The ALA has released a rather snippy response to Ashcroft:
“American Library Association responds to Attorney General remarks on
librarians and USA PATRIOT Act: A statement by ALA President Carla
Hayden
The American Library Association (ALA) has worked
diligently for the past two years to increase awareness of a very
complicated law – the USA PATRIOT Act – that was pushed through the
legislative process at breakneck speed in the wake of a national
tragedy. Because the Department of Justice has refused our requests for
information about how many libraries have been visited by law
enforcement officials using these new powers, we have focused on what
the law allows. The PATRIOT Act gives law enforcement unprecedented
powers of surveillance – including easy access to library records with
minimal judicial oversight.
The ALA has released a rather snippy response to Ashcroft:
“American Library Association responds to Attorney General remarks on
librarians and USA PATRIOT Act: A statement by ALA President Carla
Hayden
The American Library Association (ALA) has worked
diligently for the past two years to increase awareness of a very
complicated law – the USA PATRIOT Act – that was pushed through the
legislative process at breakneck speed in the wake of a national
tragedy. Because the Department of Justice has refused our requests for
information about how many libraries have been visited by law
enforcement officials using these new powers, we have focused on what
the law allows. The PATRIOT Act gives law enforcement unprecedented
powers of surveillance – including easy access to library records with
minimal judicial oversight.Among the many changes in U.S. law and practice enabled by the
act is the federal government’s ability to override the historical
protections of library reading records that exist in every state.
States created these confidentiality laws to protect the privacy and
freedoms Americans hold dear. These laws provide a clear framework for
responding to national security concerns while safeguarding against
random searches, fishing expeditions or invasions of privacy.
Librarians are committed to ensuring the highest quality library
service and protection of our patrons’ records from random searches,
fishing expeditions or other inappropriate invasions of privacy. This
commitment is why we are among the most trusted members of our
communities, from Maine to California. We take great pains to be
educated about the federal and state laws that govern our ability to
serve our communities – which is why we’re so concerned.
Over the past two years, Americans have been told that only individuals
directly involved in terrorism need be concerned. This is not what the
law says. The act lowers the legal standard to “simple relevance”
rather than the higher standard of “probable cause” required by the
Fourth Amendment.
In March 2003, the Justice Department said that libraries had become a
logical target of surveillance. Which assurance by Mark Carallo are we
to believe?
We also have been told that the law only affects non-U.S. citizens.
This is not what the law says. In fact, the act amended the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) in such a way that U.S. citizens
may now be investigated under the lowered legal standards applied to
foreign agents.
And now Attorney General John Ashcroft says the FBI has no interest in
Americans’ reading records. While this may be true, librarians have a
history with law enforcement dating back to the McCarthy era that gives
us pause. For decades, and as late as the 1980s, the FBI’s Library
Awareness Program sought information on the reading habits of people
from “hostile foreign countries,” as well as U.S. citizens who held
unpopular political views.
We are deeply concerned that the Attorney General should be so openly
contemptuous of those who seek to defend our Constitution. Rather than
ask the nations’ librarians and Americans nationwide to “just trust
him,” Ashcroft could allay concerns by releasing aggregate information
about the number of libraries visited using the expanded powers created
by the USA PATRIOT Act.
Or, better yet, federal elected officials could vote – as several U.S.
senators and representatives from across the political spectrum have
proposed – to restore the historical protection of library records.
Ashcroft and libraries
Anecdotal evidence would indicate that the Feds have not targeted libraries – the Illinois study. However, because the Patriot PROHIBITS disclosure of any investigatory acts by the government of library records, were I queried in such a study I would think long and hard before I answered in the affirmative. To me, if Ashcroft wants to label librarians as “hysterical” about it, he should tell the U.S. public the facts that back up his position. ALA is merely reading the statute all the while Justice is blowing smoke.
From The Onion this morning……
Revised Patriot Act Will Make It Illegal To Read Patriot Act
WASHINGTON, DC—President Bush spoke out Monday in support of a revised version of the 2001 USA Patriot Act that would make it illegal to read the USA Patriot Act. “Under current federal law, there are unreasonable obstacles to investigating and prosecuting acts of terrorism, including the public’s access to information about how the federal police will investigate and prosecute acts of terrorism,” Bush said at a press conference Monday. “For the sake of the American people, I call on Congress to pass this important law prohibiting access to itself.” Bush also proposed extending the rights of states to impose the death penalty “in the wake of Sept. 11 and stuff.”
ALA Reply to Ashcrofth tml
I wouldn’t call the ALA response to Ashcroft “snippy.” It seems like a measured and authoritative reply. If you want snippy, look here: http://www.info-commons.org/blog/archives/000174.