A public education forum at the Springfield Public Library tonight will explore the impact of the USA PATRIOT Act on public libraries. Chris Cardani, an assistant U.S. attorney and University adjunct professor of law, will present the government’s side. David Fidanque, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon, will speak about civil liberties concerns. The forum will be held at 6:30 p.m. in the library’s Meeting Room.
The PATRIOT Act was introduced in Congress on Oct. 23, 2001 and signed into law by President George W. Bush only three days later. Some commentators have suggested that this hurried legislative schedule occurred in an atmosphere of immense political pressure to counter the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks with new legal powers.
Among other provisions, the Act gives the government the ability, with a court order, to institute “roving” wiretaps on suspects, to read a suspect’s e-mail and to conduct “sneak and peek” searches in which the subject of the search does not have to be notified of the search for up to six months.
Cardani defended the Act, saying its powers have been “drastically exaggerated in almost an atmosphere of hysteria by groups that oppose the PATRIOT Act.” Cardani said the Act “modernizes tools available to law enforcement” and was used to prosecute the “Portland Seven,” a group of alleged Taliban supporters who the Justice Department says tried to enter Afghanistan via Pakistan and China to fight American soldiers.
The forum will include discussion of section 215 of the Act, which allows federal agents who have a court order to demand library records of readers. It also prohibits librarians from telling patrons if federal agents have accessed such information. Section 215 has been highly controversial, with civil liberties and library groups saying it impinges upon the freedom to read.
“Our concern is that it allows the FBI to get access to very private records of individuals held by third parties without the individual ever knowing that information has been disclosed,” Fidanque said.
University librarian Deborah Carver said section 215 risks “undermining the most basic principles of democracy” and library searches constitute an “infringement on what we in libraries call intellectual freedom.”
Carver said University libraries would initially refuse to turn over the requested information until legal counsel could be consulted if they were approached by federal agents carrying a section 215 request.
“That doesn’t mean that they can’t seize it, necessarily,” Carver said.
Cardani said concerns about section 215 are overblown, and U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft disclosed in September that section 215 has never been used.
“The fact that it has not been used in two years proves that the government has been very judicious in how it’s used,” Cardani said.
Fidanque still had reservations about section 215 despite Ashcroft’s disclosure of the previously classified information.
“They could start using it at any time,” Fidanque said. “It’s existence is having a chilling effect on both religious and political organizations all over the country.”
He added that section 215 requires absolute compliance of the searches and lacks any provision for challenging the searches in court.
Leaders of campus political groups have mixed feelings on the Act.
“There was probably a need for it right after 9/11 to be able to make people feel safe and secure,” College Republicans Chairman Jarrett White said. “It can be disturbing to let the government have too much power, but I haven’t seen it used poorly.”
The co-chairman of University College Democrats had some reservations, however.
“We understand that we need to protect the nation’s citizens and national security, but at the same time, we need to be reticent about how we do that,” Randy Derrick said. “It’s possible to fight terrorism without removing our civil liberties.”