Back in July, Thom at Societas raised a ruckus about the renewal of The Patriot Act. Thom pointed out that many liberal bloggers lost sight of the Patriot Act amid coverage of the Rove scandal and the Roberts nomination.
I did what I could at the time — I put up a post about the Patriot Act, and called my Senators to urge them to vote against reauthorizing it.
I recently received a letter from Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum in response to my phone call. In it, Santorum writes that he “appreciate[s] hearing from you and having the benefit of your views.” He goes on to tout the power of the Patriot Act, noting that “this bill enters new and uncharted territory by breaking down traditional barriers between law enforcement and foreign intelligence.”
Acknowledging concerns that the Act could endanger American civil liberties, Santorum reassures constituents like me that the FBI has not used the Patriot Act to request library records:
In case that’s hard for you to read, the text, which appears in bold, is as follows:
In a press release today, the ACLU reports that, in a direct rebuttal to Santorum’s claim, the FBI has indeed gone after library records:
ACLU Seeks Emergency Court Order to Lift Gag As Congress Prepares to Make Patriot Act Permanent
NEW YORK – The American Civil Liberties Union today disclosed that the FBI has used a controversial Patriot Act power to demand records from an organization that possesses “a wide array of sensitive information about library patrons, including information about the reading materials borrowed by library patrons and about Internet usage by library patrons.” The FBI demand was disclosed in a new lawsuit filed in Connecticut, which remains under a heavy FBI gag order.
The ACLU is seeking an emergency court order to lift the gag so that its client can participate in the public debate about the Patriot Act as Congress prepares to reauthorize or amend it in September.
“Our client wants to tell the American public about the dangers of allowing the FBI to demand library records without court approval,” said ACLU Associate Legal Director Ann Beeson, the lead lawyer in the case. “If our client could speak, he could explain why Congress should adopt additional safeguards that would limit Patriot Act powers.”
Papers reveal that the client, whose identity must remain a secret under the gag, “strictly guards the confidentiality and privacy of its library and Internet records.” The client is a member of the American Library Association.
The lawsuit challenges the National Security Letter (NSL) provision of the Patriot Act, which authorizes the FBI to demand a range of personal records without court approval, such as the identity of a person who has visited a particular Web site on a library computer, or who has engaged in anonymous speech on the Internet. The Patriot Act dramatically expands the NSL power by permitting the FBI to demand records of people who are not suspected of any wrongdoing.
The lawsuit, ACLU v. Gonzales, was filed on August 9, and is pending before Judge Janet Hall of the U.S. District Court in Bridgeport, Connecticut. It names as defendants Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, FBI Director Robert Mueller, and an FBI official whose identity remains under seal. Both the national ACLU and its Connecticut branch said they were forced to file the lawsuit initially under seal to avoid penalties for violating the gag provision, which they are challenging on First Amendment grounds.
The court has set an emergency hearing for Wednesday, August 31, 2005 on the ACLU’s request to lift the gag.
Whether the Patriot Act has been used to obtain information about library patrons has been a flashpoint in the Patriot Act debate. The government has repeatedly dismissed the concerns of librarians that the act could force them to violate their ethical responsibility to protect the privacy of library users. Former Attorney General John Ashcroft even called these concerns about the Patriot Act “baseless hysteria.”
It looks like I may have to place another call to my esteemed Senator, to ask him why he lied to us again.
5 Comments on "The FBI Makes a Liar Out of Rick Santorum"
ol cranky:
wow, first Santorum’s people confirm he lied last week and now the FBI today. I’m sure he has a good excuse. . . really.
ThomH:
Thanks for staying on top of eveything, Matt. OC, btw, has been blogging consistently and excellently on Bill of Rights related concerns (among her many other topics).
Matt, as you suggest, many people seem complacement about the Patriot Act.
Their rationale: Even if it does legally allow the FBI (or agency X) to act in what many Americans hold is a fundamental breach of our social contract and the Bill of Rights, the FBI or agency X will never do so.
“Can’t happen here” syndrome. Because . . . people will protest. Or the current government can be trusted. Or the present situation is only temporary. Or etc.
Of this, Thomas Jefferson remarked:
#
#
Our rulers are not honest. We as a nation — in no small part due to their dishonesty — are not united. Nor do we suffer from any shortage of zealots who would gladly turn persecutors. (Indeed, more than a few might include Rick Santorum on that list of zealots / would-be persecutors because of the following).
Nevertheless, in certain sections of the Patriot Act we’re giving up the legal basis for certain essential rights.
In passage I just cited above, Jefferson ended with following:
#
#
Several attempts have been made to expand and extend the Patriot Act–well beyong any need or justification for combating terrorism. To make, in Jefferson’s phrase, the “shackles . . . heavier and heavier.”
Thus far, we’re barely holding ground. The people who say “it can’t happen here” need to realise it is happening here. The incident you cite just one example. We should not need to trust in the goodwill of the FBI. Our essential rights should be protected –not undermined– by law.
Hey, if I’m gonna write all that BS I should just get my own blog. ; )
Thanks, man, for humoring me. Best to all, Thom H.
ol cranky:
It beats working (can you tell who has short-timer syndrome?)
ol cranky:
you know what, I just realized that Rick didn’t lie, he just misunderstood your question.
He thought you were asking if the FBI had used its authority requested record albums (LPs) from libraries & bookstores, not if they had used their authority to obtain records of requests/purchases by consumers. It’s all a simple misunderstanding because Rick’s just a simple guy.
Error 404:
Ask him why he lied? That’s a silly question: he’s a BushCo Republican. Lying is a matter of principle for them.
Comments