home

Silencing Librarians

By TChris, Section Civil Liberties
Posted on Wed May 31, 2006 at 11:51:36 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by TChris

Remember when John Ashcroft assured us that the Patriot Act wouldn't be used to access library records? Raw Story has a nice piece that explains how the government kept the truth quiet until the Patriot Act was reauthorized.

[Connecticut] Librarians, members of Library Connection, a not-for profit cooperative organization for resource sharing across 26 Connecticut library branches sharing a centralized computer, were served with a National Security Letter (NSL) in August of last year as part of the FBI's attempt to attain access to patron's records. ...

On September 9 of last year, a federal judge lifted the gag order and rejected the government's argument that identifying the plaintiff would pose a threat to national security.

Yet the government continued to appeal the case throughout the reauthorization debate, passionately arguing that not a single incident of civil liberties violations by the Patriot Act had occurred. By continuing the appeal, the government effectively silenced any evidence to counter their claims.

"This all happened during the reauthorization debate and the government was saying no one's rights were being violated," said George Christian, staff liaison for Library Connection and one of the plaintiffs in the case.

As the debate over the reauthorization of the Patriot Act heated up, the librarians and others gagged by the NSL had to watch in silence, intimately aware of dangers they believed were not being exposed.

"We could not speak to Congress until after the renewal of the Patriot Act," Said Barbara Bailey, President of Library Connection and one of four plaintiffs in the case.

Although the ACLU, representing the librarians, filed the case on August 9 of last year, US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales decried any civil liberties violations in a Washington Post op-ed in December, stating that "There have been no verified civil liberties abuses in the four years of the [Patriot] act's existence."

Attorney General Gonzales may be incapable of recognizing a civil liberties abuse. The librarians understand that the government shouldn't be snooping into library records without a warrant.

"People ask about private and confidential things in the library setting... like about their health, their family issues and related books they take out ... these are confidential and we did this to protect our patrons from authorized snooping," said Peter Chase, Vice President of Library Connection.

< Wednesday News Roundup and Open Thread | U.S. Troops Kill Iraqi Pregnant Woman >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Silencing Librarians | 26 comments (26 topical)
    Re: Silencing Librarians (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 31, 2006 at 12:29:19 PM EST
    On September 9 of last year, a federal judge lifted the gag order and rejected the government's argument that identifying the plaintiff would pose a threat to national security.
    Does the Judge realize he/she could be fired for that?

    Re: Silencing Librarians (none / 0) (#2)
    by roger on Wed May 31, 2006 at 12:32:55 PM EST
    This is why Rethug weasels dont like being sworn in.

    Re: Silencing Librarians (none / 0) (#3)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 31, 2006 at 01:12:42 PM EST
    Let me see. Libraries are public. If you check out a book, use a free computer, etc., why should you think that someone, including the government, can't come in and view the records. Where is the expectation of privacy? This is entirely different than bookstore records, privately owned computers, etc.

    Re: Silencing Librarians (none / 0) (#4)
    by squeaky on Wed May 31, 2006 at 01:24:40 PM EST
    ppj-
    Let me see. Libraries are public. If you check out a book, use a free computer, etc., why should you think that someone, including the government, can't come in and view the records. Where is the expectation of privacy?
    you mean the NSA wasted all those resources, sending out Security letters, gag orders etc., when they could have just asked for these public records? Guess you have slept through the last thirty years. I am not surprised.

    Re: Silencing Librarians (none / 0) (#5)
    by Sailor on Wed May 31, 2006 at 01:54:02 PM EST
    If you check out a book, use a free computer
    that's a dumb as saying if you go to a public hospital the gov't gets all your health records

    Re: Silencing Librarians (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 31, 2006 at 02:02:12 PM EST
    Would you consider the White house to be public property? I'll let them look at my public library records if we can peruse the WH's records. I'll show you mine if you show me yours.

