-----Original Message-----
From: owner-IFFORUM@... [mailto:owner-IFFORUM@...]On Behalf Of Anton Kunckle
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 2:24 PM
To: Intellectual Freedom Forum
Subject: [IFFORUM:5191] Re: No President is Above the Law

And this:

 

MORE ON THE WHOLE NSA STORY: I don't have much to add on the legal analysis linked to earlier, though I still wonder why, exactly, the Administration didn't just go through FISA. Noah Schachtman continues to pursue the technological theory -- that the methodology being used didn't fit under the FISA umbrella.

Independent from the question of whether this is legal, of course, is the separate charge that the program represents a Bushitlerian departure from prior standards. That seems to be hard to maintain -- in many ways, Bush's policies are merely a continuation of those under Clinton, only with somewhat more vigor post 9/11. If you want to look back on the Clinton Administration as some sort of civil-liberties golden age, you probably shouldn't read this report from the CATO Institute entitled "Dereliction of Duty: The Constitutional Record of President Clinton." But here's a relevant excerpt:

The Clinton administration has repeatedly attempted to play down the significance of the warrant clause. In fact, President Clinton has asserted the power to conduct warrantless searches, warrantless drug testing of public school students, and warrantless wiretapping.

The Clinton administration claims that it can bypass the warrant clause for "national security" purposes. In July 1994 Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick told the House Select Committee on Intelligence that the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes." [51] According to Gorelick, the president (or his attorney general) need only satisfy himself that an American is working in conjunction with a foreign power before a search can take place. . . .

It is unclear why the president made warrantless roving wiretaps a priority matter since judges routinely approve wiretap applications by federal prosecutors. According to a 1995 report by the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, it had been years since a federal district court turned down a prosecutor's request for a wiretap order. [68] President Clinton is apparently seeking to free his administration from any potential judicial interference with its wiretapping plans. There is a problem, of course, with the power that the president desires: it is precisely the sort of unchecked power that the Fourth Amendment's warrant clause was designed to curb. As the Supreme Court noted in Katz v. United States (1967), the judicial procedure of antecedent justification before a neutral magistrate is a "constitutional precondition," not only to the search of a home, but also to eavesdropping on private conversations within the home. [69]

President Clinton also lobbied for and signed the Orwellian Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, which is forcing every telephone company in America to retrofit its phone lines and networks so that they will be more accessible to police wiretaps.

Whether this view is right or not is a separate question from the easy-to-refute claim that it's an entirely unprecedented creation of the power-mad Bushitler Administration. It's odd, then, that it's the easy-to-refute claim that's being pushed.

http://instapundit.com/archives/027613.php

 

On 12/20/05, andesan@... <andesan@...> wrote:

I am probably preaching to the choir, for the most part, on this listserv, but I think a few things need to be clarified.  First of all, domestic surveillance of American citizens requires probable cause and a warrant, or at the very least a National Security Letter issued by a FISA Court.  Second, the proper agency to conduct surveillance, when authorized, is the FBI.  It is my understanding that the NSA, like the CIA, has no mandate for operations involving American citizens in the United States.  If this is not corrrect I would appreciate it if someone would correct me and cite the governing code or regulation.  Finally, if his eminence King George has broken the law he needs to be held accountable.  Let's not let this be swept under the carpet.  Letters and phone calls to Senators and Congressmen are in order.  The secret FISA Court itself, in my opinion, borders on the unconstitutional, along with the Patriot Act.  The nightmarish prospect of three more years of George W
. as president can be ameliorated by opposing the questionable activities of his administration, all within legal channels.  The ACLU, ALAOIF, etc., should be used to keep the pressure on.  I can't imagine a greater threat to our civil liberties than the unilateral actions the president appears to have taken in spying on American citizens without the required legal authorization.  The Fourth Amendment was still good law the last time I checked.

Frank Anderton
Norman, Oklahoma

----- Original Message -----
From: Mary Ann Meyers <ljmmam@...>
Date: Monday, December 19, 2005 5:07 pm
Subject: [IFFORUM:5167] No President is Above the Law

