Almost, But Not Quite Right
The other day, the Washington Post published an opinion that had me so angry I had to put it away for awhile. I've calmed down a little, but I still think the opinionator didn't quite get it.
THE VOTE BY the House of Representatives last month to block use of a provision of the USA Patriot Act against libraries and bookstores sends a powerful message of bipartisan anxiety about the Bush administration's approach to terrorism. Unfortunately, that message is something of a misfire.
Attached to an appropriations bill, the amendment by Rep. Bernard Sanders (I-Vt.) responds to a provision that, while imperfect, makes a good deal of sense and about which there is no evidence of abuse. The administration's response was characteristically hyperbolic: The Justice Department warned that Mr. Sanders's amendment would carve out "bookstores and libraries . . . as safe havens for terrorists and spies, who have, in fact, used public libraries to do research and communicate with their co-conspirators." But on the merits, the provision is not one that merits particular concern -- and a spending bill, in any event, is a ridiculous means of improving it.
No evidence of abuse? Doesn't WaPo do any fact checking? One simple Google search and I found this (which also links to the USA Today piece).
A Washington State librarian has penned an op-ed in USA Today, sharing her experiences after the FBI dropped in last June and demanded a list of the people who had checked out a biography of Osama bin Laden. She outlines the steps that the library followed and the FBI's response: "a subpoena on the library a week later demanding a list of everyone who had borrowed the book since November 2001."
Fortunately, the library refused, and the FBI blinked. End of story. Or is it? One wonders how many other stories are out there amongst librarians who received similar visits.
Libraries as safe-havens for terrorists? Let's face it: libraries tend to be safe-havens for people who don't have home computers connected to the internet, people who can't afford to buy the latest best-seller, and students who have a term paper due and need to do some research. Their rights should continue to be compromised because the FBI doesn't want to have to go the constitutional route for obtaining a search warrant, a route that requires a public hearing?
And a spending bill is a ridiculous way to improve the outrageous Patriot Act? Has it occurred to the writer of this op-ed piece that the FBI can operate only so long as they have the funds to do so? Isn't that fairly evident to even the sixth-grade civics student?
But the privacy interest in such records, while real, is not obviously stronger than the comparable privacy interest in medical, credit card or other business records. And, of course, barring production orders under the Patriot Act would not protect libraries from having to turn over those same records under other laws.
The difference, of course, is that the production orders under the Patriot Act do not require a Grand Jury or a Federal judge to approve the subpoenas, a clear protection from fishing expedition abuse by the federal government. Under the Patriot Act, an agent gets to discuss the need for a search warrant in secrecy.
No, this section of the Patriot Act is not a minor irritation. No section of this abomination, passed during the hysteria following 9/11 is a minor irritation. The whole damned Act should be sunsetted/repealed.
THE VOTE BY the House of Representatives last month to block use of a provision of the USA Patriot Act against libraries and bookstores sends a powerful message of bipartisan anxiety about the Bush administration's approach to terrorism. Unfortunately, that message is something of a misfire.
Attached to an appropriations bill, the amendment by Rep. Bernard Sanders (I-Vt.) responds to a provision that, while imperfect, makes a good deal of sense and about which there is no evidence of abuse. The administration's response was characteristically hyperbolic: The Justice Department warned that Mr. Sanders's amendment would carve out "bookstores and libraries . . . as safe havens for terrorists and spies, who have, in fact, used public libraries to do research and communicate with their co-conspirators." But on the merits, the provision is not one that merits particular concern -- and a spending bill, in any event, is a ridiculous means of improving it.
No evidence of abuse? Doesn't WaPo do any fact checking? One simple Google search and I found this (which also links to the USA Today piece).
A Washington State librarian has penned an op-ed in USA Today, sharing her experiences after the FBI dropped in last June and demanded a list of the people who had checked out a biography of Osama bin Laden. She outlines the steps that the library followed and the FBI's response: "a subpoena on the library a week later demanding a list of everyone who had borrowed the book since November 2001."
Fortunately, the library refused, and the FBI blinked. End of story. Or is it? One wonders how many other stories are out there amongst librarians who received similar visits.
Libraries as safe-havens for terrorists? Let's face it: libraries tend to be safe-havens for people who don't have home computers connected to the internet, people who can't afford to buy the latest best-seller, and students who have a term paper due and need to do some research. Their rights should continue to be compromised because the FBI doesn't want to have to go the constitutional route for obtaining a search warrant, a route that requires a public hearing?
And a spending bill is a ridiculous way to improve the outrageous Patriot Act? Has it occurred to the writer of this op-ed piece that the FBI can operate only so long as they have the funds to do so? Isn't that fairly evident to even the sixth-grade civics student?
But the privacy interest in such records, while real, is not obviously stronger than the comparable privacy interest in medical, credit card or other business records. And, of course, barring production orders under the Patriot Act would not protect libraries from having to turn over those same records under other laws.
The difference, of course, is that the production orders under the Patriot Act do not require a Grand Jury or a Federal judge to approve the subpoenas, a clear protection from fishing expedition abuse by the federal government. Under the Patriot Act, an agent gets to discuss the need for a search warrant in secrecy.
No, this section of the Patriot Act is not a minor irritation. No section of this abomination, passed during the hysteria following 9/11 is a minor irritation. The whole damned Act should be sunsetted/repealed.
posted by Diane at 10:52 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home