I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
Well, if he said they (the records) weren't being accessed under the patriot actl, then (technically) no, he was not lying.
But this is 'winger modus operandi, isn't it? If he has nothing to hide then he should say something like, 'No, we aren't using the Patriot act to get at library records, but we have used existing powers to do so and we have done it X nubmer of times in Y circumstances."
Elisabeth Riba noted that Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act carries with it a gag order, so anyone who is in a position to contradict Ashcroft is legally barred from doing so.
Also, while I am not a lawyer, some have pointed out that the FBI had some power over libraries in the past -- Title 50 Section 1862/FISA 501 is what has been referred to.
But, it should be noted that the USA PATRIOT Act, in Section 215 (the library section), says:
"Title V of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1861 et seq.) is amended by striking sections 501 through 503 and inserting the following:"
Followed, of course, by the new powers.
Would this mean that the old library-searching powers of the FBI have been replaced by the powers granted in Section 215, and that the FBI would be using Section 215, regardless of whether or not they're abiding by the more restrictive, older laws?
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI...&
category=11153
KerryGraham04.com on eBay! It's for sale!
FYI:
A lot of good Patriot Act-related stuff is reported at Jessamyn West's web site:
www.librarian.net
Jessamyn's a treasure; hold her dear. Look for the headings called "Patriot Watch." But the other stuff is good, too.
Ditto on Jessamyn.
I, personally, have never been contacted by the Feebs. But then, we're a college library. But if a book's not out and they don't owe fines, we wouldn't have anything to give them anyway. My opinion is that there is no reason for a library to ever keep that sort of information on their patrons; we want to know what's checked out, but who cares who does it?
Our library system has specifically adjusted policies to so we don't have to give up any information regarding Patriot Act inquiries. Information that used to be held for months is now held for weeks, if that.
The "good" thing about the Patriot Act is that it doesn't require us to conform to a set of government-mandated policies. We can do what we want as far as patron info. We can keep it, or we can delete it. And if we don't have it, it ain't gonna do them any good to ask for it.
If the Good Reverend's second post is true, (and this should be investigated thoroughly), AND libraries have been contacted since PATRIOT passed, then Ashcroft is a liar. And not just a liar, but a demagogue and a fascist and a megalomaniac to boot.
Oliver - excuse me, but even if Ashcroft isn't lying specifically on this point, he is still a demagogue, a fascist and a megalomaniac.
The trouble with the Patriot Act superceding the Surveillance Act, is that the Patriot Act has a stated purpose that is more narrow than general criminal justice purposes. I don't know why broad powers under the Surveillance Act would be replaced with powers that have a narrower parameter.
Guess I should try to delve deeper.
Would this mean that the old library-searching powers of the FBI have been replaced by the powers granted in Section 215, and that the FBI would be using Section 215, regardless of whether or not they're abiding by the more restrictive, older laws?
_____
Well, the FBIs library-searching powers were specifically restricted after their heinous Library Awareness Program of the 80's. As a result, many states and their libraries have policies specifically stating when and how information will be given up to law enforcement and the like. In fact, the USA PATRIOT Act runs roughshod over many state laws regarding patron privacy. That, of course, is only one of the many troublesome issues with it. So the timeline goes like this:
- FBI plays free and easy with library searches in the 80's.
- States enact laws keeping them from doing this shortly thereafter
- USAPA overrules those laws
The DOJ would like you to believe that there is nothing that the USAPA allows them to do that they couldn't already do with court orders and the like. This seems to be one of their larger "talking points" as of late, before this Ashcroft stuff blew up this week. The DoJ is wrong in this regard and any ACLU lawyer can explain it much better than I can.
My favorite article about all this, that I wrote anyhow, is here: Hey, there's a federal agent in my book!
credit card purchase protection credit card purchase protection credit card purchase protection // pharmacy job search pharmacy job search pharmacy job search
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
