Ashcroft Rips Anti-Patriot Act 'Hysteria' Ashcroft Rips Claims That Patriot Act Can Snoop Into Americans' Reading Habits As 'Hysteria' The Associated Press WASHINGTON Sept. 15 — Attorney General John Ashcroft denounced as "hysteria" the contention by some librarians and civil liberties groups that the FBI can use a new anti-terror law to snoop into Americans' reading habits. In a speech Monday to an American Restaurant Association conference, Ashcroft said people are being wrongly led to believe that libraries have been "surrounded by the FBI," with agents "dressed in raincoats, dark suits and sunglasses. They stop everyone and interrogate everyone like Joe Friday. "Now, you may have thought with all this hysteria and hyperbole, something had to be wrong," Ashcroft said. "Do we at the Justice Department really care what you are reading? No." A portion of the Patriot Act, passed shortly after the 2001 terror attacks, gives federal authorities access to library, bookstore and other business records as part of terrorism investigations. Some libraries have begun purging their records more frequently and posting signs warning that the records could be checked by the FBI. The provision has drawn a legal challenge in a federal lawsuit filed in July by the American Civil Liberties Union and Islamic groups. Emily Sheketoff, executive director of the American Library Association's Washington office, said library records should be treated differently from those of other businesses because of privacy rights and constitutional free speech protections. The Justice Department should at least be required to publicly describe how often FBI agents subpoena library records, she said. That information is classified but is reported secretly to Congress twice a year. "They are not taking this issue seriously, and the American people are upset about this," Sheketoff said. "At least they could give us some idea of the breadth of the problem." Ashcroft said, however, that subpoenas of library records are closely scrutinized by federal judges, and the FBI, with 11,000 agents, could never begin to monitor the reading habits of millions of library patrons even if it wanted to. The main reason an FBI agent would want library records is to track use of its publicly available computers, which terrorists have been known to use to communicate, Justice Department officials say. They say use of the power is extremely infrequent. "The hysteria is ridiculous. Our job is not," Ashcroft said. Ashcroft's speech followed a recent 16-city tour in which he repeatedly defended the Patriot Act as essential to the war on terror. President Bush asked last week for three new legal tools, including expansion of the "administrative subpoena" that effectively bypasses judicial or grand jury oversight. God bless you, John, you just really can't understand why people aren't goose-stepping into formation behind you. Ashcroft does more damage to GW than any 10 Democratic candidates could. Any time I begin to waver, the AG manages to remind me why I tend to vote for the Democrats.
I think that provision of things is silly because......they already do it. Remember that line in the movie Seven about the FBI flagging books in library computer systems? It was true years before 9/11, but now this simply gives them the right to use it as evidence. One of my cousins is in the Bureau and he told me that the people who wrote Seven were telling the truth. Chilling, isn't it? I don't think you're going to see any islamists in libraries checking out books. Call me crazy, call me loopy, but I just don't see it happening.
Geez, that's scary stuff. I still can't believe Americans aren't marching in the streets against this crap. It took less than two years for them to use "terror" laws on common crimes -- how slippery a slope are we willing to accept?
The Patriot Act is scary on a couple of grounds. Typical knee-jerk legislation that was not well thought out. One prominent prosecutor called it a "wish-list for the prosecution." (slight paraphrase possible). It's not even really targeted at terrorism, so much as giving the government more power and the defendant less. That, of course, affects prosecution of terrorists... but a lot of other people, too. 1. The expansion of government's ability to detain people indefinitely without an arrest or counsel. The Administration's official position on this is that the process is not even subject to habeas corpus appeals to the judiciary. This opinion has been rejected so far by the courts, but the standard that the government must meet is alarmingly low. This is the provision that most people "in the field" that I know are very worried about. Some of the early cases have had frightening results, particularly the one involving that doctor in San Antonio (I can get anyone more info if they're interested!). EDIT: They're the "Hamdi" decisions. 2. About surreptitious, or "sneak and peak" searches (From a very recent post: Did you know that the new sneak and peak rules do not limit themselves to terrorism? Sneak and peak warrants were originally allowed to deal with drug dealers and conspiracies. They were widely viewed by the judiciary as a necessary evil that had to be introduced to combat emerging crimes. One of the most amusing things in the early decisions is looking for references to the 4th Amendment's historical interpretation - it's not there. That, despite the fact that defendant's briefs were filled with such arguments, because history seems to bear out that they're right. Many rights have been expanded over time by judges attempting to extrapolate "values" in the Constitution to situations the founders could not have anticipated. This is one of the few areas where the protection of liberty has probably shrunk. The Founders seemed to have two primary ideas on the subject: 1. The home should be nearly sacrosanct and inviolate against the law. 2. Officers should have limited discretion. Both of these came directly out of complaints against how the ENglish conducted colonial policy. The debates make the history of enaction of the 4th Amendment pretty clear about this. But now, this has become irrelevant. Now, Section 2705 of a recent Electronic Surveillance Bill statutorily authorized delayed notice searches. Then, the Patriot Act took this a step further by removing many of the judicially and statutory protections against abuse of discretion. All that is required to delay notice on "sneak and peak" searches is: 1. initial reasonable cause and 2. upon termination of a stay, subsequent good cause - such as a threat to prosecution. There's no time limit, either ultimately or initially. Literally, the government can authorize indefinite sneak and peak searches. And it's not limited to terrorism. Russ Feingold warned about this following 9/11. He favored the bill, but wanted such warrants to be confined to terrorism or at most, drugs. His pleadings were ignored in the patriotic zeal that swept the country and fear of terrorism.
