Ashcroft mocks librarians opposed to PATRIOT act

[Rspaight]

Ashcroft Mocks Librarians and Others Who Oppose Parts of Counterterrorism Law

By ERIC LICHTBLAU

ASHINGTON, Sept. 15 — Attorney General John Ashcroft today accused the country's biggest library association and other critics of fueling "baseless hysteria" about the government's ability to pry into the public's reading habits.

In an unusually pointed attack as part of his latest speech in defense of the Bush administration's counterterrorism initiatives, Mr. Ashcroft mocked and condemned the American Library Association and other Justice Department critics for believing that the F.B.I. wants to know "how far you have gotten on the latest Tom Clancy novel."

The association, which has argued for months that the government's new antiterrorism powers risk encroaching on the privacy of library users, took some satisfaction from the broadside.

"If he's coming after us so specifically, we must be having an impact," said Emily Sheketoff, executive director of the library association's Washington office.

Mark Corallo, a spokesman for the department, said the speech was intended not as an attack on librarians, but on groups like the American Civil Liberties Union and politicians who he said had persuaded librarians to mistrust the government.

The American Librarian Association "has been somewhat duped by those who are ideologically opposed to the Patriot Act," Mr. Corallo said.

Mr. Ashcroft's remarks, he said, "should be seen as a jab at those who would mislead librarians and the general public into believing the absurd, that the F.B.I. is running around monitoring libraries instead of going after terrorists."

Mr. Ashcroft's speech was his 17th in the last month in defense of the sweeping counterterrorism act passed after the Sept. 11 attacks and under increasing criticism for those who contend that it gives the government too much power.

But in departing from his usual remarks, Mr. Ashcroft dwelled today much more expansively on the government's powers under the legislation to demand access to library records in searching for terrorists.

That issue has helped galvanize opposition to the act from libraries nationwide and from some 160 communities that have protested the law as too far-reaching.

It is not known how many times federal agents have actually used the law to gain access to library records because that information is classified. Even the association said it did not know because libraries served with demands for such records are bound by a gag order.

Mr. Ashcroft said critics had tried to persuade the public that the F.B.I. was monitoring libraries to "ask every person exiting the library, `Why were you at the library? What were you reading? Did you see anything suspicious?' "

The Justice Department, Mr. Ashcroft said, "has no interest in your reading habits. Tracking reading habits would betray our high regard for the First Amendment. And even if someone in government wanted to do so, it would represent an impossible workload and a waste of law enforcement resources."

[lukpac]

So I guess librarians are ok, but the ACLU...

[Rspaight]

What's really amusing about this is that Justice appears completely ignorant of the ALA's (and librarians in general) long-standing reputation as defenders of civil liberties. My wife has an MLS, and I can tell you that the field is a hotbed of anti-censorship, pro-privacy sentiment and activism.

That a Justice Department spokesdroid would say that the ALA "has been somewhat duped by those who are ideologically opposed to the Patriot Act" is laughable and insulting. Get a clue, guys -- the ALA is ideologically opposed to the Patriot Act.

If they can't do sufficient homework to realize that (a simple browsing of the ALA website would be a dandy start), no wonder our intelligence capabilities suck so hard.

Ryan

[Rspaight]

Don't fuck with librarians.

--------------------

Sources: Ashcroft to declassify some Patriot Act records
Wednesday, September 17, 2003 Posted: 5:32 PM EDT (2132 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Attorney General John Ashcroft is moving to declassify information about how many requests law enforcement officials have made for library, business and other records under the Patriot Act, Justice Department sources said Wednesday.

Ashcroft telephoned American Library Association President Carla Hayden to inform her of the decision. The association has been at the forefront of opposition to Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which allows FBI counterterrorism agents to obtain secret court orders requiring libraries to produce records.

After the call, the librarians declared victory in their yearlong battle to force disclosure of the records.

"This is a great victory for the American public because they will know what kind of law enforcement activities are going on in their public libraries," said Emily Sheketoff, executive director of the ALA's Washington office.

"The attorney general called to say he was taking an action he thought would make us happy," Sheketoff said. However, she noted, Ashcroft did not indicate the specific types of information included in the report to be made public, or how soon it will be released.

The American Civil Liberties Union said Ashcroft did not go far enough.

"This is a small step. Many more are necessary," said Laura Murphy, director of the ACLU's Washington national office. "Let's be clear. Whether they've snooped around in 16 libraries or 1,600, having that power without meaningful judiciary oversight is still wrong in America."

Justice Department officials said only that "a process" had begun to declassify the report soon.

The report on the number of court orders requested and granted is required to be given to Congress every six months. It was not immediately clear whether all future semiannual reports would similarly be declassified.

The number of requests made to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has to date been known only to congressional oversight committees.

When the ALA request for the data under the Freedom of Information Act was rejected early this year, the group went to court. With backing from the ACLU, a lawsuit was filed in Washington July 30 to compel the government to disclose the information.

