Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
Posted on 02/27/2006 7:38:32 PM PST by William Tell 2
Who is the ultimate authority on whether a homeland security surveillance measure is appropriate: the president, Congress, or the Supreme Court? According to its president, the answer is the American Library Association.
Dom Giordano, talk show host for Philadelphia’s radio station WPHT 1210-AM, interviewed American Library Association (ALA) president Michael Gorman on February 9. One of issues addressed concerned the ALA’s policy towards governmental investigation of library patron’s reading materials.
During the interview Gorman reiterated the policy of the ALA, which instructs librarians to ensure that any search warrants they receive from the FBI regarding library records are legal. They advise librarians to consult with legal counsel. Apparently, the librarians of the American Library Association are the self-appointed sentinels of the civil liberties of American citizens.
Yet, the ALA policy concerns whether a librarian should comply with a search warrant – issued by a genuine neutral magistrate, not a self-appointed one – for authorities who want to determine if an individual is a fanatic planning to participate in a terrorist plot. The federal government is not implementing an investigation of an individual’s politics – which is what totalitarian societies do.
However, the ALA disagrees. Its resolution on the USA PATRIOT Act states, “The American Library Association (ALA) opposes any use of governmental power to suppress the free and open exchange of knowledge and information or to intimidate individuals exercising free inquiry…ALA considers that sections of the USA PATRIOT ACT are a present danger to the constitutional rights and privacy rights of library users.”
On its webpage, the ALA announces, “The USA PATRIOT Act…expanded the authority of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and law enforcement to gain access to…library records, including stored electronic data and communications…These enhanced surveillance procedures pose the greatest challenge to privacy and confidentiality in the library.”
Moreover, the ALA has drafted a policy that states that they intend to resist enforcement of this law if they feel it is inappropriate. Point number three of the ALA Policy on Confidentiality of Library Records recommends that librarians, “Resist the issuance of enforcement of any such process, order, or subpoena until such time as a proper showing of good cause has been made in a court of competent jurisdiction.” They then qualify this by stating, “the library's officers will consult with their legal counsel to determine if such process, order, or subpoena is in proper form and if there is a showing of good cause for its issuance.” The ALA then refers their members to the Library Bill of Rights, a policy adopted in 1948 by the ALA Council.
First Amendment activist Nat Hentoff, a writer for the Village Voice, is not too happy with the ALA Council. Hentoff, who supports the ALA's campaign against the PATRIOT Act, apparently believes the ALA Council is hypocritical. Hentoff wrote:
while I am impressed by this assembly of mass indignation (about the PATRIOT Act)… there's something missing. So far as I know, in this congregation of freedom-to-read activists, not one on the list—except for PEN—has said or done anything about the torment that 10 independent librarians in Cuba are undergoing in Fidel Castro's gulag, along with 65 other pro-democracy dissidents rounded up in the dictator's crackdown in April last year…The governing council of the American Library Association, an organization on the list, disgraced itself in January when it overwhelmingly rejected an amendment to a final report at its mid-winter meeting telling Castro to let the librarians out. Apparently there are members of the council who romanticize Fidel, as do some Hollywood celebrities.
Hentoff also wrote that directors of the ALA and some members believe that independent Cuban librarians are lackeys of the U.S. government (something they would never be). He quotes Mark Rosenzweig of the ALA’s governing council as saying, “we cannot presume that all countries are capable of the same level of intellectual freedom that we have in the U.S. Cuba is caught in an extremely sharp conflict with the U.S....I don't think [Cuba] is a dictatorship. It's a republic.”
Rosenzweig is alsothe Director of the Reference Center for Marxist Studies. A Marxist civil libertarian seems like an oxymoron to me....
A January 2001 report by the ALA’s International Relations Caribbean Subcommittee incredibly concluded, “While the civil oppression of individuals (Cuban independent librarians)…appears to be documented by Amnesty International and other observers, it is not conclusive whether these conditions result from the denial of intellectual freedom or from anti-government activities by the persons involved.”
So if one is to understand this correctly, the ALA deems it permissible for the “civil oppression of individuals” to occur if it is the result of “anti-government activities” by those individuals. Yet, the FBI investigating whether someone who reads Muslim terrorist publications, or books describing bomb making, or communicating with suspected terrorists, is a threat to the Republic is not okay?
This report also quoted Ann Sparanese, of the Englewood (NJ) Public Library as saying, “Almost all the individuals operating these 'libraries' identify themselves as dissidents and members of anti-Castro political parties…she has seen no evidence of censorship or confiscation of books in her many visits to Cuba.”