I think I said it before, they are too busy worrying about J-Lo and Ben to bother. Just as long as it isn't an inconvenience and it gives them the appearance of safety, it is all right. Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759 James Madison
Also on the Statute of Liberty, isn't it? This is quoted in every legal journal article opposed to the Patriot Act .
"When the government fears the people there is liberty; when the people fear the government there is tyranny." -- Thomas Jefferson
Classic example of using extreme examples to make what they are really doing not look so bad.. ya know what John Ashcroft, there may not be Feds in trenchcoats in our libraries, but there are Feds in trenchcoats at the other end of the electronic lines siting at the computer terminals that monitor libraries...and that is scary enough does anyone really think that monitoring what people read is a realiable way to catch/deter terrorism?
From an outside perspective, I think Ashcroft is borderline insane. Ashcroft and Rumsfeld symbolize the current US government for many of the politically interested in Europe (because they get more publicity than others who are perhaps more moderate). I am not sure if I would like that very much as an American, even if I was in favor of the current government.
Yeah, I don't think many Americans realize how *completely nuts* we look to the rest of the world right now. I'm sure most don't care, but perception and reputation are two HUGE points when setting global agendas, hammering out trade pacts, working on international treaties and garnering support for various initiatives. And when long-time allies see our Attorney General arresting dozens for selling glass pipes, it sends a message. Not to mention the whole "Buzz off, U.N., we're overthrowing a government" thing. Look, I *despise* Bush's politics. I think he's done more harm to this country than any president in history. But I genuinely fear John Ashcroft. This guy is freaking looney tunes.
How did a guy who lost an election to a dead man get so much power? I think Ashcroft is at least a third of the reason I dislike Bush so much.
1. Because he lost an election. He stepped "gracefully" out of the way, thus pressuring a lot of Democrats to "gracefully" put someone into office even though they would normally balk at an AG that extreme. Add that to the fact that he was one of their own, and... 2. 9/11.
I heard an interview with Ashcroft talking about not having to go in front of judges to get warrants to search. He claimed that the feds would eventually get the warrants anyway, and that precious time would be lost if they had to follow the procedure of getting approval from judges. I was scared, and with most of my being I believed that such a policy wasn't possible in this country. But a part of me believed it that might be true. Ashcroft has done more to destroy this country than Bin Laden has. It's true that AShcroft hasn't killed 3000+ Americans, but Bin Ladens actions only made Americans love their country and what it stands for more. Ashcroft is setting about tearing down little by little the constitution the country was built on. The country can survive casualties, and I think it owes it to the survivors those terrorist attacks to root itself more firmly in the country's ruling document. As painful as it would be the country could survive 20 times the casualties of 9/11. I don't know that the country could destroy 20 times what Ashcroft wants to do to the constitution.
Ashcroft Yields to Public Pressure, Declassifies Personal Records Snooping CLU Calls for Full Disclosure of Government Spying Powers http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=13653&c=206 September 17, 2003 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Media@dcaclu.org WASHINGTON – In response to reports today that Attorney General John Ashcroft has caved under growing public pressure to declassify information about how his department is using 2001’s USA PATRIOT Act, the American Civil Liberties Union today called the Justice Department’s concession a victory for civil liberties, but said that much more is necessary before the full story of how much liberty has been sacrificed in the name of security can be known. “Attorney General Ashcroft is finally waking up to the fact that the American people are demanding greater accountability and transparency of his actions,” said Anthony D. Romero, ACLU Executive Director. Reportedly, the Attorney General has agreed to declassify information about how often the highly controversial Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act has been used. “This is a small step – many more are necessary,” said Laura Murphy, Director of the ACLU Washington National Office. “It raises the question: why now? If before, as the Attorney General has said, disclosing this and similar information would harm the war on terror, what makes it okay today? How political is this move?” “Let’s be clear, whether they’ve snooped around in 16 libraries or 1600 -- having that power without meaningful judicial oversight is still wrong in America,” Murphy added. The section, which has been roundly criticized by lawmakers from both sides of the aisle as well as an unusual coalition of right and left wing groups, permits the FBI to request court orders – under meaningless judicial review – requiring the disclosure of highly personal information about Americans’ reading habits, Internet surfing, medical histories, business activities and even genetic information – among other things – and imposes a gag order on those who are forced to give up the records. The Attorney General’s concession comes, notably, less than three months after the ACLU filed the first-ever challenge to the PATRIOT Act, which targets this specific provision. The lawsuit, filed on behalf of several community and advocacy groups, demands specific information about how Section 215 is being used and seeks an injunction against these government spy powers. Also, in October 2002, the ACLU and other groups filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit asking a federal court to order the Department of Justice to account for its use of the extraordinary new surveillance powers under the Patriot Act, including Section 215. The Department of Justice has not only refused to release basic statistics about how often these powers are being used, it has reacted to increased public concern about sensitive records, such as library and bookstore records, by falsely claiming these new powers apply only to foreign spies or terrorists. In actuality, this limit is one of the safeguards that the USA PATRIOT Act lifted. “From day one, the Attorney General has stonewalled our requests for even the most basic information about how these powers are being used to spy on Americans,” said Ann Beeson, ACLU Associate Legal Director. “He’s done so by citing national security concerns and even implied that such requests are unpatriotic. We ask again: if it’s now safe and patriotic to release the records, then why not disclose how other expansive powers are being used?”" To view the ACLU's webfeature on the USA PATRIOT Act, go to: http://www.aclu.org/patriot For more information on the ACLU's lawsuit challenging section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act, go to: http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=13255&c=207 For more information on the ACLU's FOIA lawsuit on government surveillance under the PATRIOT Act, go to: http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=12302
Thanks for the post, Maynard. That's great news. Definitely a step back in the right direction, and a victory for Americans everywhere.
