http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nationalsecurityletters/25698res20060530.html

Quote :

"Vice President, Library Connection Inc.; Director, Plainville Public Library; Chairman, Intellectual Freedom Committee for the Connecticut Library Association I am a John Doe. I am also Peter Chase, a librarian from Connecticut. And if I had told you before today that I had received an FBI demand for library records, I could have gone to jail. As a librarian, I believe it is my duty and responsibility to speak out about any infringement to the intellectual freedom of library patrons. But until today, my own government prevented me from fulfilling that duty. When I and my colleagues received FBI National Security Letters demanding access to our patron's records, I knew that this power had had already been declared unconstitutional by a district court in New York. The government was telling Congress that it didn't use the Patriot Act against libraries and that no one's rights had been violated. I felt that I just could not be part of this fraud being foisted on our nation. We had to defend our patrons and ourselves, and so, represented by the ACLU, we filed a lawsuit challenging the government's power to demand these records without a court order. During the first court hearing in Connecticut, I had to sit in a locked room at the Hartford Courthouse to watch the proceedings, which were taking place in a courthouse in Brideport, 60 miles away. I could see that several of my colleagues from the Connecticut library community had come to watch the hearing, even though they didn't knowing the identity of us "John Does." It meant a lot to me to realize that it wasn't just the four of us against the entire U.S. Justice Dept. The gag had many unexpected effects on my ability to do my job. In my role as chair of the Connecticut Library Association's Intellectual Freedom Committee, I received many invitations to speak about the Patriot Act. But I could no longer accept them for fear that I would inadvertently reveal that I was a John Doe or that I knew something about the case. It was galling for me to see the government's attorney in Connecticut, Kevin O'Connor, travel around the state telling people that their library records were safe, while at the same time he was enforcing a gag order preventing me from telling people that their library records were not safe. On one occasion, we were both invited to speak at the same event in Hartford, sponsored by the Women's League of Voters. Mr. O'Connor accepted his invitation, but I had to refuse mine because of the gag order. We were aware that we could risk prosecution if we slipped up. But in the end it was actually the government that slipped up, when they sent the court legal papers without blocking out my name and the name of Library Connection. As a result, I suddenly had reporters calling me at work and even at home, trying to get me to admit that I was a "John Doe." One of the scariest moments throughout this ordeal was when the ACLU told us that they were consulting with criminal defense lawyers about the risk of prosecution. Thankfully, we are safe now. While all this was going on, Congress reauthorized the Patriot Act, and the government assured Congress that no one's right to free speech had ever been violated by the law. After the revised Patriot Act was signed into law, the government suddenly decided that our identity was not really a security threat after all and that our gag should be lifted. Nothing had changed in the case, so what happened to the threat to national security? The fight is not over yet, though. While we won the right to identify ourselves, the question of the FBI's National Security Letter demand for information has not been settled. The battle continues, but at least now we can speak out publicly about our fight to preserve the freedoms that we all hold dear. "

i saw this man and a colleague give a lecture about this a few days ago on c-span and it was one of the most interesting talks i've ever seen. i can elaborate more, but the above paragraphs give the highlights. basically i believe unchecked executive power (in this case in the form of the fbi) is incredibly dangerous and bound to be abused. sorry if there is already a thread on this, but i couldn't find one.

[Edited on April 9, 2007 at 10:47 PM. Reason : link]

one thing that isn't mentioned there that was kind of stressed in the talk was that one of the four librarians involved sued in a different state so he had a different case. right before his case was concluded, the fbi dropped the request for information just before it was to win, but did not drop the gag order. thus, the case didn't go forward AND the guy couldn't talk about it for fear of a lengthy jail sentence. presumably this tactic has been used with others who have tried to challenge the national security letters.

[Edited on April 9, 2007 at 10:52 PM. Reason : .]

4/9/2007 10:46:47 PM

the way most libraries get around it is to not keep records. so when the fed comes there is nothing you can give them.

4/9/2007 10:54:00 PM

Maybe they could put your records on flash paper.

Good story.

I wish the banks had the same kind of fight in them for their customers.. since they have so much personal financial info on you.

4/9/2007 11:51:58 PM

i just read somewhere, that natl security letters have no authority of law requiring that you submit to them.

that is, institutions are free to just completely ignore them. its only once they submit to their authority do they become bound by rules regarding confideniality.

but if they were to just behave as if the letter doesnt exist, nothing can be done to them for non-compliance.

(however most all banks, credit institutions, etc, routinely comply with any and all that they receive, so the issue is kind of moot.)

...

somehow this sounds like bullshit, but it was on some national mainstream news, so im not sure.

anyone know?

4/10/2007 2:55:42 AM

Quote :

"aclu.org"

4/10/2007 10:27:14 AM

what the hell is ^ supposed to mean?

aclu was their representation in the case.

do you have a problem with what the librarians or the aclu did in this case? because i'd like to hear it.

