Congress Votes To Protect Libraries From Evil FBI Intrusion
The F.B.I. has used this 35 times in FOUR years??? Wow. Such a freaking invasion of privacy. As if the F.B.I. really WANTS to spend hours pouring over library records. Whose side is the House on, anyway. They’re jubilant to ‘crush’ Bush in any petty manner possible. Meanwhile, F.B.I. agents are banging their heads on their desks and wondering why they bother to fight so hard for this country so thwarted are they every time they turn around by idiot politicians.
Posted by Phoenix
06/16/2005 at 11:41 AM
Libraries are public facilies. As a public facility, I argue that there is no expectation of privacy.
Want privacy? Go buy the books.
Pay cash.
I don’t like the idea of police of any description writing their own search warrants. I don’t like the idea that these warrants, when served, prohibit the persons served from consulting with an attorney as to the validity of the warrant and their rights concerning the warrant.
Secret warrants and secret courts are not good things for our system and must be severely restricted if not curtailed. I can understand it for a counterintelligence operation, but that’s all.
Law enforcement can always find a ‘tame’ judge to give them a warrant for damn near anything. Our system requires judicial supervision of searches for some damn good reasons. I like it that way. If they can’t find a judge they can convince to sign a warrant then they don’t even have a flimsy case.
I can see the potential for abuse further down the road. Already there have been local District Attorneys who have used the Patriot act to be able to make additional charges in cases that had nothing to do with terrorism.
I’ll stipulate, for the sake of the argument, that the present Justice Department is squeaky clean and would never abuse power.
Can anyone guarantee that the Justice Department four, eight or sixteen years from now would be as trustworthy? Can you honestly tell me that there won’t be future abuses?
We’re tampering with the very basic rights enumerated in the Constitution and I’m not giving mine up. You may tell me that it’s not my rights that are at risk but I’m telling you that if I give up somebody else’s rights mine and yours will soon fall away too.
You want my records? You have several choices:
Ask me; go online, maybe you’ll get lucky; drop $20 and get a credit report; run a check with other agencies (yep, I’ve got an FBI file, everybody who ever got a clearance does) see a judge and provide probable cause.
All of these things can be done without alerting the subject. They don’t need more.
Stink,
Well said. I might be naive, but I don’t feel quite so angry about this particular aspect of the Patriot Act. In a way, I am comforted by knowing the F.B.I. agents can ‘storm’ a house of suspect people and avoid the paperwork that might slow them down and allow possible terrorists to escape. I certainly have no fear that I will ever be subjected to an invasive search as described.
If, as you say, in some future time the F.B.I. becomes a kind of Gestapo, I think the public outcry would be such that it would have to be stopped. I know whoever is subject to these invasions is threatened with prosecution if they speak of it, but if the invasions into private life became too much, there is no way the citizens of this country won’t revolt.
Obviously, you know more than I, but for this regular person, I do not have a problem with this. I also believe the F.B.I. does not take this ‘privilege’ lightly.
Posted by Phoenix
06/16/2005 at 04:03 PM
The disputed provision is about records of transactions with public institutions or companies. Those records have been explicitly ruled not protected by any confidentiality obligation. Therefore, the Act merely regularized the process by which the FBI could obtain them. There was no new grant of power.
Posted by Francis W. Porretto
06/16/2005 at 04:24 PM
OK Class, listen carefully. I’ll speak slowly so that everyone understands.
THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IS THE PARTY OF TREASON IN THE UNITED STATES!!!
This and the recent comments by Senator DICK Durbin of Illinois provides continued proof of this statement. These asshats worry more about terrorists than they worry about the safety of US citizens.
Posted by MAJ Mike
06/16/2005 at 06:03 PM
Francis W has it right, if you transact any type of business with a public institution, there is not an expectation of privacy. Read ‘public’..........
People talk about “Rights”. There is a doctrine that stipulates by acknowledging you are a citizen of this republic the protection of those rights is taken as duty of the government. That is why the RKBA is so important, it protects the citizenry in the most extreme cases from an intrusive federal government. See Kim du Toit’s recent posting on “Lines in the Sand”.
The Hobo
Agreed, Francis W. and Robohobo.
And if our local libraries are any indicator, it is news to me that they have any secrets worth keeping anyhow.
Yes, the Democrats are all traitors.
But: “There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”
- James Madison
Posted by Z Woof
06/16/2005 at 09:52 PM
Under normal circumstances (yes, NOTHING has been “normal” since 9/11), the Senate would scold the House in Conference Committee and would more or less make them put the missing provision back into a bill, because it’s usually the House which fucks things up.
Let us hope and pray REAL HARD that the Senate will do just that with their version of the Patriot Act renewal bill.
