The terrorists score a cheap victory at the expense of our security:
The House handed President Bush the first defeat in his effort to preserve the broad powers of the USA Patriot Act, voting yesterday to curtail the FBI’s ability to seize library and bookstore records for terrorism investigations.
Bush has threatened to veto any measure that weakens those powers. The surprise 238 to 187 rebuke to the White House was produced when a handful of conservative Republicans, worried about government intrusion, joined with liberal Democrats who are concerned about personal privacy.
One provision of the Patriot Act makes it possible for the FBI to obtain a wide variety of personal records about a suspected terrorist — including library transactions — with an order from a secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, where the government must meet a lower threshold of proof than in criminal courts.
Under the House change, officials would have to get search warrants from a judge or subpoenas from a grand jury to seize records about a suspect’s reading habits.
Some libraries have said they are disposing of patrons’ records more quickly because of the provision, which opponents view as a license for fishing expeditions.
If this failed, do the new provisions have a chance?
MI
I can see both sides of the argument. I guess for me, a lot hinges on what exactly qualifies someone as a “suspected terrorist.” If it’s horribly vague and they’re able to fit just about anyone they want into that label, then it’s a no go. But if there’s established, reasonable criteria for classifying someone a suspected terrorist, I would be a more sympathetic to their argument.
KC
Speaking of terrorists, etc., I just got home and surfed a little and found a tiny bruhaha growing over something Durbin said about Gitmo. Apparently, he read some FBI info. on the place that wasn’t too pretty. Anyone know about this?
CaseyL
Please tell me you’re kidding, John. Please tell me you don’t actually see a refusal to allow the gov’t to spy on our reading habits as a “victory” for the terrorists.
Of all the Patriot Act’s egregious Big Brotherisms, this is the one that bugged me the most. The librarians who have opposed the provision, who were ready to monkeywrench it, are real heroes.
I’m stunned that you seem to think otherwise – unless your post was meant sarcastically, which I deeply hope. I mean: c’mon, targeting people because of what they *read*? Anyone with eclectic tastes would be watched by Homeland Security ‘s beady little eyes. Holy hell, anyone who reads Tom Clancy could be considered ‘suspicious.’
Oh, I hope you were being sarcastic!
Kimmitt
Dude was being sarcastic.
judy
Do you remember when Kenneth Starr obtained the records of Lewinsky’s purchases at the Dupont Circle bookstore? At the time, I thought it was absolutely absurd. Powerline has an interesting question:
The upshot of this, if it becomes law, will be that the FBI can obtain an order permitting it to obtain possession of any tangible object whatsoever, from any person or organization, except the records maintained by libraries and bookstores. I, as counsel of record for any party in any civil lawsuit venued in any state or federal court in the United States, can obtain records from libraries and bookstores. But the FBI can’t, at least not if it is conducting a terrorism investigation.
If this is how the law has been constructed, it is equally absurd.
Avedon
I don’t think the terrorists win if we protect our Constitutional rights, John.
I also think they are smart enough to figure out that they can just pay cash for books to avoid leaving a paper trail for the FBI (or anyone else) to follow.
The people who would be tracked under a law like this would be people like you and me, who aren’t trying to cover our tracks because we know we aren’t doing anything wrong.
The FBI will not be significantly hindered by having to submit to due process.
John Cole
I was being sarcastic, Avedon.
JG
‘conservative Republicans, worried about government intrusion’
Its about time! I guess the effects of the Kool Aid are wearing off.
dan
I got it (‘cuz I read you all the time), but you have to admit that sarcasm is exceedingly hard to discern in print.
Halffasthero
I think the whole damned Patriot Act needs to be thrown out the wondow. The abuse potential from it scares me. A friend of mine is a judge in Austin, TX and over beers gave me a few horror story scenarios which, frankly, made me far more Libertarian than I ever thought I could be. He is a hardcore Republican by the way.
slickdpdx
Are these private libraries? ‘Cause the REALLY CHILLING REALIZATION is that THE GOVERNMENT HAS HAD OUR READING LISTS ALL ALONG at so-called “public libraries”.
Bob
While public libraries may be a governmental entity, slickdpdx, that doesn’t mean their records are automatically shared with the FBI. Not part of the criminal justice system (not yet, anyway).
Likewise, the postal system may be a (quasi)governmental agency, but that doesn’t mean the FBI could open your mail (or even look at who it’s coming from and going to) just by walking into your local post office and taking a look.
Nash
Good thing I recently had the lint cleaned out of my sarcasm detector.
But seriously folks, what kind of terrorist hangs at the library? Everybody knows only penniless losers go to libraries–instead shouldn’t we be looking over the shoulder of those cool cucumbers presenting their VISA cards at Borders and Barnes & Noble? Don’t modern terrorists all come packing–with credit cards?
[okay, that’s sarcasm too]