    Re: Silencing Librarians (none / 0) (#7)
    by Johnny on Wed May 31, 2006 at 02:04:19 PM EST
    Jim, I think you would have more credibility with the people here if you just up and said you endorse a survelliance/police state. Kept the Nazis safe for close to 15 years! The USSR lasted almost, what? 80 years? Why do you hate freedom?

    Re: Silencing Librarians (none / 0) (#8)
    by Sailor on Wed May 31, 2006 at 03:03:27 PM EST
    hey, I guess the fbi was right, they can just march into congress and seize anything they want, after all it's a public building.

    Re: Silencing Librarians (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 31, 2006 at 03:27:03 PM EST
    PPJ - It's shameful the little regard you have the the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Remember this little song? ...the land of the free, and the home of the brave.

    Re: Silencing Librarians (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 31, 2006 at 04:29:29 PM EST
    let's see the post was about libraries, ppj did his job again. he made sure the actual post wasn't disgussed

    Re: Silencing Librarians (none / 0) (#11)
    by Edger on Wed May 31, 2006 at 08:28:00 PM EST
    Where is the expectation of privacy?

    What about those of us who knew better, we who knew the words were lies and worse than lies?
    ...
    And then, one day we looked around and found that we were in an even more terrible danger. The ritual begun in this courtroom swept over the land like a raging, roaring disease. What was going to be a "passing phase" had become the way of life.
    Re: Silencing Librarians (none / 0) (#12)
    by jondee on Wed May 31, 2006 at 09:05:26 PM EST
    Its this kind of thing that hearkens to mind the story about the frog that gets boiled to death by the water temp getting turned up very gradually over time. The frog of course is us and our freedom. Single-minded idealogues on-a-mission with near unlimited resources at their disposal and a constituency who's critical faculties are anesthetized by inculated fear and religious propaganda dont seem too averse to turning this from a nation once "under attack" to a potential police state always under attack.

    Re: Silencing Librarians (none / 0) (#13)
    by squeaky on Wed May 31, 2006 at 09:08:31 PM EST
    . What was going to be a "passing phase" had become the way of life.
    Wow! Burt Lancaster, doing the audio, is amazing.

    Re: Silencing Librarians (none / 0) (#14)
    by Edger on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 02:14:33 AM EST
    And we have got to fight it with something better, not try to conceal the thinking of our own people. They are part of America. And even if they think ideas that are contrary to ours, their right to say them, their right to record them, and their right to have them at places where they're accessible to others is unquestioned, or it's not America. --Dwight David Eisenhower
    Re: Silencing Librarians (none / 0) (#15)
    by Repack Rider on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 02:45:03 AM EST
    Let me see. Libraries are public. If you check out a book, use a free computer, etc., why should you think that someone, including the government, can't come in and view the records. Ah. So the PURPOSE of a "public library" is to generate lists of every citizen's reading preferences for government analysis. Silly me. I thought it was because it serves the public interest to give all citizens access to the the spectrum of human experience and thought, irrespective of the government's interest in knowing what individual citizens are thinking about which subjects. But PPJ, as long as you believe that YOUR reading habits, military medical records and income tax records are public information, why not publish them in the newspapers? Let me start. Here is George W. Bush's recent reading list:

    Re: Silencing Librarians (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 06:58:12 AM EST
    Ahh, Jim. What to say? You claim to be a Veteran, but display no sense of honor. You claim poverty in your past, but have no compassion. You claim to be a libertarian, but are content, maybe even pleased, to watch liberty die. Truly, without rancor or sarcasm, I say to you that I am sorry. I am sorry for whatever tragedies befell you, that left you with nothing but bitterness,rage and a love for vengence wrapped around an empty shell. Peace be with you.

    Re: Silencing Librarians (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 09:32:42 AM EST
    DeanyB, what a drama queen you are! Get a grip lefty!

    Re: Silencing Librarians (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 10:48:56 AM EST
    Just trying to get through the day with my integrity intact - you know, that whole right and wrong thing, it's tough sometimes, but momma said, do unto others... Thanks for your concern.