The authority to seek such records in investigations is spelled out in Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which has drawn sharp criticism from civil libertarians. Section 215 has become one of the most controversial parts of the act, which was passed to battle terrorism in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.

The ACLU and civil libertarians have repeatedly expressed fears that government agents were encroaching on personal privacy.

The ACLU suit charges Section 215 violates "constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, as well as the rights to freedom of speech and association."

In speeches this week, Ashcroft has scoffed at the suggestion FBI agents are skulking about libraries trying to find out what citizens are reading.

"According to these breathless reports and baseless hysteria, some have convinced the American Library Association that under the bipartisan Patriot Act, the FBI is not fighting terrorism. Instead agents are checking how far you have gotten on the latest Tom Clancy novel," Ashcroft said mocking the critics.

Ashcroft and other Justice Department officials, while stressing the limited nature of such investigations and the requirement for court approval, have failed to satisfy skeptics who pressed for information on the scope of subpoenas for records.

Justice Department officials said the process of declassifying the report does not require congressional approval.

[Ron]

Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, et al., really *are* scary dudes. Nixon's henchmen, by comparison, were . . . well, merely henchmen. Unchecked, this current administration may very well change America in ways that I [naively] felt were not possible. The Patriot Act [what a name!], the FCC giveaway, tax breaks for the wealthy, unspeakable budget deficits [and the future cuts in domestic social service spending sure to follow], Iraq, inept Homeland Security, the alienation of damned near the entire planet, the thumbing of nose to the United Nations . . . what am I missing? all add up to an America whose future you've got to be *really* concerned about. And I keep asking: where's the outrage? Why are not Americans taking to the streets. Where are the leaders who would so inspire Americans to "take to the streets"? Unchecked, what we're seeing now is what future historians will be writing about as the turning point in America's history.

[Rspaight]

Americans are scared of the big bad Muslim boogeyman. They want Papa Bush in his manly flight suit to protect them.

But his poll numbers are slipping. Some have his approval rating at under 50%. The $87 billion panhandle last week raised a *lot* of eyebrows.

Ryan

PS - Oh, and you left out his Shermanesque environmental policies, "faith-based initiatives," the open hostility to gay marriage, the potential to load the Supreme Court with Cro-Magnon right-wingers (as payback for his appointment) and the crippling of stem-cell research.

[Patrick M]

PS - Oh, and you left out his Shermanesque environmental policies, "faith-based initiatives," the open hostility to gay marriage, the potential to load the Supreme Court with Cro-Magnon right-wingers (as payback for his appointment) and the crippling of stem-cell research.

And you left off tort reform, school vouchers, free trade for all, anti-affirmative action, and pro-NRA stances.

That should be a pretty complete list.

[Patrick M]

Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, et al., really *are* scary dudes.

How about a genetically modified bomb?

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0910-15.htm

Brung to ewe by the fine folks at PNAC.

And I keep asking: where's the outrage?

You see some of it here on f.l.o. And despite the fact that only 5 people are registered here, I assure you there at least 5 other people pissed off out there.

Where are the leaders who would so inspire Americans to "take to the streets"?

Wesley Clark seems like the best hope thus far. Dean is very anti-Bush, but Clark seems to have more clout due to his military record, IMO.

[Rspaight]

"And," their report notes, "advanced forms of biological warfare that can 'target' specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool."

Oh, sweet wounded Jesus. A "politically useful tool"? Fuck, these clowns really *are* Nazis.

Ryan

[balthazar]

anti-affirmative action, and pro-NRA stances.

I have an issue with lumping these two ideas with the other short-comings of the Bush administration.

Affirmative action is a great idea in theory. I see nothing wrong in hiring a minority worker when he or she is just as qualified as other applicants. However, I do have a problem with hiring a minority worker just because he or she is not a WASP. If you were in need of life-saving surgery, who would you want to do it? The most qualified applicant, or the lesser-qualified applicant who was hired just because the hospital had to hit its affirmative action quota for the year?

As for the NRA, I'll admit I'm (literally) a card-carrying member. I back the second amendment just as strongly as I back the first. The NRA as an organization has a lot more to offer than just a conservative, pro-gun political stance. They back first amendment rights as well, promote education and gun safety programs, and support law enforcement agencies. They also support truth in sentencing and such programs as Project Exile, while working against thinly-disguised disarmament ideas from the likes of Dianne Feinstein and the Bradys, and have been working for legislation to protect firearm manufacturers from frivolous litigation. While their methods may seem a little extreme to some people, the NRA simply sees it as the price that must be paid to guarantee the rights and freedom of American citizens, the rights that have been stripped in places like England and Australia where violent armed crimes have increased exponentially.