4/10/2007 11:29:57 AM

i have a problem with the ACLU in general

4/10/2007 11:31:24 AM

any problem with this case?

4/10/2007 11:34:59 AM

not really based on the available information

4/10/2007 11:36:38 AM

GG I like to see people standing up for their rights....

The aclu pisses me off sometimes, but i totally agree with them in situations like this.

Quote :

"not really based on the available information"

which is?

[Edited on April 10, 2007 at 11:37 AM. Reason : .]

4/10/2007 11:37:25 AM

then gtfo

4/10/2007 11:38:07 AM

gtfo? sounds like you dont want to hear what i have to say

maybe the ACLU would like to defend my right to post in this thread

Quote :

"which is?"

as far as i know only the initial article in this thread...essentially the ACLU's account of this story based on what they have published on their own website...I take that for what its worth

4/10/2007 11:38:51 AM

the ACLU is so unamerican. protecting the rights of EVERYONE?!?!?!?! how dare they

4/10/2007 11:42:05 AM

^they dont protect the rights of people who's individual ideology supports any type of totalitarian govt

so for example, since you think iraq was better under saddam, they wouldnt defend you (according to their own policies)

they'll support KKK and other hate groups' right to free speech...just as long as they believe in democracy!

4/10/2007 11:43:52 AM

Quote :

"so for example, since you think iraq was better under saddam, they wouldnt defend you (according to their own policies)"

there is nothing to defend, now if the gov were trying to prosecute people who expressed this opinion they would be right there.

Quote :

"as far as i know only the initial article in this thread...essentially the ACLU's account of this story based on what they have published on their own website...I take that for what its worth"

do you really expect the gov to openly acknowledge this?

4/10/2007 11:48:33 AM

you are an idiot a troll

4/10/2007 11:48:43 AM

^

4/10/2007 11:48:57 AM

^^^i just wouldnt be surprised if the article on the ACLU's own site wasnt somehow misleading given that they are the ACLU

4/10/2007 11:51:33 AM

^i get that, but i'm saying there will never be a cross reference from the gov to compare it to...they likely won't even acknowledge the article, which tells me that there is nothing in there inaccruate enough for them to address, because that would open the flood gates to further criticisim.

4/10/2007 11:57:44 AM

tells me when theres something between the ACLU and the govt, I have no idea who to believe

4/10/2007 11:59:02 AM

i'd be interested to see the gov's response to this, if there ever is one. But, there has to be watchdogs monitoring the gov to keep 'em somewhat honest. I don't always agree with the aclu, but they serve an important purpose.

[Edited on April 10, 2007 at 12:06 PM. Reason : .]

4/10/2007 12:05:53 PM

well if its not immediately settled then the govt will have to give some type of response, even if its some vanilla typical comment like "we are innocent"

also who is Gonzales?

4/10/2007 12:08:52 PM

a loyal bushie

4/10/2007 12:09:34 PM

4/10/2007 12:31:51 PM

the reason i wanted you to "gtfo" was because you had admittedly had no comment. if you can find a better article, then by all means. i looked for a while and this was the most complete that i could find. i also watched an hour-long lecture on this the other day on c-span. if you want to ask me questions based on that, i can answer to the best of my recollection. but as others have stated, the only sources that ANY news outlet or publication has to go on is the court documents (see the link provided) and what these four individuals have said.

4/10/2007 1:05:54 PM

I always thought this was one of the most fucked up and disturbing sections of the patriot act, especially the fact that it forbade people from seeking legal council or talking to anybody about it. If you can't see how wrong that is, well, I don't know what to tell you.

4/10/2007 6:23:19 PM

Quote :

"In the play, “A Man for All Seasons,” Sir Thomas More questions the bounder Roper whether he would level the forest of English laws to punish the Devil. “What would you do?” More asks, “Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?” Roper affirms, “I’d cut down every law in England to do that.” To which More replies: “And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you – where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast . . . and if you cut them down . . . d’you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake. ” We must maintain our vigilance to preserve our laws and our basic rights."

4/10/2007 11:00:36 PM

isn't that how they caought kevin spacey in se7en?

i always thought that part was just bullshit to move the plot along.

4/11/2007 1:12:49 AM

Quote :

"they dont protect the rights of people who's individual ideology supports any type of totalitarian govt"

That has no relevance to this case. Considering that they are a private organization with no government funding I'd say they have every right to pick and choose what they support.

Quote :

"they'll support KKK and other hate groups' right to free speech...just as long as they believe in democracy!"

Well, we do [supposedly] live in a democratic country with an amendment to our constitution guaranteeing free speech. You don't have to make it sound so radical.

[Edited on April 11, 2007 at 5:45 PM. Reason : s]

4/11/2007 5:43:05 PM

in addition to the KKK, they've also fought on the side of NAMBLA

not exactly the most moral of clients in those two organizations

4/11/2007 6:33:04 PM