It's hard to imagine that the government's effort to combat terrorism
will be substantially aided by making it easier to access library
records. John Ashcroft is right to question the claim that the FBI
really wants to know what we are reading. I think there is sufficient
political pressure on the Department of Justice to prevent most "fishing
expeditions".
However, when police and intelligence-gathering authorities are
expanded, I always suspect that innocent people or 'little fish' will
bear the brunt of any dragnet operations and that the 'big fish' will
get away. The FBI likes to go after easy targets. Just recall
COINTELPRO.
The Constitution is not a list of ethical imperatives or moral
absolutes, but rather a framework for managing competing interests. It
does not take much reflection to realize the danger of suppressing
opposition to the government or allowing the government unfettered
discretion to conduct searches of people and things. People in power
have always sought to expand that power. The Constitution provides
checks to that power.
John Ashcroft may have poor public relations skills, but I don't doubt
his sincerity. It has been said repeatedly that the United States needs
to develop a stronger capacity to collect intelligence within the United
States. But it makes no sense to assent to this intellectually, then to
resist every attempt to develop this capability.
I would be very curious to see how the ACLU or ALA would combat
terrorism. I think they might realize that connecting the dots is not as
easy as their 20/20 hindsight suggests.
Christopher A. Vallandingham, Esq.
Faculty Services Librarian/Adjunct Professor
University of Florida Levin College of Law
>>> "Janto, Joyce" <jjanto@richmond.edu> 6/24/2004 9:38:25 AM >>>
Disclaimer: I am not a big fan of John Ashcroft. But frankly,
I followed the links and the "evidence" there is less than
convincing. If you click on the link for the list of section
215 warrants applied for you get one PDF page that is heavily
redacted and contains no numbers.
Also - I believe that if you check Ashcroft's statement to the ALA
in October, 2003 you will find that he assured the president of ALA
that the Justice Department had requested zero sec. 215 warrants
against libraries. Not zero sec. 215 warrants. Now you may call
this a quibble, but remember - Ashcroft is a lawyer. That's what
they do.
It pains me to say it - but I would take ANYTHING that the ALA says
about the USA Patriot Act with a large grain of salt. Last fall I
spoke to my state library association on the Act, one of the things
I pointed out is that the FISA court has been secret since its
inception in 1978. I was challenged on this by an attendee who had
gone to an ALA program where someone from the ALA Washington
Office had stated that FISA Courts were made secret by the Patriot
Act. And if you look at their website on dealing with Act, they
strongly imply that if a library is served with a 215 warrant,
the library can have the warrant reviewed by legal counsel before it
is served. This is just plain wrong. They also seem to ignore the
fact that section 215 is one of the provisions that is set to sunset
by Dec. 2005.
Frankly, I think it's a shame that all of the concern I've seen
expressed about the Patriot Act deals with the potential threats
against our 1st amendment rights. No one seems to care that our
4th amendment rights are in even greater jeopardy, since the
provisions allowing for "sneak and peek" warrants do NOT expire.
Now you may say that as librarians the first amendment should be
our primary concern, but as citizens we should be concerned
about any threat to the constitution.
Joyce Manna Janto
Deputy Director of the Law Library
University of Richmond
-----Original Message-----
From: Elisabeth McKechnie [mailto:emckechnie@ucdavis.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2004 6:25 PM
To: law-lib@ucdavis.edu
Subject: Just-released FBI documents confirm ALA USA PATRIOT Act
concerns
I got this from the NOCALL list. Just in case it hasn't hit here
yet...
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-calix@listproc.sjsu.edu
>[mailto:owner-calix@listproc.sjsu.edu]On Behalf Of K.G. Schneider
>Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2004 3:30 PM
>To: calix@listproc.sjsu.edu
>Subject: [CALIX:2607] FW: [MEMBER-FORUM:123] Just-released FBI
documents
>confirm ALA USA PATRIOT Actconcerns
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-member-forum@ala.org [mailto:owner-member-forum@ala.org]
On
>Behalf Of Don Wood
>Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2004 3:18 PM
>To: member-forum@ala.org
>Subject: [MEMBER-FORUM:123] Just-released FBI documents confirm ALA
USA
>PATRIOT Actconcerns
>
>NEWS
>For Immediate Release
Contact:
> Larra Clark
>June 22, 2004
>
> Press Officer
>
>
> 312-280-5043
>
>Just-released FBI documents confirm ALA USA PATRIOT Act concerns
>
>(CHICAGO) Just-released Federal Bureau of Investigation documents
>indicate that the FBI sought to use Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT
Act
>less than one month after Attorney General John Ashcroft told
American
>Library Association (ALA) President Carla Hayden and the American
public
>that this power had never been used. The records, turned over to the
>Freedom to Read Foundation (FTRF) and other First Amendment
>organizations, do not indicate how many times the FBI has invoked
>Section 215 since October 2003.
>
>"These documents demonstrate there is no validity in the Department
of
>Justice's ongoing suggestions that librarians and other critics of
>PATRIOT Act provisions are 'hysterical,'" Hayden said. "The guidance
>memo confirms the ALA's understanding of the scope and nature of the
>business records authority granted by Section 215 and that the
judicial
>review is of a lower legal standard than was previously provided in
U.S.
>law."
>
>The records about the government's use of the PATRIOT Act were
obtained
>through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed in October
>2003 on behalf of the FTRF, the American Civil Liberties Union, the
>Electronic Privacy Information Center and the American Booksellers
>Foundation for Free Expression. Five documents were released,
including
>a guidance memorandum on Business Records Orders and an email that
>acknowledges that Section 215 can be used to obtain physical objects
-
>including a person's apartment key - in addition to records. To see
>electronic versions of the documents, please go to
>http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=15327&c=262. A
>further release is expected in July.
>
>To read more about the ALA's objections to USA PATRIOT Act, please
>visit http://www.ala.org/ala/pio/mediarelations/patriotactmedia.htm.
As
>part of the Campaign for Reader Privacy (www.readerprivacy.org), the
ALA
>has helped gather more than 130,000 signatures seeking amendments to
the
>Act.
>
>-30-
>
>
>
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------calix-
+
>Views expressed on CALIX are the opinion of the sender and do not
>necessarily reflect the position of the California Library
Association.
>
>How to get off CALIX: Subscribers are strongly encouraged to keep
>abreast of CLA and California library news via this mailing list.
>To sign off from the list, send email to listproc@listproc.sjsu.edu
with
>the following request: SIGNOFF CALIX or UNSUBSCRIBE CALIX in the
body
>of the message. Make sure your subject line is blank and nothing
other
>than the command is in the body of the message.
>-----------------------------------------------------------------calix-
-
>
>
>--To unsubscribe from
>'nocall-list'---><mailto:leave-nocall-list-26699I@aallnet.org>unsubscri
be
Elisabeth M. McKechnie, J.D., M.L.I.S.
Associate Librarian
UC Davis Law Library
(530) 752-3327
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 14 2007 - 20:45:32 PST