Others besides Nat Hentoff have criticized ALA’s hypocrisy as well. Only a few weeks ago, at the January 25, 2006 ALA midwinter meeting, author and National Public Radio commentator Andrei Codrescu, who was an invited speaker, chided the ALA for not condemning the imprisonment of Cuban librarians.
Maine librarian Walter Skold, is a co-founder of FREADOM, a coalition of - one might say - libertarian librarians who have campaigned for freeing the Cuban librarians. Skold has written for FrontPage Magazine concerning the Castro sympathizers among the ALA membership.
How can Americans believe that the ALA’s campaign against the PATRIOT Act is legitimate because of their love of American civil liberties when many of the ALA membership admire one of the most terrible violators of civil liberties extant? The ALA has no credibility. It is not so much concerned about American civil liberties as it is about making a political statement about Republicans, President Bush and the conservative value of Americans defending themselves from all threats foreign and domestic?
In November 2003, the National Constitution Center conducted a poll in association with the Gallup organization, asking, “Do you think the PATRIOT Act goes too far, is about right, or does not go far enough in restricting people’s civil liberties in order to fight terrorism?”
All told, 45 percent of those who replied said the PATRIOT Act was about right, while 20 percent said it did not go far enough. Only 25 percent of those surveyed by the National Constitution Center / Gallup poll – neither of which is considered a member of the vast right wing conspiracy - said the Patriot Act goes too far in restricting people’s civil liberties in order to fight terrorism.
The ALA does not seem to have public opinion on its side. Nor does it have reason, consistency, or good common sense.
Michael P. Tremoglie is the author of the soon-to-be-released novel A Sense of Duty, and an ex-Philadelphia cop. E-mail him at elfegobaca2@earthlink.net.
Bull. We are at war, and it is people like you who do not know it. Tough to have to parade the memory of a person who died to make the point with a pathetic excuse for a Marine like you who supposedly understands sacrifice. I'm sure a lot of Marines would appreciate hearing someone like you refer to a "so called war" they are fighting and dying in.
Pathetic indeed.
I am of the liberal persuasion, that is, in the classical sense as defined by F.A. Hayek. I believe in liberty.
Why does anyone even go to a library anymore? I got a card when I first moved back here from Germany 13 years ago. I think I went once.
They are the first to go when budget cuts start.
Close 'em all.
The so called war is the one they alledgedly battle here. "Let's restrict you, let's look at your records. You don't mind. It will help catch the bad guys." That is all bs.
"Is life so dear or peace so sweet" or the love for a friend so precious "as to be purchased in the bonds and chains of slavery?" Your answer seems to be YES. I say NO.
So one's right to organize or assemble should be based on the importance or difficulty of one's profession? The ALA is within the rights to do what they do.
Close 'em all?
Nice attitude. Returned from Germany? Did you learn book burning when you were there?
"So called war"? In 1996, OBL issued a declaration of war against the Americans who were in Saudi Arabia. In 1998, he extended that declaration against all Americans everywhere, and called on Muslims all over the world to kill as many of us as possible.
As a libertarian myself, I'm uneasy about government's interfering into people's private lives. But I don't see that happening with the Patriot Act, and anything short of our deaths does not give the terrorists their win.
I didn't say burn them, numnut, I said close them.
You want them, pay for them yourself.
M&M's are more difficult to organize than books.
I believe in liberty, too, which is why I am a conservative. I get tired of liberals forcing me to pay for their social experiments and censoring my speech with their political correctness.
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
Try your local library again. Times have changed, and libraries are changing with them. My library has free computer classes, free online access to full text magazine and newspaper articles, free video and DVD borrowing privileges, books on cassette or CD for long commutes, free public programs such as a lecture on what is stem cell research, writing workshops -- and a strong desire to help each person get an answer to his or her question. More and more libraries are even offering free downloadable audiobooks, ebooks, or music.
Many people don't know that they can request that a library purchase a book. If you see too many liberal books on the shelves, request a conservative title--don't just shun the library. Ask for the titles that you want to see. In my personal experience, more liberals than conservatives will make purchase requests. Because I have a limited budget and also need to provide what my community wants, sometimes I am hoping a conservative will come in and ask for a particular title, but rarely do they. Be more proactive.
"These agencies are effectively on fishing expeditions, which the constitution strictly forbids."
Since when are librarians Constitutional experts???
Public libraries, are not "privately owned or run". What a hoot they think they are above "ordinary" operations in the US.
The war is going on everywhere. In 2004 alone, US Special Forces carried out operations in 150 countries.