[Rspaight]

I'm incredibly ambivalent on affirmative action. On the one hand, I agree that in an ideal world, everyone would be judged solely on their merits. However, I do not believe we live in an ideal world. College admission and employment opportunities are definitely skewed toward those already "in the system." (As in the Michigan case, where "legacy" applicants were heavily favored, much more so than minority candidates -- and this in a system under fire for using affirmative action!) The only way to increase opportunity in both those areas is to use affirmative action to crack the door open and get more people "in the system," so that pool becomes more diverse. In short, I see affirmative action as the lesser of two evils, the greater one being letting college and employment be closed loops.

I don't really have a problem with private gun ownership, but I'd like to see greater documentation and tracking of gun sales. (The "gun and knife fairs" need to go away, for starters.) Stuff like trigger locks is important, too, for greater safety (I believe the NRA supports this.) Future technology can help here, as well, by embedding serial number information more strongly into the weapons, and eventually using biometrics to limit firing privileges to those people designated by the owner.

Technology, though, is also the reason a liberal (liberal as in expansive, not as in left-wing) view of the Second Amendment no longer holds up. Automatic weapons don't need to be in legal circulation, period. Their potential negative impact far outweighs any benefits they bring to the table.

Both sides in the gun debate are guilty of delusions -- the pro-gun people in thinking that all gun regulation is bad (and an overall gun fetish that's downright creepy), and the anti-gun people in thinking that banning things solves problems.

Ryan

[balthazar]

Technology, though, is also the reason a liberal (liberal as in expansive, not as in left-wing) view of the Second Amendment no longer holds up. Automatic weapons don't need to be in legal circulation, period. Their potential negative impact far outweighs any benefits they bring to the table.

I agree that I don't personally need a fully automatic weapon, and don't take issue with the current legislation that controls them.

and the anti-gun people in thinking that banning things solves problems.

And therein lies the crux of the issue. Making guns illegal in an attempt to keep them out of the hands of people who acquired them illegally to begin with doesn't make any sense, and certainly won't do anything but deny citizens a means of protecting themselves.

The reason the NRA is so adamant about fighting all gun regulation is that the anti-gun people are so adamant about banning all guns. While these people state they're in favor of "sensible" gun control, the fact is that many of them have stated they won't rest until all guns are illegal. The legislation they propose is often purposely vague, seeking to encompass weapons used for sporting and hunting, or to define firearms as weapons of mass destruction so they can be outlawed under the flurry of laws passed after 9/11.

The "gun and knife fairs" need to go away, for starters

While a little more scrutiny would probably help, the sales at these shows are really no different from any other private sale between two individuals, and are not regulated the same way as a place like Gander Mountain or Cabela's. Doing away with these shows isn't going to stop other private gun sales, especially the illicit ones.

[Rspaight]

While a little more scrutiny would probably help, the sales at these shows are really no different from any other private sale between two individuals, and are not regulated the same way as a place like Gander Mountain or Cabela's. Doing away with these shows isn't going to stop other private gun sales, especially the illicit ones.

I guess where I'm coming from is that there needs to be more done to keep track of private sales. I mean, you can't sell a car to somebody without registering that sale with the DMV, and the same thing ought to be true for guns. These huge bazaars where anyone can walk in with a fistful of twenties and walk out with a Glock are clearly at odds with any serious effort to curb illegal gun use. I applaud the NRA for supporting things like Project Exile, but doesn't it make sense to put reasonable pressure on the other end of the supply chain, too?

There will always be under-the-table stuff going on, of course, but better regulation of the legal sales will make the line between legal and illegal that much brighter.

Ryan

[balthazar]

better regulation of the legal sales will make the line between legal and illegal that much brighter

I honestly don't want to see any form of registration wherein it is noted that serial number X belongs to person Y. I don't want any kind of list where Dianne Feinstein or Michael Moore can come knocking on my door and say "You own a gun. You're an evil person."

I would rather see the waiting period/background check deal be more strongly enforced on private gun sales. This might be enough of a deterrent in some cases, but on the other hand the costs could put some honest dealers out of business.

[Patrick M]

I have an issue with lumping these two ideas with the other short-comings of the Bush administration.

I didn't necessarily mean to lump these as short-comings so much as to give a more accurate picture of the administration's policies.

Because I am with Ryan on affirmative action: I am very ambivalent. It's not an issue I have spent a ton of time researching (although my sister did write an article about it once).

On the general topic of race relations, Bush gave a speech at Bob Jones University and that's just not right.

On to gun control:

I like what Wesley Clark had to say on the topic. Pragmatism and moderation should be the keys. I get sick of the "slippery slope" rhetoric.

Bush, as governor of Texas, repealed the ban on carrying concealed weapons. He also made it safe to carry concealed weapons in church and at amusement parks. That's nutty.

Cheney, as a congressman, voted against the Undetectable Firearms Act of 1998 and opposed a ban on "cop-killer" bullets.

"If we win, we'll have a President...where we work out of their office. Unbelievably friendly relations."

-NRA VP Kayne Robinson, "In Bush, NRA Sees White House Access" Washington Post 5/4/00