    Re: Silencing Librarians (none / 0) (#19)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 10:53:04 AM EST
    Deanyb - Ignoring your biased and baseless remarks, I note you write:
    You claim to be a libertarian,
    Nope, don't. How could a libertarian believe in National Health Care? I am a social liberal. And what does being a veteran have to do with honor? They are two separate issues. I give you John Kerry, Al Gore, Randy Cunningham, Benedict Arnold. And what does poverty have to do with compassion? Again, two different subjects. BTW- Have you ever heard the phrase, "Pray in private?"
    Matt 6:5-6 5 "And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen ...
    Do you see the connection between public prayer and public compassion? And what "rage?" Can you provide a link? RePack writes:
    irrespective of the government's interest in knowing what individual citizens are thinking about which subjects.
    That is like saying, "Sin is bad." So what? It is a public facility, funded by public money. Where is the expectation of privacy when you are using a public facility funded by public money? Goodasgold - Show me the "expectation of privacy." I suggest you actually read and think rather than try and make deep statements. Sailor - Interesting question. It appears that congress people are protected and have an expectation of privacy, at least of their papers relating to public business. Sailor - Another interesting question. Given that Congress has passed laws establishing medical privacy, I would say a person has a right to expect privacy in all medical matters.

    Re: Silencing Librarians (none / 0) (#20)
    by jondee on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 11:44:49 AM EST
    What does being a veteran have to do with valuing free speech and free thought? I give you Stalin, Hitler, Pinochet and Jim.

    Re: Silencing Librarians (none / 0) (#21)
    by Sailor on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 12:00:39 PM EST
    Section 215 of the act allows FBI agents to obtain a warrant from a secret federal court for library or bookstore records of anyone connected to an investigation of international terrorism or spying.
    See, they've also established privacy of lib records.

    Re: Silencing Librarians (none / 0) (#22)
    by Sailor on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 12:04:55 PM EST
    Let me see. Libraries are public. If you check out a book, use a free computer, etc., why should you think that someone, including the government, can't come in and view the records. Where is the expectation of privacy?
    ppj really ought to try google before making such wilfully ignorant statements:
    Question: Can the FBI look at your library records any time they want?
    Answer: No, they cannot. Access to library records is strictly governed by law.
    Of course, ppj may disagree with the above statement ... by the FBI.

    Re: Silencing Librarians (none / 0) (#23)
    by Peaches on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 12:13:29 PM EST
    Show me the "expectation of privacy." I suggest you actually read and think rather than try and make deep statements.
    Jim, good as gold was referring to the fourth amendment. As someone who is a fan of context, you should appreciate that when the bill of rights was written there was no electronic survelliance. The intention of the framers was to provide an expectation of privacy to all US citizens by making random searches of persons, houses, papers and effects illegal. It does not take deep thinking to understand this, just a basic education in US gov't and law.
    Fourth Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


    Re: Silencing Librarians (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 02:26:24 PM EST
    "And what does being a veteran have to do with honor? They are two separate issues. I give you John Kerry, Al Gore, Randy Cunningham, Benedict Arnold." I see ppj adds Kerry and Gore to his list, Two people who actually went to Vietnam, unlike the pbc's Bush and Jim.

    Re: Silencing Librarians (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 04:22:21 PM EST
    PPJ, you should invent a little device for folks to carry around to record their actions on a daily basis. You could download the data to a governmental mainframe every night, then the FBI can save the expense and cost of asking for your library records(if you have one) and other things, so they can spend their time and effort monitoring some of us folks who are "America-hating terrorists sympathizing Leftists" around here. Who knows, you could sell it as the perfect Father's Day gift for the patriotic dad in the family. No, I don't have a business plan. You could ask edger if you like :)

    Re: Silencing Librarians (none / 0) (#26)
    by Edger on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 06:55:48 PM EST
    DA: a little device for folks to carry around to record their actions on a daily basis They already exist. They're called cellphones. ;-)

    Silencing Librarians | 26 comments (26 topical)