Is this terribly different from ordinary search warrants? It isn’t like you can tell the cops “wait, don’t execute the search until after I appeal this warrant.” Appellate review of improper searches can really only arise once you’ve been charged with a crime so that the exclusionary rule comes into play. I don’t see why this is any different.
Well, given that your scenario states that Pervman did, in fact, do all these terrible things, there’s little motivation to protect his rights. Also, you say that his library records show check-outs of books that help disprove his statements, but how do we know that?
A more valid scenario would be this:
Peter is accused of child molestation, murder, etc. The police search his home and discover a hidden room where there is physical evidence that the girl in question was kept. Peter denies he built or knew about the room, and says he knows nothing of carpentry, though there are credit card receipts from his home showing that he bought materials that could have been used to build the room.
Should the police be allowed to look at Peter’s library records?
Given this scenario, without the presuppositions, I’d answer No. The police should not be allowed to go fishing in the accused man’s library records.
Besides, in the scenario you gave, the cops seem to have plenty of evidence to convict w/o the library evidence.
Yet, it is a project which needs to be completed by someone. Few people, and few legislators, understand the complete consequences of legislation passing through congress.
I appreciate organizations like ACLU and CPI for their analysis of bills submitted to congress. With these analyses, I can make up mind how I feel about the bill and notify my representatives of my feelings. I don’t always agree with the ACLU or CPI positions, but it is a starting point.
Sorry about the slight hijack.
Bob
What’s to stop the FBI, under the Patriot Act, from getting a FISA order requiring any random public library to produce “a record of all patrons who, during the past six months, have checked out any of the following books: {list of presumed terrorist publications}”?
The answer: Absolutely nothing. Technically, the FISA court can block such an order, but it doesn’t have to and if it chooses not to there is no appeal because the order is totally secret.
How can we stop this from happening? Or even know if it is happening?
The answer: We can’t. The Patriot Act prevents us from ever knowing if such a warrant is issued or executed. Anyone who might possibly know about such a warrant is forbidden under pain of imprisonment from revealing that the warrant ever existed. And unlike a criminal warrant, the existence of which must eventually be revealed to the subject of the investigation, a FISA warrant can be kept secret forever, even if the evidence produced by it is eventually used in a criminal or quasicriminal proceeding.
Fair enough, DCU. I agree there is a lot of hyperbole in the ACLU link.
I’ve tried to read the text of the law and being a layman, I can’t find a lot to object to. But if the ACLU is accurate, then “Section 215 of the Patriot Act allows the FBI to force anyone at all - including doctors, libraries, bookstores, universities, and Internet service providers - to turn over records on their clients or customers.” This can be done without show of probable cause, and the government need only certify to a judge that the search meets the statute’s criteria. The judge has no authority to stop this.
So if the ACLU is correct, the government can, without cause and without informing me, go through my internet records, my medical files, and library use , and the judiciary has no power to stop such actions. Is this interpretation correct?
I’ll have to be very brief, as I am at work.
Bricker: I think Sengkelat covered it.
I agree with Pythagras. It’s like the old myth about boiling a frog.
I also agree with KellyM last post. It’s scary when the government does thing secretly, which is why we have this:
Whoops… Work beckons…
Depends on the character of the records they are seeking. The Patriot Act doesn’t trump the constitution; items in which you have constitutionally-protected reasonable expectation of privacy would still be subject to the requirement that probable cause be shown.
Of course, vindicating those rights is difficult under this act, and that’s a real problem. I think a real flaw of the Patriot Act is the gag provision. I understand why it’s there – if a terrorist knows the government’s been snooping in his files, he’ll disappear – but its presence does raise troubling possibilities.
There are real problems with the Patriot Act that should be debated seriously. I just hate when people suggest it’s the next coming of Napoleon the Pig.
Something that hasn’t been mentioned, is the practicality of enforcing this. It is against the code of ethics of librarians to release ANY information on patrons.
American Library Association, Code of Ethics, item III:
Most public libraries don’t keep extensive files on patrons’ usage patterns for this very reason.
It would be interesting to see how many librarians go outlaw when the free library system becomes a thing of the past… the shadow world of the underground library is born… and Conan the Librarian emerges to fight the forces of evil! 
Nobody had a “specific objection” about Germany’s “Grosser Lauschangriff” either, which was issued on the 6th of march 1998. Still a lot of people complained about that law nonetheless, despite its best interest to reduce organized crimes.
http://www.wsws.org/news/1998/may1998/bug-m19.shtml
Even with the best interests in mind, it’s very very dangerous if the state decides it is a good idea to revoke existing rights (all in the name of what’s good and with the best intentions, of course). So far the “Grosser Lauschangriff” has to produce something bad, but I still don’t rule out the possibility for abuse. The same goes for the Patriot Act.
