[olePigeon]

http://chronicle.com/temp/email2.php...bddZnqv3qYq6rp

Good for her!

FBI tried to sieze a bunch of Library comptuers without a warrant after it was determined that one of them was used to send threats. But the Library Director told them they needed to obtain a warrant before they could seize the Library computers.

She wasn't doing this to be a jerk, either. No one was in danger of being hurt, so she wanted them to observe due process. She also worked with the FBI's computer-forensics team and the I.T. department on-site.

[turtle777]

She can consider herself lucky to be still alive.
They could have shot her before asking relevant questions...

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by what_the_heck

She can consider herself lucky to be still alive.
They could have shot her before asking relevant questions...

Or they could've used the PATRIOTACT.

[Monique]

What the heck are you talking about shooting her. Are you a child what the heck?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Monique

What the heck are you talking about shooting her. Are you a child what the heck?

You didn't get it. Whatever. That's ok.

[production_coordinator]

The FBI has the right to ask for something without getting a warrant.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by production_coordinator

The FBI has the right to ask for something without getting a warrant.

Asking and taking are two different things.
And yes, that is mentioned in the article.

[wdlove]

I think that the whole issue was blown out of proportion. We are in a war against terrorism. She should have tried to calmly tried to work this out.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by wdlove

I think that the whole issue was blown out of proportion. We are in a war against terrorism. She should have tried to calmly tried to work this out.

She did calmly "work this out" . . . by asking the FBI to FOLLOW THE LAW they are supposed to be upholding/enforcing.

What is it with people? Do you have so little respect for the law yourself you don't follow it and don't expect others to do the same? Come on now, how can we legitimately claim to be a law-abiding nation if we as individuals and groups don't follow the law ourselves and demand others to do the same.




And before any of you come up with the "Do you speed in your car?" line of reasoning I will answer for you: Yes I do. And every time I haf been pulled over--only three times in ~20 years of driving--I have paid the fine with no questions asked. That is my part of the social compact, accepting responsibility for my actions when I do break the law.

[Monique]

wlove you have a quote from Churchill and you wanted her to give up computers without a warrent. So the law is only applicable to Republicans. You are not at war, you have just been attacked just like many other countries by cowards.

[andi*pandi]

it sounds like the librarian kept her head, and while they were off getting a warrant they figured out which computers were likely culprits. If the FBI had stormed in and grabbed em all, that library would have been out those computers for the "indefinite" amount of time it took to do an investigation. What a waste that would have been, and stupid. Of course figure out which computers first!

smart thinking saves time, money, and resources.

[Shaddim]

We obviously have some idiots around here...

Listen, they asked to have the computers (didn't threaten, didn't push) and she asked them to get a warrant. Big deal.

To the Libs patting her on the bum for thumbing her nose at "the man", no she didn't, she simply followed the law. All the chest bumping and high-fives over this are pathetic.

To the conservatives who believe she should have just turned them over, it was her right not to do so. If she wants a warrant one is easily obtained, probably would take less than half an hour.

Where's the story? Oh, that's right, there isn't one. This stuff happens every day.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi

it sounds like the librarian kept her head, and while they were off getting a warrant they figured out which computers were likely culprits. If the FBI had stormed in and grabbed em all, that library would have been out those computers for the "indefinite" amount of time it took to do an investigation. What a waste that would have been, and stupid. Of course figure out which computers first!

smart thinking saves time, money, and resources.

or, one of the people that worked there was the culprit, and then wiped the evidence off the computer while the cops were getting their ducks in a row. The FBI should have gotten the warrant before ever stepping foot in the place.

Oh well, not like this doesn't happen on a regular basis.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by wdlove

I think that the whole issue was blown out of proportion. We are in a war against terrorism. She should have tried to calmly tried to work this out.

She did, but she wanted people to know that the government most of all shouldn't break the law.

While she didn't allow them to take the computers, she did work their forensics team to examine them at the Library with the help of the I.T. department. She was being very accomodating, but also wanted the FBI to know they can't do whatever they hell they want.

[Railroader]

Why am I not surprised MacNStein is the only wise voice in this bunch?

He said it first and best.

They should have had the warrant before going to the library. Other than that, there is no story. Just another excuse to make something out of nothing and call it news.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi

it sounds like the librarian kept her head, and while they were off getting a warrant they figured out which computers were likely culprits. If the FBI had stormed in and grabbed em all, that library would have been out those computers for the "indefinite" amount of time it took to do an investigation. What a waste that would have been, and stupid. Of course figure out which computers first!

smart thinking saves time, money, and resources.

So now the Mayor of some podunk town is deciding what is and isn't a "clear and present danger" to the people of the US? Thank God they're on the job!

[ghporter]

Railroader, I think "cynical" is more appropriate than "wise." The LAW requires that any law enforcement agency representative, no matter what agency it is, MUST produce a warrant in order to impound property that is not offered up voluntarily. The librarian did not volunteer the computers and pointed out that a warrant was required. This, by the way, also covered the Ms. Glick-Weil with Brandeis-she did not surrender university property without a valid and legal reason.

