Posted on 09/15/2003 4:16:04 PM PDT by Brian S
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:43:50 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Attorney General John Ashcroft denounced as "hysteria" the contention by some librarians and civil liberties groups that the FBI can use a new anti-terror law to snoop into Americans' reading habits.
In a speech Monday to an American Restaurant Association conference, Ashcroft said people are being wrongly led to believe that libraries have been "surrounded by the FBI," with agents "dressed in raincoats, dark suits and sunglasses. They stop everyone and interrogate everyone like Joe Friday.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Will the next Justice Department? Possibly.
How is that?
And here, take this napkin.
LVM
Have you ever heard him bitch and moan aboot what Canada decides to do with their drug laws?
I like that site. Some really unbiased analysis of the act, for a change...
LVM
My point exactly.
Now in this post-Patriot-Act Bush era, prosecutors are claiming that meth is a weapon of mass destruction.
Prosecutor Jerry Wilson says he isn't abusing the law, which defines chemical weapons of mass destruction as "any substance that is designed or has the capability to cause death or serious injury" and contains toxic chemicals.I dread to think what Janet Reno II will do once the Democrats are back in power with this heinous Patriot Act.
Since liberals already claim that freerepublic.com is a hate website, it will take little to take down this site under some anti-terrorist excuse.
Of course, the affidavit says NOTHING about a meth lab - so where does this tale originate?
Will the next Justice Department? Possibly.
Bump.
Exactly. We've seen what AGs like Janet Reno can do without the act, God knows what they could and would do with it.
I'm tired of Ashcroft branding those who would question something so important as being hysterical and the like. It's getting really old and making his positions and views sound more and more like they can't be defended with logical arguments.
I think many of us see the "well your just being hysterical" spiel as more like "we know what's best for you, you don't need to ask any more silly questions."
Exactly. We've seen what AGs like Janet Reno can do without the act, God knows what they could and would do with it.
I'm tired of Ashcroft branding those who would question something so important as being hysterical and the like. It's getting really old and making his positions and views sound more and more like they can't be defended with logical arguments.
I think many of us see the "well your just being hysterical" spiel as more like "we know what's best for you, you don't need to ask any more silly questions."
Maybe it's been reported widely in newspapers, television news, radio shows, and Internet websites?
Critics target tactics used on civilian suspects
Dallas Morning News,Is meth a "weapon of mass destruction" in your universe?
September 26, 1999
The GAO report said ATF agents found people who told them that Mr. Koresh had said "drug trafficking was a desirable way to raise money." And they found informants who told them that a methamphetamine lab once operated on Branch Davidian property.Criminal record checks determined that several Branch Davidians had been convicted of drug offenses.
Defense department records show that some military lawyers suspected ATF of manufacturing the drug connection just to get thousands of dollars in free military assistance.
And others, including Sheriff Harwell, said ATF's information appeared to be several years old. Unproven allegations of a meth lab on Branch Davidian property had only been a hot topic before Mr. Koresh took over the religious sect in 1988, Sheriff Harwell said.
"I never knew David and the Davidians to be into drugs," the sheriff said last week.
With its drug-connection evidence in hand, ATF approached Operation Alliance, a multiagency clearinghouse that rules on civilian law enforcement requests for military assistance in anti-drug cases.
Operation Alliance approved the ATF's application and forwarded it to the Texas National Guard and Joint Task Force 6, a special military operation at Fort Bliss near El Paso. Joint Task Force 6's mission is to respond to law enforcement requests for anti-drug assistance.
Myth:The ACLU has claimed that "Many [people] are unaware that their library habits could become the target of government surveillance. In a free society, such monitoring is odious and unnecessary. . . The secrecy that surrounds section 215 leads us to a society where the ?thought police? can target us for what we choose to read or what Websites we visit."(ACLU, July 22, 2003)
Reality:
The Patriot Act specifically protects Americans' First Amendment rights, and terrorism investigators have no interest in the library habits of ordinary Americans.
Historically, terrorists and spies have used libraries to plan and carry out activities that threaten our national security. If terrorists or spies use libraries, we should not allow them to become safe havens for their terrorist or clandestine activities. The Patriot Act ensures that business records -- whether from a library or any other business -- can be obtained in national security investigations with the permission of a federal judge.
Examining business records often provides the key that investigators are looking for to solve a wide range of crimes.
Investigators might seek select records from hardware stores or chemical plants, for example, to find out who bought materials to make a bomb, or bank records to see who's sending money to terrorists.
Law enforcement authorities have always been able to obtain business records in criminal cases through grand jury subpoenas, and continue to do so in national security cases where appropriate.
In a recent domestic terrorism case, for example, a grand jury served a subpoena on a bookseller to obtain records showing that a suspect had purchased a book giving instructions on how to build a particularly unusual detonator that had been used in several bombings. This was important evidence identifying the suspect as the bomber.
In national security cases where use of the grand jury process was not appropriate, investigators previously had limited tools at their disposal to obtain certain business records. Under the Patriot Act, the government can now ask a federal court (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court), if needed to aid an investigation, to order production of the same type of records available through grand jury subpoenas. This federal court, however, can issue these orders only after the government demonstrates the records concerned are sought for an authorized investigation to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a U.S. person or to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a U.S. person is not conducted solely on the basis of activities protected by the First Amendment.
Congress reviews the government's use of business records under the Act. Every six months, the Attorney General must "fully inform" Congress on how it has been implemented.
On October 17, 2002, the House Judiciary Committee issued a press release indicating it is satisfied with the Department?s use of section 215: "The Committee's review of classified information related to FISA orders for tangible records, such as library records, has not given rise to any concern that the authority is being misused or abused."
Let's talk about libraries and library records - since that's what this thread was about ...
When proven wrong, then you start acting like a thread nanny.
This thread is about the Patriot Act, IMO, and why the original intents of a bad law can be distorted very easily.
The example of calling a common drug, meth, a "weapon of mass destruction" is an abuse of the anti-terror legislation.
If you don't want to discuss this issue, don't answer to my posts.
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.