Dewey, a Constitutional guarantee is worthless when the Government can violate it in a manner that is undetectable. My big problem with the Patriot Act is not that it does not protect Constitutional rights (although it doesn’t) but that it has inadequate safeguards (judicial, legislative, and public oversight) to ensure that it does not infringe on them.
“Are you violating Constitutional guarantees?” “No.” “How can we know that?” “You have to trust us.”
This conversation should never be possible, and yet it is the gist of our conversation with John Ashcroft and the FBI over the Patriot Act.
I almost hate to say it again, but
“Those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither”.
The only reason that the original Patriot Act passed was because the Republicanspromised the more liberitarian and Democrats that the more, shall we say, outrageous parts of the Act wouldn’t be permanent, but would expire in 2005.
Then SURPRISE!!!, the Republicans lie and try and make those same provisions permanent.:rolleyes:
If you’re going to quote Ben Franklin, at least get it right:
“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
Sorry, pet peeve of mine – Franklin didn’t mean that a willingness to de-shoe at the airport made one undeserving of liberty.
Whoa . . . rights only are accorded to the innocent? “Pete” may be a disgusting human being, but he should be protected under the Constitution the same as anyone.
I, for one, take comfort in the fact that if the Constitution will protect a maggot like “Pete”, it will protect me, as well.
Well, the question is not “Are you and Pete equally deserving of Constitutional protection?”
The question is: “Does the Constitution protect Pete under those circumstances?”
It should be mentioned that, if allowing the FBI to sieze your library records without a warrant and furthermore forbidding librarians to tell anybody they’ve been there is a-okay and not really a threat to your civil liberties, then it seems a little funny that while the ALA, among other organizations, has filed under the Freedom of Information Act to find out how often this privelige has been exercised, and while the people responsible said “Yeah, you’re right, we should tell you that according to the FOIA”, no such disclosure has been forthcoming. From what I read in American Libraries (looking for the cite now, but mine are all packed up), I got the impression the whole thing was a “Look, behind you! There’s a scaly green monster! Oh, what were we talking about again?” sort of misdirection affair. Anybody with more information on this, please do chime in.
I don’t think Franklin was differentiating between “essential” liberties and “non-essential” liberties. He does not say “essential liberties”, but “essential liberty”. So what he said is that liberty is essential and to give up any liberties for a little temporary security is foolish. Once a liberty is taken away, it’s difficult to get it back.
People like to say, “Well, it doesn’t affect me, so I don’t care if that liberty is taken away or that restrictive law is passed.” Or they’ll say, “If you have nothing to hide, then this little inconvenience doesn’t matter.” I find this attitude to be un-American and unpatriotic.
Only if you ignore everything you know about English grammar. “Essential” clearly modifies “liberty:” those liberties which are essential. The word “essential” is completely redundant under your reading: if all liberties are essential, then the modifier is unnecessary.
It’s also palpably absurd. I assume Franklin approved of the constitution. The constitution allows for the suspension of habeas corpus in instances of rebellion or invasion in the name of public safety (Art. I, s. 9, cl. 2). What is that, if not a temporary ceding of a liberty interest in favor of short-term security needs?
It seems that many others have already covered what the Patriot Act is about so, I’ll just say a little bit about it and my opinion. I think that it is sad that people are just letting the US government step in and remove our rights in the interest of “national security.” Of course, I believe that they have doing the same things for years, upon years it’s just that with recent events they can do it on a even larger scale and do it in the face of the public. I don’t understand how, encourging my neighbors to report me, if I make anti-American remarks will help keep the country safe in any way. I must have forgoten, that it is wrong to disagree in this country. I don’t plan to let it affect me at all though, I refuse to allow myself to be “scared” or anything of the like. Too bad the Dixie Chicks got scared and ran away.
I disagree. “Essential” is there as a rhetorical device. Franklin is pointing out that liberty itself is essential, as if some listeners might think that it is not. If he meant that some liberties are essential and others are not, he would have said “essential liberties”. People use rhetorical devices in speech all the time. When someone says, “It is the best on the green Earth!” is he saying that his thing is the best on the entire planet? Or is he saying that it’s the best thing on only those parts of the planet that are green? Every listener would know that he means the entire planet and that the “green” modifier is there for emphasis. When Franklin says “essential liberty” he is saying “Liberty is essential.” He is not implying that we are to pick and choose which of our liberties are essential, but saying that Liberty itself is essential.