> December 19, 2005 Senator Byrd: No President is Above the Law
>
> byrd2006.com
> Senator Byrd
>
> Americans have been stunned at the recent news of the abuses of
> power by an
> overzealous President.  It has become apparent that this
> Administration has
> engaged in a consistent and unrelenting pattern of abuse against our
> Country's law-abiding citizens, and against our Constitution.
>
> We have been stunned to hear reports about the Pentagon gathering
> information and creating databases to spy on ordinary Americans
> whose only
> sin is choose to exercise their First Amendment right to peaceably
> assemble.Those Americans who choose to question the
> Administration's flawed policy in
> Iraq are labeled by this Administration as "domestic terrorists."
>
> We now know that the F.B.I.'s use of National Security Letters on
> Americancitizens has increased one hundred fold, requiring tens of
> thousands of
> individuals to turn over personal information and records.  These
> lettersare issued without prior judicial review, and provide no
> real means for an
> individual to challenge a permanent gag order.
>
> Through news reports, we have been shocked to learn of the CIA's
> practice of
> rendition, and the so-called "black sites," secret locations in
> foreigncountries, where abuse and interrogation have been exported,
> to escape the
> reach of U.S . laws protecting against human rights abuses.
>
> We know that Vice President Dick Cheney has asked for exemptions
> for the CIA
> from the language contained in the McCain torture amendment banning
> cruel,inhumane, and degrading treatment.  Thank God his pleas have
> been rejected
> by this Congress.
>
> Now comes the stomach-churning revelation through an executive
> order, that
> President Bush has circumvented both the Congress and the courts.
> He has
> usurped the Third Branch of government -- the branch charged with
> protectingthe civil liberties of our people -- by directing the
> National Security
> Agency to intercept and eavesdrop on the phone conversations and e-
> mails of
> American citizens without a warrant, which is a clear violation of the
> Fourth Amendment.  He has stiff-armed the People's Branch of
> government.  He
> has rationalized the use of domestic, civilian surveillance with a
> flimsyclaim that he has such authority because we are at war.  The
> executiveorder, which has been acknowledged by the President, is an
> end-run around
> the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which makes it unlawful
> for any
> official to monitor the communications of an individual on American
> soilwithout the approval of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
> Court.
> What is the President thinking?  Congress has provided for the very
> situations which the President is blatantly exploiting.  The Foreign
> Intelligence Surveillance Court, housed in the Department of Justice,
> reviews requests for warrants for domestic surveillance.  The Court
> canreview these requests expeditiously and in times of great
> emergency.  In
> extreme cases, where time is of the essence and national security
> is at
> stake, surveillance can be conducted before the warrant is even
> applied for.
>
> This secret court was established so that sensitive surveillance
> could be
> conducted, and information could be gathered without compromising the
> security of the investigation. The purpose of the FISA Court is to
> balancethe government's role in fighting the war on terror with the
> FourthAmendment rights afforded to each and every American.
>
> The American public is given vague and empty assurances by the
> Presidentthat amount to little more than "trust me."  But, we are a
> nation of laws
> and not of men.  Where is the source of that authority he claims?
> I defy
> the Administration to show me where in the Foreign Intelligence
> SurveillanceAct, or the U.S. Constitution,  they are allowed to
> steal into the lives of
> innocent America citizens and spy.
>
> When asked yesterday what the source of this authority was,
> Secretary of
> State Condoleezza Rice had no answer.  Secretary Rice seemed to
> insinuatethat eavesdropping on Americans was acceptable because
> FISA was an outdated
> law, and could not address the needs of the government in combating
> the new
> war on terror.  This is a patent falsehood.  The USA Patriot Act
> expandedFISA significantly, equipping the government with the tools
> it needed to
> fight terrorism.  Further amendments to FISA were granted under the
> Intelligence Authorization Act of 2002 and the Homeland Security
> Act of
> 2002.  In fact, in its final report, the 9/11 Commission noted that
> theremoval of the pre-9/11 "wall" between intelligence officials
