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 don't know how old you are and how far back your political memory goes, but I think I recall that during the Bork nomination hearings, some liberal journalists got ahold of Bork's movie rental history, trying to embarrass him (as it turned out, he'd rented nothing embarrassing). These are the same liberals who are now so concerned about privacy under the Patriot Act.
I'm sorry .. I just don't agree. I don't live in some level of fear .. because I've never lived that way.
I cannot understand why people are getting so paranoid over this - there is an original warrant - which means the judge is going to want accountability for the warrant. But .. you're saying you have so little trust in anyone that you are ready to believe that every policeman in every city will be misusing this law to snoop into peoples lives for the fun of it.
If you believe that .. that's what I have a problem with. Because if there is some Islamist at my local library - just 3 miles away - and he looking up bomb making stuff and printing out pictures, etc. - I do want the FBI or whoever is investigating that cell - to make the extra effort to find EVERYBODY CONNECTED TO THIS GUY. If there is a warrant already to follow the guy and they find ADDITIONAL INFORMATION - I don't see why it's depriving ME OF MY RIGHTS - if a terrorist is investigated further.
Similarly for Clarence Thomas. He rented videos that would preclude him from employment by some Conservatives.
Now search for embarassing rentals is institutionalized.
"Pedophilia for Dummies" and "Crack Dealing for Dummies." :)
I was just using your example as to how important having the FACTS on people can be. If we had had a few more FACTS/better intel on 20 CERTAIN people (but I'm not profiling, heaven forbid!) prior to 9/11, we wouldn't be dreading a certain five-year anniversary coming up this Fall. :(
The 9/11 terrorists had 300 different pieces of fraudulent ID between them, and were living here under false pretences, so I'm all for people actually, factually, honestly being who they're supposed to be.
Good grief. I don't have a chart .. but I've heard report after report from all types of police officers that said that the Patriot Act only allowed them to do the same things they did with regular crime .. and most of them said the Patriot Act only added about 5% of addtional investigative tools which they didn't have before.
So I heard several people say that - and that's all the proof I have.
I'm quite sure that will not be proof enough for you - sorry.
And knowing about their library books would help determine this how? Which books would tell you that their readers were terrorists?
Fine. I'll stop beating this dead horse first. You and the terrorists win. :)
In other words you have no answer. You sound like all the other liberals I knew when I was in Wisconsin.
"Wouldn't this have more to do with immigration reform?"
Yes.
The only point I was trying to make by using Dr. What's His Name's example is that overall, I don't mind the Government tracking down evil people by any means necessary, library databases or otherwise.
Ooo! Calling me a liberal hurts my widdow feewings. Not. I'm the farthest thing from a liberal that you can find around here. And I don't live in Madison, I just post articles from their leftists newspapers to expose their stupidity.
Please read my post #134 for clarification. Have a good evening! I'm going to the library to check out a few questionable books, LOL! :)
If you're claiming that only Democrats would make ill use of this power, just wait till some RINO gets nominated in '08 because of panicky Republican voters who are afraid that a real conservative would lose to Hillary. You simply can not go by the letter after a person's name. That's very foolish policy.
Try Ed Klein's "The Truth About Hillary" if it's available. Let us know what it says. I can't afford to be seen reading it.
Not being in Madison, you can't tell me where Leo Burt is either, I'll guess.
Well .. if there is a repub blowout in 2006 - I don't expect there will be any RINO running for president.
That's true .. but one of the things I've found out about FR is that the people from his home state KNOW HIM/HER. It does give us a decided advantage.
And .. even when I've thought a candidate might be good .. I've gotten information from some home staters which either confirmed what I believe or added info to the mix.
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.