You Go, Ms. Glick-Weil!
Recently, a bomb threat directed (via email) at Bradeis University in Waltham, Massachusetts caused the school to evacuate a bunch of buildings. The FBI were called in, of course, and they tracked the source of the email to a local public library in the town of Newton, Massachusetts. Perhaps taking a queue from the chimp-in-chief, the FBI attempted to seize the 30 computers in the Newton Free Library. Library Directory, Kathy Glick-Weil, intervened and refused to allow the FBI to take the comupters without first producing a warrant. After standing up to the FBI and demanding that they follow due process, they went off in search of a warrant. In the meantime, she assisted FBI Forensic Analysts to narrow down the terminals from which the email may have been sent, eventually knocking the number down from all 3o to 3. 10 hours later, the FBI got their warrant and they left with the 3 computers in their possession.
Ever since then, there has been a storm of controversy surrounding Ms. Glick-Weil’s decision. Fortunately, the Mayor of Newton, David B. Cohen, backed her decision. What I don’t understand is why there was any controversy at all. The fact is that the FBI was wrong to try and take the computers without a warrant. There are rules, procedures and laws that must be followed in order to make sure that the power of the authorities is not abused. Ms. Glick-Weil should be commended for her refusal to kowtow to the power of a badge and instead demand that they follow the rule of law.
This morning, I logged onto the Boston Globe’s website and saw a new op-ed piece, written by Richard L. Cravatt. I couldn’t believe my eyes. Was this guy actually attacking someone for standing up to the Feds when they were overstepping their authority? Yup. Here are some salient quotes (but you should read the whole thing before Boston.com kills the link):
Glick-Weil, like many of her counterparts who are members of the American Library Association (ALA), was well-prepared to stymie the investigative efforts of government officials. In fact, since the passing of the Patriot Act and its Section 215, which governs searching in libraries and bookstores, librarians have been apoplectic at the notion that government officials, in their view, now have authority to kick through library doors and randomly monitor the reading and Internet surfing habits of their patrons.
Yes, I’m sure Ms. Glick-Weil was spending her days just waiting for the Feds to come kicking down the door to a suburban library. Assclown. Why is it a bad thing to prefer that the government keep their hands, eyes and ears off what we read, write or listen to in the privacy of our own homes or in the confines of a public library? Why should we not be celebrating the people who stand up to the government and say, “no, you don’t have the right to peek over the shoulder of American citizens”? Why is it always the most conservative who claim they want a reduction in big government and big brother, yet who are the first to attack people like Ms. Glick-Weil as a “loony liberals”?
That librarians minimize the necessity for more vigilant security measures in the post 9/11 era overlooks the fact that unlawful use of public libraries by terror suspects is well documented. Reports were received directly after Sept. 11 from the Delray Beach, Fla., Public Library where a hijacking suspect had used the library’s computers. Similarly, library patrons around Hollywood, Fla., where five of the suspects had stayed prior to the attacks, identified hijacker-to-be Mohammed Atta as having used two of the area’s libraries.
By this logic, we should allow the feds the right to search any and all establishments that terrorists have visited while on American soil. Assuming that Atta and his crew ate out at chain restaurants, went to the movies, and took rides in cabs (just to name a few things), we should assume that the feds can search everything at any like establishement without the need for a warrant.
The more thorny and pressing question is why a library director could even exercise the authority to block access to vital evidence requested by the police and FBI, stalling an investigation during an ongoing crime where stakes are high. More to the point, why are librarians, whose professional training concentrates on mastering the use of the Dewey Decimal System, making any decisions that affect law enforcement? By whose authority and with what knowledge are they defining and granting constitutional rights to their patrons? Where have they received training in emergency response, domestic security, and thwarting terrorist threats?
What if the feds were pounding on your door at home claiming that they had tracked a threatening email to your home PC? Would you let them in to ransack your things and take your possessions without a warrant? Ms. Glick-Weil was exercising the same authority any good citizen should; the authority granted to us by the Fourth Amendment.
It’s disheartening to see people writing articles in support of a police state mentality. It’s frustrating to hear people attacking a person who had the guts to stand up to an illegal search by the feds. It’s maddening to think that there are so many people eager to give away all our rights and freedoms for some illusory concept of security. I wrote a letter to the editor in reply to this guy’s email, and a copy follows:
Dear Boston Globe:
This letter is written in response to Richard L. Cravatts’ op-ed article, “When Librarians Protect Terrorists” published on February 6th, 2005.
Mr. Cravatts should be applauding Ms. Glick-Weil’s refusal to blindly comply with the FBI. With the recent revelations about the stunning lack of respect for due process by those in power, we should all support those who, in the face of intense pressure, insist that the law is followed. Mr. Cravatts neglects to mention that if the FBI had been following proper procedure, Ms. Glick-Weil could not have acted as a “human shield”; the FBI would have already had a warrant in their possession and their search would have been conducted without incident. The fact that one person with a knowledge of the law stopped the FBI from performing a warrantless search indicates that the FBI had no legal right to perform the search. The FBI certainly would not have let Ms. Glick-Weil prevent them from performing their duties had they the legal right to do so at the outset. Mr. Cravatts implies that Ms. Glick-Weil’s actions ground the FBI investigation to a halt but what he fails to mention is that, while the FBI was getting their warrant, Ms. Glick-Weil assisted FBI forensic analysts in their attempt to discover which terminal was used in the threat.
Mr. Cravatts’ argument that past use of libraries by terrorists somehow absolves the FBI of the responsibility to perform legal searches of other libraries is also flawed. By his logic, we could then assume that the FBI could search any place, public or private, without the legal need to obtain a warrant simply because a terrorist had once visited a similar establishment. Therefore, we could then assume, following this line of reasoning, that any theater, restaurant, museum, school, apartment building, office building, taxi cab (and so on) could be searched by the FBI without the need for a warrant simply because a terrorist had once been in any of the aforementioned places.
Mr. Cravatts seems to believe that the requirement for a warrant to perform a search, AKA: the law, should be circumvented in an emergency. What Mr. Cravatts doesn’t seem to understand is that the law is no longer legitimate if it is only applied when it is convenient. When those in authority disregard the legal process for performing their duties, regardless of the urgency, our society slips closer to a police state.
