NYT on "Competing View" of Patriot Act:
From the New York Times:
Publicly, the debate over the law known as the USA Patriot Act has focused on concerns from civil rights advocates that the F.B.I. has gained too much power to use expanded investigative tools to go on what could amount to fishing expeditions.
But [newly obtained internal FBI documents] . . . offer a competing view, showing that, privately, some F.B.I. agents have felt hamstrung by their inability to get approval for using new powers under the Patriot Act, which was passed weeks after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
One internal F.B.I. message, sent in October 2003, criticized the Office of Intelligence Policy and Review at the Justice Department, which reviews and approves terrorist warrants, as regularly blocking requests from the F.B.I. to use a section of the antiterrorism law that gave the bureau broader authority to demand records from institutions like banks, Internet providers and libraries.
"While radical militant librarians kick us around, true terrorists benefit from OIPR's failure to let us use the tools given to us," read the e-mail message, which was sent by an unidentified F.B.I. official. "This should be an OIPR priority!!!"
Indeed... no master by Dewey!
The most interesting issue is what happens when First Amendment activities are raised under an ADA retaliation, the ADA's express conflict preemption statute that "preempts" (repeals) "other federal laws" is asserted against the Patriot Act, and the related cases are pending in the Eleventh Circuit and United States Supreme Court? E.g., Docket No. 05-7771. It would appear there is no legitimate law enforcement reason to retaliate sufficient to prevent the ADA from repealing in part the immunity provision of the Patriot Act for knowingly and wrongfully using the Patriot Act to retaliate against two disabled American citizens for no other reason than abuse and supression of their unpopular ideas that disability rights should be enforced — even if that affects Bush administration budget concerns.
I wonder if the FBI/US Attorney-DOJ/US Marshal/US Coast Guard/Secret Service/other federal investigative unit would find more instances in which they used the Patriot Act's powers under a formal discovery process in a retaliation/First Amendment suit. Maybe it is humorous to joke about 'militant librarians,' but anyone who has been subject to what appears to be Patriot Act abuse for simply asserting civil rights they are entitled to enforce as American citizens would find no humor there. Especially where a Vessel believed to have been conducting surveillance activities on the civil rights American citizens was recklessly tied to ensure she would break loose in a Hurricane with a high likelihood of killing them, and the only witness brought forth by the other side to controvert those facts was recognized by the District Court Judge to have committed perjury.
Why isn't anyone in the legal profession concerned about the dangerous erosion of Constitutional rights posed by the civil rights abuse under the Patriot Act? Especially to supress and control unpopular viewpoints and ideas.
Because "terrorism" is the new root password to the constitution. It used to be "kiddie porn" and before that "cocaine cartel", but they have good password policies, and change it periodically.
I've even heard from a reliable source that the radical militant librarians have started to infiltrate the Bilderberger Banking Collective, and that the Illuminanti is powerless to stop them.
An analogous situation is with the abortion debate. Pro-lifers are doing everything they can to completely ban abortion. Pro-choicers are complacent and are just arguing that Roe v. Wade should not be overturned. Someone arguing to preserve the status quo against someone arguing the status quo should be changed is bound to lose. To preserve the status quo against someone who wants to change it, you need to argue for equal change in the opposite direction. Pro-choice people should be arguing to get rid of the third-trimester rule, they should be arguing that a pregnant woman should be allowed to abort her fetus ANY TIME prior to birth, and they should be arguing for government-subsidized abortion clinics on every street corner, which will perform abortions on demand, without question, and anonymously. They should be arguing for these things just as vigorously as the pro-lifers are arguing for their position. Then there's a chance Roe will survive and the status quo of legal, albeit restricted, abortions will remain inviolate.
Want the death penalty abolished? Argue for the penalty for triple homicide to be 5 years parole. The compromise will surely be no more death penalty.
You seem to be imagining a quite different post than I actually wrote. FWIW, I didn't intend to send any of the messages that you seem to be reading into my choice of excerpt.
A higher threshold on pen registers? At a time when it's getting harder and harder to see through the electronic evasions of the criminals (disposable cash-paid cell phones, internet telephony, instant messaging) you want to raise the bar on the government's use of pens, an unintrusive collection technique that only provides information already being revealed to others (the phone company)? I don't get it. In any event, thank you for continuing to explicate the USAPA.
All,
My interpretation of "radical militant librarians" is that the writer was disparaging the librarians but not actually worrying about them, because -as we've now seen- the government doesn't seem much to give a damn what people are reading.
Fishbane,
Very funny. But I don't actually see the erosion of civil liberties that some people decry.
CP
I usually don't respond to Houston lawyer, except to say that even if I grant everything he states as true, that does not justify a reference to librarians as "radical milintant[s]". Radical militants do things like blow up FBI headquarters. Environment Liberalization Organization = radical militants. GreenPeace = not radical militants. See?
Just because someone is in law enforcement doesn't mean they don't have a sense of humor. And yes, I would even go so far as to include the FBI in that.