Further, the limited and specific warrant the FBI eventually did receive not only got them the computers sooner than a protracted legal fight using the "case law" the FBI's spokesperson refered to. Funny how doing things according to the rules usually works out to be simpler, easier and quicker...

In the defense of the FBI agents involved, they may have felt that there was an urgent reason to determine the possible sender of the mentioned threat. But going through all of what had been done on 30 computers is a lot harder than going through what had been done with three... Asking for cooperation is Good. "You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar" is true in so many ways.

Finboy, I think the mayor's endorsement of the Ms. Glick-Weil's actions is a political statement. The United States is supposed to operate under the Rule Of Law. It doesn't matter if it's a good guy or a bad guy trying to evade or violate that law. The FBI can ASK all they want, but they still MUST produce a warrant if the property they are interested in is not voluntarily offered. That's THE LAW.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by finboy

So now the Mayor of some podunk town is deciding what is and isn't a "clear and present danger" to the people of the US? Thank God they're on the job!

Actually, it seems like from the article that it went down something like this:

- Librarian gets call that something is afoot
- 1/2 hour later, FBI shows up and asks for all the computers
- Librarian says "You either need a warrant or lives have to be immediately in danger to do that, that's the law!"
- FBI says "Hey, we don't have either of those, let's go get a warrant, it should only take a few hours"
- Librarian says "Great, let's have some of your guys work with our IT guys to identify the computers of interest".
- When the warrant actually comes, the FBI takes the three computers they need, leaving the other 27.

So it looks like it was the FBI who determined that there wasn't a "clear and present danger", and no one else. The librarian simply wanted to follow the law, and probably did the FBI a favor, since she offered the assistance of their IT staff to analyze the computers. She saved the library the trouble of having all their computers incapacitated for some time. The FBI probably got the information they needed sooner becasue of it. The FBI can only really be guilty of acting a little too hasty, and I'm willing to cut them some slack in this circumstance. As MacnStein said, everyone was just following the law, which ought to happen anyway. All deserve a !

[Secret__Police]

Send her to Club Gitmo for obstructing the war on terrorism. She Hates America

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by ghporter

Railroader, I think "cynical" is more appropriate than "wise." The LAW requires that any law enforcement agency representative, no matter what agency it is, MUST produce a warrant in order to impound property that is not offered up voluntarily. The librarian did not volunteer the computers and pointed out that a warrant was required. This, by the way, also covered the Ms. Glick-Weil with Brandeis-she did not surrender university property without a valid and legal reason.

Uh, that's exactly what he said. In different words. So, not exactly, but almost exactly.

[ambush]

the war on terror means... no civil rights. OBEY.

[Railroader]

Maybe in Canada, but not in the USA.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Railroader

Uh, that's exactly what he said. In different words. So, not exactly, but almost exactly.

Yep, but different words have different shadings of meaning. Of course I was noting MacNStein's second post, not the first---my bad maybe? The second one ("or, one of the people that worked there was the culprit...") was certainly extremely cynical. The first one is indeed level-headed, but I just scrolled up to the first (latest) post from MacNStein that I saw and commented on that one.

But on the whole, I'm pretty fond of the way Dork. saw it... Reporters often "add to the urgency" of situations to make stories that seem more compelling.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by ghporter

The second one ("or, one of the people that worked there was the culprit...") was certainly extremely cynical.

It may sound cynical, but it was possible. I've worked in/with law enforcement for 10+ years, and have seen what I described. They're the closest to the machines on a daily basis, so they are consdered initial suspects. It's just common sense.

[Monique]

For those who wanted the librarian to surrender the computers, we should send some people from the ATF to your home without a warrant and search the premises.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

We obviously have some idiots around here... Where's the story? Oh, that's right, there isn't one. This stuff happens every day.

You're so cute when you try to play middle-guy. Must've been hard.

The reason it's a story is because the library is often the battlegrounds when it comes to civil rights. Given the situation regarding the "terrorist threat," recent events with the Bush administration trying to push bypassing courts for search and seizure in terrorist related incidents (regardless of probable cause), and the ironic situation of it happening in a library where many other civil rights issues were resolved; it's a story because it's a refreshing reminder that people (even the "lowly librarian" -- though she was the director) can force the Government to observe the law during an apparent crisis.

It's nice to see that the FBI is on their toes and looking out for people, but it's also comforting to know that an average Joe can keep them within the confines of the law. At least, for now.

[ambush]

Originally Posted by Railroader

Maybe in Canada, but not in the USA.

No war on terror in canada. sorry mate, stop projecting your wars on other countries.

[Monique]

Not anymore but in the 70's there was some bad times.

[ambush]

Yes, when Idiot Trudeau suspended civil rights and imprisoned hundreds of innocents. A dark moment in the history of the country.

[Monique]

Well well some people have a good memory. What a moron Trudeau was at the time. He did not need to suspend anything and to enact the measures of war. This was such a stupid move; did you know that Margaret told him not to do it because it was not necessary. Isn't it funny how easy it is to manipulate people, the public kept seeing his point of view and attributed the protest from the Quebecois as treason and cried for independance only.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by ambush

No war on terror in canada. sorry mate, stop projecting your wars on other countries.

So, you aren't helping out in Afghanistan?

[wolfen]

Is it time for sexy librarian pics, yet?