Law enforcement officials have made at least 200 formal and informal inquiries to libraries for information on reading material and other internal matters since October 2001, according to a new study that adds grist to the growing debate in Congress over the government's counterterrorism powers.
-- Library Survey Discussed
While it might be true that the Patriot Act was not used to obtain library information, Ashcroft's contention that "we just don't care" doesn't seem to be true. Government officials -- and apologists for greater security -- routinely argue that those concerned about privacy and civil liberties are overreacting. Perhaps if the government were honest and forthcoming about the facts -- if it were to have a policy of providing the cold hard facts about what it is doing -- then people could properly evaluate the government's law enforcement endeavors.
-- PrawfsBlawg
The blogger hit the mark. While those like Orin Kerr try to microanalyze governmental regulations that touch upon First or Fourth) Amendment areas, the general public (as well as librarians) are concerned with the overall picture. "Patriot Act" is somewhat representative of broader things besides moving the acceptability line over indirectly in various respects.
As with other matters, those like Ashcroft dismissively ignore reasonable worries and ultimately do so in rather counterproductive ways. And, just because some instance of governmental power doesn't technically arise from the Patriot Act, our concerns should not suddenly be dismissed as overblown. Instead, Kerr (a generally reasonable soul) makes it seem like the American Library Association is some unreliable propaganda group akin to Karl Rove.
Anyway, these days if asked to decide who to trust, the ALA would often be chosen before the Bush Justice Dept. OTOH, it is a bit disconcerting that again the conservatives on the Supreme Court get the point, while Justice Stevens et. al. do not. Today's Kelo opinion basically gives the government carte blanche to take private property (the home owners here included those who owned their property since the early 20th Century) for private development. This is what "public use" per the Fifth Amendment means, not government buildings/roads or even public use items like stadiums.
Justice Kennedy's concurrence suggests that the law of the land is now the result one sees in state court decisions like SWIDA v. NEC out of Illinois -- courts defer to state and local proffers of public purpose or public benefit unless the owner can prove that the purpose/benefit was pretextual and that the government actor that ordered the condemnation was in the developer's back pocket.
So said one person in a discussion about the case. This suggests some limits, but the Justice O'Connor for the four dissents basically is right to say "oh please." You can have a totally aboveboard (in various respects) public process, and it will favor certain special interests. She was a legislator, so knows about the real world of politics. This is the way of the world, but it's not how I want my lifelong HOME (not that I have one) when there is no "public" use but some development ideas. I want the darn thing to be clearly controlled by the government and/or serving the general public. Private development, as shown by recent football stadium shenanigans, is quite a different matter.
It underlines that sometimes leaving economic matters (broadly defined to include things like medicinal cannabis) to the state is as troubling as when personal liberties are at stake. After all, if your home is not safe, why should what you do there be? Fair is fair, right?