A nation racked with fear.

[wendybeth]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

How is extra security around the Liberty Bell a loss of civil liberties? We've debated this before, but I don't know anyone who has lost civil liberties. The only thing I can think of which comes close (well, two now) are the Guantanamo detainees (and only if they are US citizens) and a provision proposed in the new Patriot Act taking away judicial oversight on certian warrants (which I oppose).

I just don't see civil liberties being eroded.

You know perfectly well I was referring to such things as the 'Patriot Act' and the indefinite imprisonment of suspects, etc. I suppose as long as it doesn't affect you it's alright? That provision in the Patriot Act allowing the FBI to rifle through your records and not be answerable to anyone is frightening and is a huge blow to our civil liberties. The only reason the Act got passed was because of this climate of fear that the OP wrote about.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by wendybeth

You know perfectly well I was referring to such things as the 'Patriot Act' and the indefinite imprisonment of suspects, etc. I suppose as long as it doesn't affect you it's alright? That provision in the Patriot Act allowing the FBI to rifle through your records and not be answerable to anyone is frightening and is a huge blow to our civil liberties. The only reason the Act got passed was because of this climate of fear that the OP wrote about.

Wendy, I'm not trying to be a jerk. All FBI searches involved in the Patriot Act do require judicial warrants. There are provisions making it easier to get certain warrants and it does eliminate some redundancy, but there is judicial oversight. If someone will point out to me even one person, beyond the guantanamo prisoners who are US citizens (I do not include those who are not because non-US citizens have no gaurantee of rights under our Constitution - I completely agree that those US citizens being held there are being denied their rights, and in fact, judicial oversight ordered their release. Forgive me if some of my details aren't exact.), who has had their civil liberties compromised, that would be great. I honestly do not know of anyone.

If you are referring to the library records thing that was a big deal a while ago, I never had a problem with it because it is called a "public" library. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place.

[wendybeth]

Well, for starters, here is this little item: Patriot Act reviewed in closed door session.

This article lays out many of the alarming aspects of the Act, and why the author considers them detrimental to our civil liberties.

I have a very long list of others I could post, but a simple keyword search will garner you the same results.

Oh, and Padilla is one detainee that comes to mind. There are many others who have 'disappeared'- granted, these are not very nice people, but that does not excuse our flouting of international law.

[Prudence]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

If you are referring to the library records thing that was a big deal a while ago, I never had a problem with it because it is called a "public" library. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place.

Is the use of the word "public" the kicker? If so, does[should] that also apply to school records? Public schools are open to children living within district boundaries and supported by public funds, much as public libraries are open to residents living within district boundaries and supported by public funds. Should parents have a reasonable expectation of privacy with regards to their children's school records? [Bonus question: what about their public school library records?]

Also, if I recall correctly, the "library records thing" also applied to bookstores, which can be privately owned establishments. Should they be exempt, or are they public in the sense that the public is welcome within the establishment? In which case, is there a differentiation between a bookstore which is open to the public and a community hospital which is open to the public?

And I'm not just trying to be pedantic. If there's going to be a set of interactions and records that are protected/private, and a set that aren't, I'd like a clear understanding of which is which.

Although frankly I think that particular provision is a load of horse pucky. If national security is truly threatened by books checked out of the public libraries, librarians across the country deserve enormous pay increases as front line warriors in the Fight Against Terror. I have no problem with traditional warrants, reviewed by the judicial system. I *do* have a problem with secret warrants forever hidden from view. It allows less scrupulous law enforcement officials to take advantage of the system, target the least experienced librarian, and prevent him or her from seeking counsel from an administrator on the legal limits of the search. And it would be lovely if I could give you some statistics or particulars on that, but anything I know is stuff I shouldn't legally have been told anyhow.

I'm also concerned about a curtailment of scholarly activity. I did once have a citation for this, and I'll try to dredge it up, but I read an article about a faculty member doing legitimate research on public water systems. But because of the Patriot Act, he was afraid of being targeted as a terrorist based on the types of materials (mostly maps) that he checked out of the library. So he stopped checking them out. Not that he stopped borrowing them, he just didn't check them out first -- just walked out with them.

Not a particularly secure system.

And frankly I think it's mostly misdirection. Don't worry about that deficit/social security/homelessness/hunger/education/elder care/etc...