patriot Act & the Feds looking at books I check out, or where I go on the internet. On the one hand, those of us with nothing to hide...have nothing to hide. Those that do, well, they do, and if it keeps the rest of us from being blown up, it doesn't bother me at all to share personal info. "Profile" me all day long, if need be. No one is foolish enough to think that the right person with a computer and a few scraps of info on you (birth date, SSN or Driver's License number) can't find out your entire Life Story within an hour.
But then, I certainly don't want to be wrongly accused of a crime, just because I checked out a book on making a fertilizer bomb to blow up an old stump on my property. ;)
Impossible!
Hardly! All it did was carve out the narrowest of exceptions in order to please a narrow constituency of liberals. Federal executive agencies still have the power to write their own subpoenas for a wide variety of purposes (exercising a judicial function that the Constitution vests only in judges), and it's still (allegedly) illegal to publicly report that they've been spying on you.
By the way, as regards your comment, the 4th amendment is all about "having things to hide" from the snooping eyes of the government. It's all part of the necessary conditions for maintaining freedom.
F these commies in the ACLU and ALA.
If they were really concerned about privacy rights, they would demand that bookstores not keep ANY records of what books you have purchased.
Big Sister is just as able to miss use records as Big Brother.
When bookstores keep a record of the titles/authors you have bought (and tie it to an account), ask yourself, "Why?".
It's none of their damn business in the first place.
The government has the right and authority to request such records if they are kept in the first place. The government does not have the power to demand that such records be saved if a library or bookstore is not already doing so.
My thoughts exactly.
I'm a personal rights-oriented person. I really am.
But let's face it. When the FBI starts an investigation, they are not looking to find out whether you checked out Madonna's "Sex". They also don't care if you like Jack Kerouac or whether you checked out the "Showgirls" DVD.
They are actively investigating persons who may truly pose a threat to the United States. If a terrorist is apprehended because of a search into their library records, that's fine with me.
"Libraries and bookstores are not havens for terrorists."
Then where the Unabomber get his copy of Al Gore's book?
Let's also not forget some of the Sept. 11th hijackers were communicating from public terminal computers in libraries.
If there is a person using a computer in a library and they are looking up sites which tell how to make bombs .. why isn't it okay for the FBI to go to that Library and check to see what books or other information that person may have looked at in the library ..??
I'm having difficulty understanding why this is such a problem for people.
Going to the library is not a Constitutional RIGHT. Nobody's LIBERTIES are being taken away. The more the left complains about this the more I wonder if they are hiding something there that they don't want uncovered ..?? Very curious.
If you aren't sure, whose side do you want to err on? The side of the people, or the side of the Federal Gubmint? The people's house has spoken. Which branch do we have the most faith in right now? The House, the Senate, or the White House? I'll take the House, looking back over the last 10 years or so.
And that's all they're investigating? How do you know this?
Really? CFR didn't do it? How about the Medicare RX boondoggle? They are all equally bad.
Let me turn this on you:
How do you know they're not investigating things outside of what they should?
I'm cautious. Not paranoid.
It's more intrusive to apply for a library card.
I'm not making any claims as to what they are or are not doing. You were, so I was just curious to know how you knew it.
That's interesting. In my case, I didn't vote for GWB in 2000. The first time I ever cast a vote for either major party in a presidential race was this past one, 2004. For me, the war was the overiding issue, and unfortunately, I just didn't think the Democrats fielded a viable candidate. At minimum, we need someone who is not ambiguous about who's side he's on.
I think it's damn near time to give up on the Constitution being "restored." Look at the current SCOTUS and the recent Commerce Clause ruling. I just don't think our view is going to see the light of day again. But if it does, it could be because of a Janice Rogers Brown making it to the high court. That was my other reason for giving GWB my vote: judicial nominees. I can't give him an F on that.
I think they've bungled the war on terror, and i think they've left us with a big deficit, and with new entitlements, but both parties give us that. Only one will give us Janice Rogers Brown.
That word right there is silly putty in the hands of lawyers, and as long as it's GWB with an R next to his name calling for it, the kool aid drinkers shine up their boots and march to the beat.
What the hell else would they be doing except investigating those persons who may be involved in a terrorist plot?
I'd have to think that the FBI is a little more interested in those things than knowing who has been checking out books on how to sketch nude models.
If you have issues with the govt doing this sort of thing, say it. Don't hid behind inocuous statements like your first post.
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.