Posted on 08/25/2005 9:58:28 PM PDT by SmithL
A controversial Patriot Act clause allowing the U.S. government to demand information about library patrons' borrowing habits is being challenged in federal court for the first time by a library.
The lawsuit was filed against U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and FBI Director Robert Mueller in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut by an unnamed library and the American Civil Liberties Union.
The suit -- filed on August 9 and made public by the ACLU on Thursday -- calls the FBI's order to produce library records "unconstitutional on its face" and said a gag order preventing public discussion of the lawsuit is an unlawful restraint on speech.
Critical details of the lawsuit were blacked out on the ACLU's Web site in compliance with the gag order. The library is thought to be based in Connecticut since the lawsuit was filed there with the participation of the Connecticut branch of the ACLU.
The ACLU said in its lawsuit that legal changes made under the Patriot Act "remove any requirement of individualized suspicion, (and) the FBI may now ... demand sensitive information about innocent people."
Enacted after the September 11, 2001, attacks, the Patriot Act lets U.S. authorities seek approval from a special court to search personal records of terror suspects from bookstores, businesses, hospitals and libraries, in a provision known as the library clause.
The FBI letter requesting the information, called a National Security Letter, is effectively a gag order because it tells the recipient that the request must be kept secret.
As a result, "the Patriot Act is itself gagging public debate about the Patriot Act," said Ann Beeson, the ACLU's lead lawyer in the case.
The civil liberties group has asked the District Court to lift the gag order so its client can participate in the public debate and upcoming congressional hearings on the Patriot Act. A hearing about lifting the gag order is scheduled for Wednesday in Bridgeport, Connecticut.
An FBI spokesman referred calls to the Department of Justice. A Justice spokesman said the department had no comment and declined to say if it had required libraries to turn over records under the Patriot Act.
The U.S. House of Representatives, ignoring protests from civil liberties groups, voted this summer to reauthorize 16 provisions of the act that expire at the end of the year, including the library clause. The Senate is expected to take up the matter after lawmakers return from an August recess.
A copy of the ACLU lawsuit said the library involved "strictly guards the confidentiality and privacy of its library and Internet records, and believes it should not be forced to disclose such records without a showing of compelling need and approval by a judge."
The FBI, in a copy of the letter demanding the library records and attached to the lawsuit, said "the information sought is relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities."
The library, I believe, is not required to keep these records in the first place, even though they probably will.
Cue the JBT apologists.
Have you not read USA PATRIOT? If you have, why are you opposed to a judge ordering records seized for someone already under investigation for terrorist activities? In spite of the hype from the Left, they can't go down and seize mine or your records on a lark.
Well, as awkward as it is to find myself on the same side of an argument as the ACLU, I have to concede they have a point. FBI agents trolling the library records of citizens is effort and manpower much better spent, um, I don't know.. SECURING OUR BORDERS, maybe?
Tempest in a teapot. Access to the internet in your own home makes a library obsolete.
I agree. I just don't understand why the library can't just eliminate the record trail at the patrons request.
Inside any organization that has the power to seize records, you can bet your life there are people who will sell those records to the highest bidder. And if that bidder is a terrorist seeking to operate under cover of identity theft, you are indeed betting your life.
The ACLU is a subversive un-and-anti-American terrorist gang.
I love the concept of protected library records. I wonder if NetFlix will seek the same privilege as well..
"The left had no problem with that "invasion of privacy"."
So far as I can tell, Left Liberals only object to invasion of property when an underage girl wants birth control or an abortion, and whenever it points out what THEY are doing that they don't want known. I don't have a problem with library records being open to the public, if anyone wants to look, but I do think the gag-order thing is really stupid.
JBT?
There are a large number of JBT supporters here who support anything "law enforcement" types do. As long as it increases police power, everything is hunky dory.
"As a result, 'the Patriot Act is itself gagging public debate about the Patriot Act,' said Ann Beeson, the ACLU's lead lawyer in the case."
That is a lie from the depths of hell and the ACLU knows it.
I've read it from cover to cover. The phrase to remember relative to the PA is "National Security Letter" - which, in an earlier age was called "Writ of Assistance." This is where the FBI version of the fat lady at the DMV issues a "request" for any information available on you from anyone/anything that takes money from the public and the recipient of said request is prohibited by law from telling you about it. There aren't any judges involved, there is no probable cause requirement, there is no warrant. This is the executive branch issueing judicial branch process. Got a problem with that? I didn't think so. This is the perfect mechanism for people like Hillary to dig dirt on political opponents for inclusion in their dossier for dubious purposes at a later date. This provision was on the police-state-wish-list since day one and it is in provisions of the PA that don't ever expire, and its inclusion in the PA was pure opportunism on the part of police agencies who couldn't get it passed any time other than when a 400+ page bill gets jammed under stupid politician's noses who have no time to read it right after 3000 people get killed. Police work is always easier under a police-state.
This is the organizational equivalent of John Doe, I suppose.
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.