> and law
> enforcement was significant in that it "opened up new opportunities
> forcooperative action."
>
> The President claims that these powers are within his role as
> Commander in
> Chief.  Make no mistake, the powers granted to the Commander in
> Chief are
> specifically those as head of the Armed Forces.  These warrantless
> searchesare conducted not against a foreign power, but against
> unsuspecting and
> unknowing American citizens.  They are conducted against
> individuals living
> on American soil, not in Iraq or Afghanistan.  There is nothing
> within the
> powers granted in the Commander in Chief clause that grants the
> Presidentthe ability to conduct clandestine surveillance of
> American civilians.  We
> must not allow such groundless, foolish claims to stand.
>
> The President claims a boundless authority through the resolution that
> authorized the war on those who perpetrated the September 11th
> attacks.  But
> that resolution does not give the President unchecked power to spy
> on our
> own people.  That resolution does not give the Administration the
> power to
> create covert prisons for secret prisoners.  That resolution does not
> authorize the torture of prisoners to extract information from
> them.  That
> resolution does not authorize running black-hole secret prisons in
> foreigncountries to get around U.S. law.  That resolution does not
> give the
> President the powers reserved only for kings and potentates.
>
> I continue to be shocked and astounded by the breadth with which the
> Administration undermines the constitutional protections afforded
> to the
> people, and the arrogance with which it rebukes the powers held by the
> Legislative and Judicial Branches.  The President has cast off
> federal law,
> enacted by Congress, often bearing his own signature, as mere
> formality.  He
> has rebuffed the rule of law, and he has trivialized and trampled
> upon the
> prohibitions against unreasonable search and seizures guaranteed to
> Americans by the United States Constitution.
>
> We are supposed to accept these dirty little secrets.  We are told
> that it
> is irresponsible to draw attention to President Bush's gross abuse
> of power
> and Constitutional violations.  But what is truly irresponsible is to
> neglect to uphold the rule of law.  We listened to the President
> speak last
> night on the potential for democracy in Iraq.  He claims to want to
> instillin the Iraqi people a tangible freedom and a working
> democracy, at the same
> time he violates our own U.S. laws and checks and balances?
> President Bush
> called the recent Iraqi election "a landmark day in the history of
> liberty."I dare say in this country we may have reached our own
> sort of landmark.
> Never have the promises and protections of Liberty seemed so illusory.
> Never have the freedoms we cherish seemed so imperiled.
>
> These renegade assaults on the Constitution and our system of laws
> strike at
> the very core of our values, and foster a sense of mistrust and
> apprehensionabout the reach of government.
>
> I am reminded of Thomas Payne's famous words, "These are the times
> that try
> men's souls."
>
> These astounding revelations about the bending and contorting of the
> Constitution to justify a grasping, irresponsible Administration
> under the
> banner of "national security" are an outrage.  Congress can no
> longer sit on
> the sidelines.  It is time to ask hard questions of the Attorney
> General,the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and the
> Director of the
> CIA.  The White House should not be allowed to exempt itself from
> answeringthe same questions simply because it might assert some
> kind of "executive
> privilege" in order to avoid further embarrassment.
>
> The practice of domestic spying on citizens should halt immediately.
> Oversight hearings need to be conducted.  Judicial action may be in
> order.We need to finally be given answers to our questions:  where
> is the
> constitutional and statutory authority for spying on American
> citizens, what
> is the content of these classified legal opinions asserting there
> is a
> legality in this criminal usurpation of rights, who is responsible
> for this
> dangerous and unconstitutional policy, and how many American
> citizens' lives
> have been unknowingly affected?
>
> ###
> http://www.byrd2006.com/news/news.cfm?ID=40
>
>
>
> --- IFFORUM mailing list:  ---
> IFFORUM is an unmoderated forum for the discussion of intellectual
> freedom issues.  For assistance with intellectual freedom issues,
> please visit http://www.ala.org/oif/faqs or contact the ALA Office
> for Intellectual Freedom at oif@....
>
>



