http://www.belleville.com/mld/newsdemocrat/6852176.htm
Then this turns up…the proof.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2002/06/25/fbi-libraries.htm
How can this evil man sit there and tell a bald faced lie? Does he think we are idiots? That all we read is the sports page and the comics? This man needs to be gone even before Bush is gone.
I’d call him satan incarnate…but there is no need to insult satan here.
It looks to me, and I’m certainly willing to receive factual correction here if I’m in error, that the Representative (and you) and the Attorney General are using different definitions of “asked”. Specifically, it appears that FBI agents are indeed walking into libraries and asking for information and getting it by the libraries volunteering the information, but that, as the AG says, the FBI has not yet had to resort to its new subpoena power to get any info.
If that’s a correct interpretation of the facts, how is Ashcroft lying? It seems to me that the remedy here is to remind libraries of what their obligations do and do not include, which the ALA is trying to do but apparently with mixed success. Also, additional backbone training for librarians is probably in order – those Feds can be scary and smart and convince you to give up info that you’re not legally required to give.
In case you missed it, Ashcroft’s latest efforts to hamstring prosecutors.
So much for states’ rights.
Hyperbolize much?
Wow…as much as I hate sort of defending Asscroft…
He is referring to federal crimes which the state has no say so over.
Of course the Attorney General has precious little to do with what sentence is actually imposed. That is the doing of the Federal Judge or Magistrate within the constraints of the statutory sentencing guidelines. There is little that the AG or the US Attorneys can do to make sentences in Denver match sentences for the same offense in Milwaukee. What the US Attorney can do is to instruct the US Attorneys, who are answerable to him, ask for the max in every case and to refuse to plea bargain. That is already the policy in some US Attorney’s offices in certain cases.
It is perfectly proper for the AG to issue this sort of instruction but I suspect that it has a lot more to do with enhancing Mr. Ashcroft’s reputation as tough on crime than anything else. Remember, US Attorney’s are political appointees and often have an eye on being something other than professional, lifetime prosecutors. The former mayor of New York is an example. Don’t you suppose Rudy’s image was enhanced by a reputation as a take-no-prisoners crime fighter. There really is no need to instruct US Attorneys to get tough in politically sexy cases.
Let me see…
No plea bargains…
All cases go to full jury trial…
Just how big is the federal docket?
Just how deep are the pockets of DOJ?
Can one apply the word quagmire to the federal court system?
Stupid.
Perhaps. There are already folks complaining about that, and they may turn out to be right.
However, consider this. Removing (or reducing) the choices available to federal prosecutors may also have some of the following effects:
It could reduce the disparity between the charges leveled at and sentences meted out to black defendants v. white defendants charged with similar crimes.
It could increase pressure for sentence reform by the legislature, where such things are properly done.
It could even increase pressure for the legislature to reconsider whether the federal government ought to be involved in some classes of crimes.
Might just be the best thing to happen to American federal jurisprudence since Learned Hand.
It’s things like these that make me glad my school’s library, where I work and which also serves much of the community, uses a program that does not keep records of patrons’ past library transactions once the books are returned. Once a book has been returned and checked in, there is no way for us to tell who checked it out. We can tell how many times it’s been checked out, but there is no personally identifiable information attached to that record once the books is checked in. This is a very good thing. Any libraries who handed over records to the FBI have, IMHO, violated their patrons’ privacy and breached at least a little bit of trust. I don’t know how those other libraries work, but in general, I believe it is nobody’s damn business what books you’ve checked out, except the library’s business of course, and then only until you return them. If I want to check out the Communist Manifesto, the Koran, the Satanist’s Bible, Home Bomb-making For Fun And Profit, and Mommy, Where Do Babies Come From? then that’s my choice, and it is nobody’s business as long as I return them.
And just to bring this a leeeetle bit more back on topic – Ashcroft is a dick. A deluded, self-righteous, ignorant, closed-minded son of a bitch, and I really wish I could hit him with a brick.
That is all.
manhattan, while I don’t really want to wade into this too much, I have an oogy feeling when you say this:
If you postulate an overloaded docket and the interest that some prosecutors have in keeping their percentages high, that could make for some bad trouble. Some AAGs might be prone to drop cases based solely upon the possible affinity of the jury with the accused.
To jump straight to the ridiculous: it might mean that it’s a bad idea to be a white boy in downtown Detroit; it might mean that it’s a bad idea to be a black man in Provo, Utah; it might mean that it’s a bad idea to be an Indian in Bennet County, South Dakota; and in the current climate, it might mean it’s a bad idea to be a Muslim anywhere. Without a concurrent restriction on what cases a prosecutor can elect to drop, it could lead straight back to a sort of segregation based upon regional and cultural lines. And if that’s the case, we might as well put barbed wire on the beaches and just tell everyone to stay home, 'cause we’re all under house arrest.
Whew. I think I hit my head on the moon on that one. Nevertheless, I register my minor concern.
Poopy pants! Poopy pants!
Off topic meaningless ad hominem hijack follows. You were warned.
Y’know how all those “Reeder, the december of the left” cracks get made? I’m finally convinced it’s true.
I’m a lefty. I would assume, could I see Ashcroft’s lips moving, that he was lying. I saw the title of this thread, I saw who posted it, and I clicked in just to find out what Ashcroft was not, in fact, lying about. It was the same reflexive action that made me click on december’s threads to see why whatever he asserted in a thread title wasn’t true.
Off topic meaningless ad hominem hijack ends.
What I really want to know is why there isn’t some serious activity like demonstrating against this guy? Has no one in this country read 1984? Do we all trust our government so much and the power seekers that run it that we are willing to let them do just about anything, including reading our library records, to catch criminals? I expected public outrage over current events, insead all I see is apathy.
Well, short of assassination, which is a cure worse than the disease, what can we do to get him out of office?
pray.
Ungood! Ungood! Double plus ungood thoughts! Alert! Alert! :rolleyes:
You see no demonstrations and assume it indicates apathy. Another valid inference is that few other people believe the actions taken are wrong - that is, their lack of participation in demontrations is due to approbation rather than indifference.