Fwd: Four censored librarians speak out

[Guest guest]

Four censored librarians speak out

 

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/31/nyregion/31library.html?ex=1306728000 & en=df197\

628a8e6a0a9 & ei=5090 & partner=rssuserland & emc=rss

 

May 31, 2006

Four Librarians Finally Break Silence in Records Case

By ALISON LEIGH COWAN

 

Four Connecticut librarians who had been barred from revealing that

they had received a request for patrons' records from the federal

government spoke out yesterday, expressing frustration about the

sweeping powers given to law enforcement authorities by the USA

Patriot Act.

 

The librarians took turns at the microphone at their lawyers' office

and publicly identified themselves as the collective John Doe who had

sued the United States attorney general after their organization

received a confidential demand for patron records in a secret

counterterrorism case. They had been ordered, under the threat of

prosecution, not to talk about the request with anyone. The

librarians, who all have leadership roles at a small consortium called

Library Connection in Windsor, Conn., said they opposed allowing the

government unchecked power to demand library records and were

particularly incensed at having been subject to the open-ended

nondisclosure order.

 

" I'm John Doe, and if I had told you before today that the F.B.I. was

requesting library records, I could have gone to jail, " said one of

the four, Peter Chase, a librarian from Plainville who is on the

executive committee of Library Connection's board.

 

The organization won part of its court fight last week, when a

three-judge panel of the United States Second Circuit Court of Appeals

in Manhattan dismissed the government's appeal and allowed a lower

court judge's revocation of the nondisclosure order to stand. But the

four librarians say they remain concerned that other provisions of the

Patriot Act could deter people from using libraries.

 

George Christian, Library Connection's executive director, said he was

the first one to receive the confidential request from the F.B.I.,

something long suspected by careful readers of the court record.

Before Congress revised the law in March, such requests, known as

national security letters, were typically accompanied by a

notification that the recipient was barred in perpetuity from

revealing " to any person " that the request had been made. National

security letters have become a popular law enforcement tool since the

9/11 attacks because they do not require judicial review.

 

" I was shocked by the restraints the gag order imposed on me, " said

Mr. Christian, who said that after receiving the request he was unsure

whether he could consult a lawyer or his board of directors.

 

" The fact that the government can and is eavesdropping on patrons in

libraries has a chilling effect, because they really don't know if Big

Brother is looking over their shoulder, " he added.

 

Being free to speak now, weeks after the Patriot Act was reauthorized

for several more years, was " like being allowed to call the Fire

Department after the building has burned down, " he said.

 

Barbara Bailey, a librarian from Glastonbury, and Janet Nocek, a

librarian from Portland, appeared with Mr. Chase and Mr. Christian.

Ms. Bailey and Ms. Nocek both serve with Mr. Chase on the executive

committee of Library Connection's board.

 

The librarians described many surreal moments from the nearly yearlong

legal battle. When a judge heard arguments on their case in

Bridgeport, they said, they had to watch a television hookup from

Hartford because federal lawyers did not want them at the hearing. Mr.

Christian described having to remain silent when his son Ben asked him

why he was dodging calls from reporters.

 

And when John Doe was given an award in absentia at a meeting of the

Connecticut Library Association, Ms. Bailey was in the audience and

felt odd but compelled to join a standing ovation to avoid tipping

anyone off. Mr. Christian said that he and the other leaders of

library consortiums in Connecticut had discussed hiring a lawyer to

lobby against provisions of the Patriot Act but had accepted

government assurances that there was little risk of federal

investigators seeking library records. " We trusted them but apparently

we shouldn't have, " Mr. Chase said, noting that his organization would

continue to resist other aspects of the government's demand.

 

Partly because of the attention that the Connecticut case has drawn,

the revised Patriot Act does makes it clearer that recipients of

national security letters can consult lawyers. But lawyers for the

American Civil Liberties Union, which took the case free of charge,

said the law still has many defects.

 

Ann Beeson, a civil liberties union lawyer, said she was dismayed that

even though the identity of the Connecticut librarians had been widely

suspected since last fall, when news organizations starting with The

New York Times disclosed their identities, the government was willing

to drop its appeal only after the anti-terrorism act was reauthorized

by Congress.

 

In a telephone interview, Kevin O'Connor, the United States attorney

for Connecticut, said Ms. Beeson was right on the timing but wrong

about the government's motives. He said his office did not have the

discretion to inform a recipient of a national security letter that

the non-disclosure order was being waived until Congress changed the

law in March.

 

From the roughly 30,000 national security letter estimated to be

issued a year, Mr. Christian was a surprising name to have emerged as

the person who brought one of the only known challenges to the law.

Though he was a conscientious objector in the Vietnam War, he has not

been overly political since then. And unlike his co-plaintiffs whose

backgrounds are in library science, his is in computer development. He

said he was not even sure whether he would call himself a librarian.

 

To which Ms. Nocek said she thought by now he probably deserved an

honorary degree.