Staff Viewpoint: Libraries should be freed from Patriot Act

Maybe the Rogue Librarian should be writing this column. If he does, however, he might have to go to court to do so.

That's because, if the federal government wants to look at your library records, the library must turn them over, even if the government does not have a warrant. And if a librarian tells the public that it has turned over records to the government, the librarian is breaking the law. So if the feds contacted the Thomas Jefferson Library on campus and asked for your records, your rogue librarian couldn't tell you.

This really happens.

For example, in August, the FBI ordered a Bridgeport, Conn., library to tell it which employee had access to records of who took out what books and who used which computers when. The library instead refused and sued Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and the FBI in federal court. At least I think it's a library.

That's because there is a case in federal court in Connecticut called John Doe, et al v. Alberto Gonzales, in his capacity as Attorney General of the United States, et al.. The petition mentions that John Doe, et al, belong to the America Library Association.

In the weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act. USA PATRIOT is an acronym for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism.

The act, among other provisions, expands the federal government's search and seizure powers well beyond what the constitution allows. Under the law, the FBI can snoop around your house without a warrant, and when the agent finds something interesting, go to a judge and get a warrant for the search.

Another provision gives the government access to business records including those of bookstores and libraries.

This clearly violates the Sixth Amendment which reads, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

What Congress did when it passed the USA PATRIOT Act was to add a clause that says, in effect, except when we say so. John Doe and I agree, the government should not be allowed to get away with this.

So when the FBI contacted John Doe of Bridgeport, he went to court. Not only did Mr. Doe want the court to quash the inquiry, but he asked for the right to disclose his name to the public.

Judge Janet Hall agreed to end the gag order, but the government immediately got an appeals court to stay Hall's order.

Doe also ordered the government to consider giving Doe's lawyers security clearance so they can view whatever reason the government has to seize the records. The government contends that allowing a lawyer to view the evidence would violate national security. It, meaning your tax dollars, are appealing that as well.

One reason the plaintiffs are so anxious to bring this case out in the open is that 16 sections of the USA PATRIOT Act, including the library and bookstore records provision, were enacted as temporary measures due to expire on Dec. 31 .

Both houses of Congress have passed extensions, but the two versions are different. The House version would leave it essentially intact and extend it for 10 years. The Senate version would extend it for four years and would require the FBI to show it has reason to believe that the records are connected to terrorism and a foreign power.

I would prefer to see the whole section wiped out, but Congress will almost certainly come out somewhere in between.

Of the St. Louis area Congressmen from Missouri, only Lacy Clay voted against the renewal, while Russ Carnahan, Todd Akin and Kenny Hulshof voted for it. I've already called my Congressman, Carnahan, to tell his staff what I think. If you value the Bill of Rights, you should call yours as well.

To see the court opinion go to www.ctd.uscourts.gov/Opinions/090905JCH.DoeOP.pdf.