[BlackGriffen]

Washington Times Article (Conservative enough for ya?)

Ashcroft claims that the reading habits provision of the Patriot Act has never been used.

Former member of the justice department Dinh and a bunch of librarians disagree.

Who should we believe (hmm, I wonder)?

Too much of that law a was the political equivalent of someone shouting "Do SOMETHING!" and then some idiot hitting that button he was told never to push.

BlackGriffen

[Uday's Carcass]

I'm not going to read the article; I'll just tell ya straight up: I don't trust Ashcroft or the DOJ. And I didn't trust it under Reno either.

[MacGorilla]

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
I'm not going to read the article; I'll just tell ya straight up: I don't trust Ashcroft or the DOJ. And I didn't trust it under Reno either.

I trusted it more under Reno but not by much. Ashcroft scares me.

[spacefreak]

Of the thousands upon thousands of libraries, and millions and millions of library users in the USA, libraries were contacted a whopping 50 times in 2002 using the Patriot Act. Big f---ing deal

The Justice Dept. claim was that the Act was not used to search public library records. I see nothing in the article that disputes this. A contact/request for information on a suspected patron is not the same as a search of public library records.

I don't know what's worse...those of you who refuse to read the article, or those who cannot comprehend the article's content.

[tie]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Of the thousands upon thousands of libraries, and millions and millions of library users in the USA, libraries were contacted a whopping 50 times in 2002 using the Patriot Act. Big f---ing deal

The Justice Dept. claim was that the Act was not used to search public library records. I see nothing in the article that disputes this. A contact/request for information on a suspected patron is not the same as a search of public library records.

I don't know what's worse...those of you who refuse to read the article, or those who cannot comprehend the article's content.

I must say that I couldn't understand the article. No real details, few exact quotes. Much paraphrasing. 50 times, Ashcroft says zero.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that they have only used the act to track book-borrowing by suspects, and they haven't gone the other direction (finding suspects by seeing whose borrowed what books)?

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by tie:
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that they have only used the act to track book-borrowing by suspects, and they haven't gone the other direction (finding suspects by seeing whose borrowed what books)?

That's the deal...exactly how and for what reason(s) the law was written... to facilitate investigations.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
That's the deal...exactly how and for what reason(s) the law was written... to facilitate investigations.

And what relevance, pray tell, to a trial is a person's reading habits? If they're important, then shouldn't the government agents have to get a subpoena?

BlackGriffen

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Too much of that law a was the political equivalent of someone shouting "Do SOMETHING!" and then some idiot hitting that button he was told never to push.

Some are admitting they little more than skimmed the PATRIOT Act before voting for it. Naturally, no one wanted to wake up a year later and find themselves slammed in a TV ad for voting against something called "the PATRIOT Act."

Someone posted here a while back saying that their state legislature was barred from giving bills politically loaded names like "PATRIOT." Sounds like a nice place to live.

[chris v]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
And what relevance, pray tell, to a trial is a person's reading habits? If they're important, then shouldn't the government agents have to get a subpoena?

BlackGriffen

Why don't you mosey on down to the library and request to check out The Anarchist's Cookbook, then you can report back here what sort of relevancy it had at your trial.

CV

[thunderous_funker]

The entire justification of the Patriot Act is that they didn't have the means to protect us. I believe they had more than enough means, intelligence and even opportunity to protect us.

Knowing what people check out from the library is a ridiculously low yield/high abuse risk idea that keeps Conspiracy Theorists in business.

Vastly increasing the scope and power of the most secretive and least accountable corridors of Federal power is hardly in the public interest.

But Ashcroft and Co. already know that.

[scoxx]

ACLU Chief Assails Patriot Spin

Last week Ashcroft told the National Restaurant Association, "No one believes in our First Amendment civil liberties more than this administration."

But Romero says the government's actions over the past two years show otherwise.

"This is an administration which has unilaterally assumed the power to arrest and detain an American citizen on American soil, not charge this person with a crime, and insist in federal court papers that that American citizen on American soil does not have the right to confer with his counsel. So when ... the attorney general (has) the audacity to say 'I believe in civil liberties' ... and you see the actions of that Justice Department, you realize from whence our healthy skepticism comes," Romero said.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Of the thousands upon thousands of libraries, and millions and millions of library users in the USA, libraries were contacted a whopping 50 times in 2002 using the Patriot Act. Big f---ing deal

The point is that it is now LEGAL for the government to bypass and ignore safeguards to civil liberties that have been the foundation of this country.

This nation was founded on the assumption of a set of basic civil liberties and designed with check and balances to protect them. They are slowly being phased out by fear mongering.

You may see it as an attack on Ashcroft (who you sympathize with) but I see it as beyond partisan politics. It is neither a right nor left issue. The fact that isn't hasn't been abused, YET, doesn't mean it won't be. Having these laws on the books essentially gives the government the right to enforce it's will on the people in a police state manner.

It can happen WHENEVER and with WHOMEVER is in power. Doesn't that give you pause? It IS a 'Big f---ing deal'!