We get to carry out our normal lives while others sacrifice their normal lives on our behalf. I believe we owe them the "sacrifice" of allowing a government agency which is chasing a hot lead to examine a public computer, paid for with taxpayer's money.
In an open and free society (which is what the USA is, in contrary to what many who decry the "loss of rights" think) with porous borders and a non-homogeneous population, we are at risk. The people who attacked us on 9/11 have shown there is no depth to which they will not plunge to attain their aims. If they had nuclear weapons they would have used them.
You are of the the opinion that allowing the search of a computer in a public library which may contain data that might lead to the capture of one of these animals is the Mother's Milk that leads to heroin addiction. You believe that begrudging one step of hard earned liberty leads inexorably down a slippery slope to fascism.
I believe that attitude is what contributed to our blindness on 9/11, and it was caused by people who share your opinion in this. And the most galling thing is that the very people who criticize the government most vociferously for "not connecting the dots" are the same ones who lament that allowing a search like the one described above will lead to US citizens being incarcerated in Soviet style gulags.
I don't think libraries are obsolete.
On the other hand, in my home state of Massachusetts, some of them regard themselves as the last bastion of defense against a fascist government. They need to read this book:
"My library goes out of its way to try not to have any records so that if a subpoena is issued, they will have nothing to provide."
That's nice to know--that your library "goes out of its way," i.e., makes every effort, to cover terrorists' tracks. That arguably meets Article III, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution's definition of treason, specifically the part about "giving aid and comfort."
'nuff said. You'all can't be trusted.
If M&Ms are more easy to organize, why can't one earn an MM&MS (Masters of M&M Sorting) instead of an MLS (Masters of Library Science). Collections of thousands, if not millions of volumes of texts require some sort of management. Most M&M junkies even realize this.
The vociferousness that many of you display is comical. You parade the dead and those working to defend the country as some sort of saints. You criticise Sheehan while acting like her, wrapping yourselves in the flag or images of those who have died (Yeah, I think she's an idiot too, but why mimic an idiot). If anyone disagrees with you, they are criminals, stupid, "can't be trusted," and should somehow be removed from this society/country. You criticise the Muslim extremist who kill those of not similar faction, yet your rhetoric sounds strangely familiar to their rantings. Nice attitudes, so much for Christianity, understanding, forgiveness, and most important, reasonable dialogue and debate. You folks are more inundated and influenced by the mass media than you realize.
"You want them, pay for them yourself" Funny that isn't the attitude when I say chuck the FDA or a myriad of other government agencies. You folks want the comfort of the illusion of the services they pretend to provide. What you forget is that NOT ALL libraries are public. These boys want access to information from private libraries. How is that different than them reviewing your private reading material? The government cannot protect you, only you can by being vigilant and well armed and by keeping government out of your lives.
And the argument - But if it saves just one life? Give me a break! "anything short of our deaths does not give the terrorists their win." and "we owe them the "sacrifice" of allowing a government agency [access to our lives]", and "we are at risk. The people who attacked us on 9/11 have shown there is no depth to which they will not plunge to attain their aims. If they had nuclear weapons they would have used them." All of these ring like cry babies saying if is saves just one.
These are common pleas to give up liberites in a vain attempt at personal comfort and security. Don't you think door to door searches during the American Revolution would have rooted out some sympathisers and collaborators? Why wasn't it done on large scale? Because the liberty of the individual was more valued than security. Sure there is no depth the bad guys wouldn't sink to, but that doesn't mean we should follow them there, we are the road to reducing ourselves to a fight of our form of totalitarianism being "better" than theirs. Sure we are at risk, but that is the cost of liberty. It may cost your life, it may cost mine, but that is the cost. And yes, I believe that sacrificing one step of hard earned liberty leads inexorably down a slippery slope to fascism - ABSOLUTELY! Our fore fathers were upset about a 10% tax, tell me we haven't gone screaming down a steep teflon coated slope. Tell me anything the government has become involved with that they have maintained a hands off attitude. Franklin was right, "Those willing to sacrifice a little liberty to gain a little security deserve neither."
"Since when are librarians Constitutional experts" We should all be. Those who don't exercise their rights are doomed to loose them. Sound familiar? I think it was Jefferson. I'll tell you something else he said, All evil needs to exist is for good people to do nothing. I assume when they knock on your door to take your firearms you won't cite the second amendment, because afterall, you're no expert. Furthermore, it will make things safer, and isn't that what it's all about?
Thank you
P.S. I liked your book.
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.