Researcher threatened with arrest at National Archives

A law school professor doing research on State Department positions on Wahhabism got a lesson in Patriot Act implications, rather than the information she needed. After her initial request was turned down by a clerk, a second polite request was met with a threat to call security. A discussion with a supervisor turned into an inquiry about her research. The whole story from The Palestinian Times. Thanks to Mark R. for posting the story on another list.

September 1, 2003 by Uncategorized 9

You may also like...

9 Responses

  1. Fang-Face says:
    September 1, 2003 at 8:37 pm

    But that’s supposed to be impossible

    Credibility Gap: When what we see does not match up with what they say.

    Somebody better tug on Ashcroft’s sleeve while he’s stumping around touting the magnificence and munificence of his [un]patriot act and let him know that reality does not seem to be supporting his rhetoric. It should be blindingly obvious to any person who can tie his own shoes that given the potential for abuse, someone, somewhere, will realize that potential.

    “Mr. Spock, who was Herbert?”

    “Herbert, Captain, was a 21st Century clerk known for his narrow-minded adherence to petty bureaucratic regulations.”

    Reply
  2. Anonymous Patron says:
    September 1, 2003 at 9:20 pm

    Re:But that’s supposed to be impossible
    Not to sound elitist, but a lot of clerks probably choose that kind of work to avoid having to think too hard.

    Reply
  3. Anonymous Patron says:
    September 2, 2003 at 11:03 pm

    Some holes in Story
    I AM NOT a fan of the current regime’s efforts to make everything a state Secret. However, while trying to verify this story I came across the following POSSIBLE problems. I would Love for someone else with more time to follow up on these issues.

    1) While the National Archives IS rescreening materials (see http://www.archives.gov/research_room/whats_new/no tices/access_and_terrorism.html) for details, it is not clear to me what statutory authority they are using. They refer to the FOIA act, 5 USC 552 (b)(2) as amended, but don’t refer to the date it was amended. I’ve reviewed the table of contents for both the USA PATRIOT Act and the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (both available at THOMAS) and did not see any section that looked like it amended FOIA. A more careful reading MIGHT pull up the section.

    3)Sarah Whalen may not currently be faculty at a “Loyola University School of Law.” If you do a google search on “Sarah Whalen Loyola” you get a page titled “Faculty and Staff – Department of Religious Studies – Loyola …”, from Loyola University in New Orleans.

    Sarah Whalen DOES NOT appear on the current page, but SHE DOES appear in Google’s Cached page. Where she is listed under “extraordinary faculty” as “SARAH WHALEN teaches a course on Islam, Muhammad, and the Qur’an.”

    Finally, A search in EBSCO’s Academic Search Premier and Masterfile Premier fail to turn up any academic papers by Professor Sarah Whalen.

    I’m not saying this makes her story automatically false, only that it should be further researched before we proclaim it as an atrocity committed under the USA PATRIOT Act. – Daniel

    Reply
  4. jay currie says:
    September 3, 2003 at 1:07 am

    Re:Some holes in Story
    Further Googling suggests Ms. Whalen is no friend of free speech or freedom in general. Her March article inArab News included this remark,

    It is Islam’s all-pervasiveness that alarms the West and pushes it toward this pre-emptive war. What the West wants now, the United States included, is a Middle East where Islam is shorn not just of obstinate leadership, but of its sometimes explosive, primal force. An Islam relegated to a Friday congregational sermon and communal exchanges of goodwill is what the West is looking for.

    The Shariah of course will be the first thing to go, Western culture having totally stripped the law of its power to cause fear and instill obedience. No more of those “barbaric� punishments. The West has spoken.

    Looking at Ms. Whalen’s story she names no names and provides no dates. Daniel points out Ms. Whalen does not seem to teach where she claims to teach. Her other writing suggests she has a rather large axe to grind.

    Obnoxious as the Patriot Act is, this sort of story needs careful checking before it is taken at face value.

    Reply
  5. rochelle says:
    September 3, 2003 at 3:19 am

    Re:Some holes in Story
    Hey, you guys are good! I kinda wondered why the story was in the Palestinian Times and not an American paper. Not that this sort of thing wouldn’t or doesn’t happen…..

    Reply
  6. Fang-Face says:
    September 3, 2003 at 3:30 am

    Re:Some holes in Story

    Further Googling suggests Ms. Whalen is no friend of free speech or freedom in general. Her March article inArab News included this remark,

    Jay, there is absolutely nothing in the material you quoted to suggest that Ms. Whalen is anti-libertarian. The entire paragraph strikes me as a valid criticism and a well formulated opinion. If you assume that Ms. Whalen supports religious extremism solely on the basis of her opposition to the oppression of the Iraqi people, then you have fallen into the same logically fallacious thinking Jews exhibit when they call people antisemitic for daring to criticize Israel. Black/white thinking is egregiously counterproductive. There are more points of view and alternatives in reality than are allowed for in knee jerk ideologies.

    Personally, I will not hesitate to say that her letter at Al Jazeera starts off as a conspiracy laden polemic, but the tone of bitterness in the closing paragraphs does not speak of antisemitism so much as it presages the bitterness so many Iraqi civilians now express towards the American occupation forces.

    Reply
  7. jay currie says:
    September 3, 2003 at 6:00 am

    Re:Some holes in Story
    I rather think her implicit support for the harsher aspects of Islamic law and her saddness at the potential passing of “barbaric punishments” put her outside the liberarian tent.

    My claim vis a vis Ms. Whalen is based on the fact she has apparently pretended to be on a faculty which does not list her and has provided no details – names and dates – of her alledged experience.

    Her story may well be true; but on the net it is important to check out the source.

    Reply
  8. Anonymous Patron says:
    September 3, 2003 at 6:12 am

    Re:Some holes in Story
    Hello, this is Daniel again, tho you’ll have to trust me on that one.

    I don’t think that we have any more right to look at one’s intellectual background than John Ashcroft does.

    Loyola in New Orleans did list Ms. Whalen as “extraordinary faculty” back in 2000. It just doesn’t now. Does that mean she’ll never teach there again or has no position now? I don’t know. A phone call to the religious studies department could settle the issue. I don’t have the time or inclination to make the call myself.

    I saw Ms. Whalen’s other postings in Google as well, but chose not to mention them. As far as I’m concerned the only revelent issues are:

    1) Was a researcher (regardless of ideology) prevented from accessing documents on Saudi Arabia that WERE accessible prior to 9/11/2001?

    2) What statutory or regulatory authority is NARA using to close documents?

    3) Are items, in fact being reclassified?

    4) If 3 is true, then can we hang this on either the USA PATRIOT Act or the Homeland Security Act?

    If Ms. Whalen endorses the harsh Sharia employed by Saudi Arabia and the unlamented Taliban, I feel sad for her she idealizes that way of life, as much as I feel sad for the so-called “Christian Reconstructionists” in this country who would inflict every last dot of Exodus and Deutoromy on us.

    However, this belief inself should not preclude her from obtaining documents previously cleared for public viewing.

    – Daniel

    Reply
  9. jay currie says:
    September 3, 2003 at 7:43 am

    Re:Some holes in Story
    I agree on the principle; my questions and your research go to the bigger questions of a) whether this happened at all, b)if it happened the way Ms. Whalen describes.

    If the story checks out then the people at the National Archives should be contacted for their side of the story and then the matter should be pushed hard. But first we need actual proof.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

LISNews Archives