GregS* writes “Jeff Jacoby’s piece today in the Boston Globe. From the article:
This is the provision of the Patriot Act that has been widely denounced for allowing investigators to obtain library records — a provision so horrifying to the nation’s librarians that the American Library Association launched a campaign against it. In repeated resolutions, the association blasted the Patriot Act as ”a present danger to the constitutional rights and privacy rights of library users.” Many public libraries now make a point of warning their patrons that Big Brother may be looking over their shoulders. And the American Civil Liberties Union charges that Section 215 allows the FBI to ”spy on a person because they don’t like the books she reads, or because they don’t like the Web sites she visits.”
All of which would be very disturbing, and reason enough to let Section 215 fall by the wayside, except for one thing: It’s a crock.“
Jeff Jacoby supports amending USAPA
Unlike the Administration, which insists on renewing the PATRIOT Act as is, Mr. Jacoby appears to be more flexible:
“But that doesn’t mean the law is perfect as is. The critics of the Patriot Act are by no means all cynics or zealots, and some of their suggested fixes are sound. Former congressman Bob Barr, for example, would change Section 215 so that authorities could not obtain private records or other ”tangible things” without at least showing the court specific grounds for suspecting a particular individual. Under the law as it stands now, the government has to show merely that the records being sought are relevant to an investigation — a standard so low it is practically nonexistent.”
Unlike the Administration, Mr. Jacoby recognizes that USAPA has flaws and predicts that Congress’ oversight will result in a better law, “one that strikes a better balance between national security and civil liberty than the current statute, which was rushed through Congress just six weeks after 9/11.”
In regard to Mr. Jacoby’s remarks about libraries, its important to remember that even if the law isn’t being abused now (and who really knows?), it’s likely to be abused later. Just like RICO. The harm caused by amending or ditching USAPA is purely theoretical. Governmental abuses of surveillance authority to harrass citizens are part of the historical record. Let’s never forget that. Choose freedom.
Re:Jeff Jacoby supports amending USAPA
Are you saying RICO has never done any good?
Re:Jeff Jacoby supports amending USAPA
“Are you saying RICO has never done any good?”
Are you saying that Mr. Jacoby is wrong when he supports some of the positions of freedom loving patriots?
About RICO – No, but I do say that it has gotten out of control when its being used against anti-abortion protesters , Big Tobacco, and McDonalds. It was intended as a measure strictly against mobs and its mushroomed way beyond that. It needs be reformed, too.
The important difference between RICO and many sections of the PATRIOT is the degree of oversight. The interested public can track the abuses of RICO because RICO must be used in open court. In contrast, some of the most problematic portions of USAPA can be activated in secret. We don’t know how they’re used, and in many cases we don’t know numbers either. If the publicly tracked RICO law can be abused, how much more so will a law be without meaningful oversight? I won’t find the oversight meaningful until all 535 Members of Congress have access to the same case data that AG Gonzales has. You can’t oversee something you can’t see.
BTW, did you know that FBI offices are still unable to electronicaly share case data between field offices, HQ, and in some cases between agents in the same field office? And it looks like their IT problems aren’t going away.
Let them integrate the dots they have before asking for more dots.
Some additional 215 Analysis
Tom Engelhardt, writing in Working for Change offers some additional problems with Sec 215.
He notes, as I forgot to, that Sec. 215 wording of “provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution…” means that first amendment activities CAN be used as PART of the reason to conduct covert searches and surveillance. If you’re a permanent resident or some other law abiding alien, you could be subject to this provision SOLELY upon the basis of first amendment activities.
This makes a mockery of the idea that “all men are created equal, endowed by their creator with INALIENABLE rights.” That’s not American.
The article I refer to has two parts, one by Tom Engelhardt and one by Jonathan Schell. I am only referring to Engelhardt’s comments.
is that the same Jeff Jacoby
… who just got a temporary layoff from the Boston Globe?
Re:is that the same Jeff Jacoby
sorry — who got layed off in 2000.
Re:is that the same Jeff Jacoby
Yes, conveniently before the 2000 election got really started Mr. Jacoby, the only conservative writer for the Boston Globe, got a 4 month suspension for using a rather well-circulated breakdown on what happened to the Founding Fathers after they signed the Declaration of Independence without giving proper attribution. Prior to that the Globe had to fire 2 columnists for making up sources and quotes out of whole cloth.
Re:Jeff Jacoby supports amending USAPA
Anything can be abused. You can’t write law without running into unintended consequences.
Oversight? I sat and listened to a librarian publicly state they welcome the oppurtunity to challenge any subpoena under the Patriot Act. If the FBI suddenly decides to make a habit of requesting circulation logs under the PA I’m quite comfortable in the belief that it won’t be accomplished in secrecy.
Is Jacoby wrong? He’s right to knock ALA for their hysterics. I don’t think he’s right or wrong on what he feels can be changed, I think its just his opinion. I didn’t get the impression that he would feel horrible if it wasn’t changed just that he thinks it would be better if it was.
Today’s NRO editorial
Here’s a related piece.