PATRIOT Act inspires discussion of civil liberties

Two librarians sit down for a cup of tea. The first one asks the other, “How do you know if… Two librarians sit down for a cup of tea. The first one asks the other, “How do you know if the FBI has been in your library?” The second librarian answers, quaintly, setting down her tea cup.

“You can’t.”

Librarian jokes like this one mixed with more serious concerns at a free Civil Liberties forum held at the Rodef Shalom congregation in Oakland last Tuesday night.

Before the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act on Oct. 1, 2001, librarians and the American public did not worry about whether confidential library records would be shared with law enforcement agencies.

Now, concerned citizens like Vic Walczak, the legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union Greater Pittsburgh Chapter, are wondering how and when the government gets access to that information.

Civil liberties concerns emerging after Sept. 11, 2001, were addressed by a panel of experts from the FBI, media, field of law and American Library Association at Tuesday’s forum, which was sponsored by The League of Women Voters of Greater Pittsburgh and the Allegheny County Library Association.

Most of the 157 sections contained in the PATRIOT Act cover uncontroversial topics, such as providing financial assistance to victims of terror and increasing the benefits of safety workers.

But a few parts of the act – like Section 412, which allows the government to detain aliens indefinitely – exposed conflicting views on the panel.

“There is no reason to hold people in solitary confinement over an expired visa,” said Jules Lobel, professor of law at Pitt’s School of Law.

Lobel disagreed with other members of the panel about the number of people detained as a result of the PATRIOT Act.

Section 412 is not the only section that worries those concerned about civil liberties. Sections 214 and 215 extend the government’s authority over records and electronic communications.

These sections do not give the government access to new information, but they allow the government quicker and easier access to private information. This concerns librarians who keep all records pertaining to public libraries confidential unless there is a mandated court order.

Most libraries do not store records after books are returned and dues are paid and do not track Web sites accessed on their computers. Some librarians are concerned about the conclusions the government might draw from such information.

“Just because a person checks out a book or explores a website does not mean he or she agrees with the opinions expressed,” Cynthia Richey, director of the Mt. Lebanon Public Library and president of the Association for Service to Children, said.

But law enforcement officials deem the PATRIOT Act necessary to protect the lives of Americans, arguing that the power to access library documents prevents the use of public libraries to commit the acts of terror.

“What [else] would prevent our public libraries from being a safe haven for terrorists?” said Mary Beth Buchanan, United States Attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania, about the PATRIOT Act.

Curious about the number of warrants issued under Sections 214 and 215 in Western Pennsylvania, the ACLU requested documentation. When the organization was denied access to the information for reasons of national security, they filed a lawsuit against the government.

“If you can think of any way to keep this information secret, it will be kept secret,” said Walczak.

Since there is no way of knowing how many people have been affected by the PATRIOT Act, there is no way of knowing the breadth of its influence or its potential problems. More than anything, those present at the forum seem to fear that the American public is trading too much liberty for safety.

“Sure, we would be safer if we put an FBI agent in every house, but where do we draw the line?” Lobel asked.