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.
Yes...for me 'Witness' was the linchpin that changed my opinion about many things, most notably the American left and the media.
But it didn't change my opinion that societies lacking the willpower to keep themselves from being eaten from within do not survive.
Since we openly allow people from all over the world to come here with little or no documentation, these people are all basically from within our society, if we cannot distinguish them. If we do nothing about it, in the current climate, America will finished as a nation.
The fact that you are offended that someone has to point out that people died to precipitate this situation says more about your point of view than it does about mine. There are a lot of people who forget that there are many things precipitated by the events of 9/11. They think this horrible crisis of FBI agents needing access to a public computer happened in a vacuum, or that the government was just waiting for an excuse to do it. These are the same people who never ask themselves the question: "If 9/11 had not happened, would we be in Iraq right now in the capacity we are?"
It is sad indeed that some people have to REMIND other people that there is such a thing as cause and effect. There are people out there saying "We spend too much time thinking about 9/11, we should put it behind us..." You certainly sound like one of those people who think post-9/11 will be the same as pre-9/11. Sorry to have to be the one to throw the picture in your face of an American who died that day. But perhaps you are not one of those people.
You may be living in a utopian reality, or maybe perhaps your "2 million people killed rather than 2000" statement was just rhetoric, but for a supposed conservative you are displaying all the hallmarks of the opposite state of mind.
Liberalism has an unattainable utopian future in which any means justifies the ends to achieve it, including a supposed society where nobody is going to fly planes into buildings, and closing your eyes to the likelihood of it happening is just as important as finding the likely perpetrators of such an action.
While that could happen, it's certainly not inexorable. Abe Lincoln suspended habeas corpus. Habeas corpus has since been reinstated. Woodrow Wilson's Sedition Act was repealed about two years after it was enacted. FDR interned Americans of Japanese descent. That isn't happening anymore.
Franklin was right, "Those willing to sacrifice a little liberty to gain a little security deserve neither."
I'm a fan of Franklin, and in fact, he and I share the same birthday. But I think that quote of his is overstated. It implies that maximum liberty is had with no security. And that is demonstrably false.
Interesting point. We do tend to be a bit bellicose.
bump
Some good points, thanks. I should remember nothing is absolute.
"It implies that maximum liberty is had with no security. And that is demonstrably false."
Perhaps, but maximum liberty is LESS secure.
But, is maximum security void of liberty? Probably, very nearly.
You're welcome. As well, I appreciate the polite response and I apologize for the tone of my response initially.
Your initial posting was worthy of my disagreement, and I should have not jumped on you as quickly as I did. I generally try to be civil in these forums, usually with success, but I have my hot button issues like everyone else.
Mine happens to be 9/11, the state of war we are in, and the relationship between the two.
I sure appreciate that. We all have our sore spots I'm pretty thick skinned, so don't sweat it. I am a hopeless smart a** though, so please forgive in advance.
Personally, I'm a fan of the Afgan and Iraq efforts. I do not think they are really about combatting terrorism, that is only a small part of it. SHould they be successful in creating a freer country in the middle east, great. The real cause is to get a non OPEC country, Iraq, producing and transporting (bring the pipe line through Afgan and like countries down through Iraq) large quantities of oil. Blow the top off prices, blow the maarket apart. Destroy or seriously harm OPEC. This would give a huge shot in the arm of our country and style of life. More shockingly, however, is I believe servicemen's lives are worth this: Put another way, our way of life and its improvement IS worth fighting and dying for.
A little weird, I know.
I spent a few weeks visiting members of my family in Columbia, MO. They enjoy
the city,but grit their teeth at the liberal nuttiness invading the
place via the University of Missouri.
BUT, on a couple of visits to the CITY library, I was shocked at the balance
of the catalog; in fact it seemed to be a little balanced to the right.
And full of all sorts of media to be checked out, even some that would
drive the ACLU nuts, like "The Question of God" DVD.
Sure beats the heck out the stuff I endure during a visit to the bookstores
of Santa Monica, CA!
True, but there has to be some security mixed with liberty or liberty won't exist at all. Without that security, people would be vulnerable to being enslaved by the first barbarian who comes down the road and beats them into submission.
But, is maximum security void of liberty? Probably, very nearly.
I would agree. North Korea is a prime example of it.
I do take issue, however with your comment:
"...You parade the dead and those working to defend the country as some sort of saints."
I do not parade them as saints. That is not MY characterization. But those who put their life on the line sitting in a gunner position in a humvee cruising down some street in Iraq, or flying a helicopter in the mountains in Afghanistan deserve more than they get from many Americans.
Those men and women do not, for the most part do it for the money. There are many reasons why they serve, some of those reasons would make no sense to people who do not understand the military, have never lived around the military or been in the military. They deserve every accolade we can render on them if they perform honorably. It is the LEAST we can do, and those accolades should be given with honesty, respect and sincerity.
Having lived around the military my whole life growing up, and spent some time in myself, I do not elevate them to some idealistic platform. But I do know they are the ones who are putting their asses on the line, and live each day with the real possibility they may never see another sunrise. And that goes for the REMFS who may only fly the transports over there or process the papers. Any one of them could be called on at any time.
They deserve all the money we can afford to give them, and all the compliments for their sacrifice. Money would be great, but if respect is all we can afford, that is what they should get.
"but there has to be some security mixed with liberty or liberty won't exist at all"
Yes. I'm not a total idiot, as there isn't total anything (Sad when you can't even be a perfect idiot :)). There is a balance and a give and take. Yes. I feel there are enough tools at hand (that is an opinion and I concede it may be wrong). I worry that every little thing that the gov wishes to implement will be done under the guise of security over the next few years. The NAIS is just that. Recently there was a post on this site about national ID cards, again, the issue of security is touted. 99% of these security measures are to keep us under thumb. There is little doubt they will make us more secure, but they will also make us less free. Perhaps I'm just a thrill seeker and wqant to live dangerously free without a safety net. I'm being silly (or sillier) of course, but the anology isn't far off. Everybody seemingly wants the gov to be the safety net. I don't.
Thanks again.
"I do take issue, however with your comment:
"...You parade the dead and those working to defend the country as some sort of saints." "
As well you should. It was most terse and uncalled for. I was wrong to take on a tone akin to those (not necessarily yours) I was bveing treated too. Sorry. Thanks for calling me out on it.
Still, if I may, there are those, particularly on the right, who do as I suggested. I'm guilty of it too. You say, "I do not elevate them to some idealistic platform" I have and I've seen it done. Some are deserving, however. Shugart and Gordon for their service in Somalia immediately come to mind and I hold them in the highest esteem, as I do many of our service people, especially those unsung on the periphery. As a former Marine, I couldn't have done what I did in the field without their support.
Yes they deserve our time and money, but I think we spit in their faces if we seek to restrict the liberties they fight to preserve.
Thanks again.
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.