--- IFFORUM mailing list:  ---
IFFORUM is an unmoderated forum for the discussion of intellectual freedom issues.  For assistance with intellectual freedom issues, please visit http://www.ala.org/oif/faqs or contact the ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom at oif@....

--
"The degree to which the MSM, academia, and other members of the Western intelligentsia live in a fantasy world of narcissistic self-righteousness is extraordinary."
-- "Defeat the Defeatists" http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=121605A

In general I agree its better to place limits in advance. But your never going
to cover every angle so sometimes you have to deal with it as it comes, when its
for real.

  I have no interest in the 'chilling effect' arguement. Especially anything that
takes place outside of a jail cell. Every law enforcement officer has to expend
a lot of time and energy questioning people who may or may not be involved in
illegal activity. If that makes someone uncomfortable, too bad, its part of the
investigation process. Should a FBI agent not question someone who's bought
large amounts of fertilizer because it might scare the person into avoiding
agriculture?

  Greg
  SHUSH


----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen Denney" <sdenney@...>
To: "Intellectual Freedom Forum" <IFFORUM@...>
Subject: [IFFORUM:5184] Re: Umass Dartmouth case
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 10:14:55 -0800 (PST)

>
>
>
>
> On Tue, 20 Dec 2005, greg@... wrote:
>
> >
> > First of all, it needs to be proven true. There are a lot of things in the
> > world that don't happen that if they did happen would be considered
> > unacceptable behavior but since they don't happen we don't comment on them.
>
> While I have expressed some doubts about this particular news story (the use
> of SSN, FBI taking the book with them when they interviewed the student), I am
> not ruling it out yet, and in any case, it seems to me it is better for our
> society to agree in advance on what are the appropriate limits on this kind of
> behavior.
>
>   >
> > Second, I may not like the idea of a book watchlist but even if it existed
> > you're implying something entirely different about whether we can or can not
> > study something. The student hasn't been stopped from doing anything. If
> > anything the real crime here, if it were true, would be that it makes the
> > FBI look incompetent. If an agent approached me about a book I checked out
> > I'd laugh in his face.
>
> Most people would find that being interviewed by FBI agents over a book they
> had checked out would have a definite intimidating effect, even if they chose
> to resist such pressure.
>
>   - Steve Denney
>
> >
> > Greg
> > SHUSH
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Stephen Denney" <sdenney@...>
> > To: "Intellectual Freedom Forum" <IFFORUM@...>
> > Subject: [IFFORUM:5180] Re: Umass Dartmouth case
> > Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 09:04:46 -0800 (PST)
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> If this story turned out to be true, David, would you agree that this is
> >> unacceptable behavior? In fact how can we study communism or any ideology,
> >> including extreme Islam, if we do not read the source materials?
> >>
> >>   - Steve Denney
> >>



--- IFFORUM mailing list:  ---
IFFORUM is an unmoderated forum for the discussion of intellectual freedom
issues.  For assistance with intellectual freedom issues, please visit
http://www.ala.org/oif/faqs or contact the ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom
at oif@....

Some would say the Cold War was WWIII. That would make this WWIV and its
already started.

  Greg
  SHUSH


----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen Denney" <sdenney@...>
To: "Intellectual Freedom Forum" <IFFORUM@...>
Subject: [IFFORUM:5185] Re: GREAT NEWS FROM IRAQ, but bad news from Iran
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 10:17:11 -0800 (PST)

>
>
> What you really want is World War III.
>
>   - Steve Denney
>
> On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Anton Kunckle wrote:
>
> > *Lest you get carried away with today's good news from Iraq, consider what's
> > happening next door in Iran. The wild pronouncements of the new Iranian
> > president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, have gotten sporadic press ever since he
> > called for Israel to be wiped off the map. He subsequently amended himself
> > to say that Israel should simply be extirpated from the Middle East map and
> > moved to some German or Austrian province. Perhaps near the site of an old
> > extermination camp? . . .*
> >
> > *Everyone knows where Iran's nuclear weapons will be aimed. Everyone knows
> > they will be put on Shahab rockets, which have been modified so that they
> > can reach Israel. And everyone knows that if the button is ever pushed, it
> > will be the end of Israel*.
> >
> > As far as I'm concerned, in light of these statements the Israelis are
> > entitled to launch a first strike of any magnitude, whenever they choose.
> >
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/15/AR2005121501428.\
html
> >
> > --
> > " An Iraqi woman has confessed to Jordanian authorities that she was to be
> > the fourth suicide bomber in last week's Amman attacks, which killed 57.
> > Al-Rishawi claims her explosive belt failed, but it's easy to imagine that
> > she got cold feet. After all, 72 virgins may be a Muslim fundamentalist
> > man's idea of paradise, but one suspects it's considerably less appealing to
> > a woman."
> >
>
>
> --- IFFORUM mailing list:  ---
> IFFORUM is an unmoderated forum for the discussion of intellectual freedom
> issues.  For assistance with intellectual freedom issues, please visit
> http://www.ala.org/oif/faqs or contact the ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom
> at oif@....



--- IFFORUM mailing list:  ---
IFFORUM is an unmoderated forum for the discussion of intellectual freedom
issues.  For assistance with intellectual freedom issues, please visit
http://www.ala.org/oif/faqs or contact the ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom
at oif@....

The latest epiphanies from the far right. Hey! Who's counting?

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-IFFORUM@... [mailto:owner-IFFORUM@...] On Behalf Of
greg@...
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 2:17 PM
To: Intellectual Freedom Forum
Subject: [IFFORUM:5189] Re: GREAT NEWS FROM IRAQ, but bad news from Iran


  Some would say the Cold War was WWIII. That would make this WWIV and its
already started.

  Greg
  SHUSH


----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen Denney" <sdenney@...>
To: "Intellectual Freedom Forum" <IFFORUM@...>
Subject: [IFFORUM:5185] Re: GREAT NEWS FROM IRAQ, but bad news from Iran
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 10:17:11 -0800 (PST)

>
>
> What you really want is World War III.
>
>   - Steve Denney
>
> On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Anton Kunckle wrote:
>
> > *Lest you get carried away with today's good news from Iraq, consider
what's
> > happening next door in Iran. The wild pronouncements of the new Iranian
> > president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, have gotten sporadic press ever since he
> > called for Israel to be wiped off the map. He subsequently amended
himself
> > to say that Israel should simply be extirpated from the Middle East map
and
> > moved to some German or Austrian province. Perhaps near the site of an
old
> > extermination camp? . . .*
> >
> > *Everyone knows where Iran's nuclear weapons will be aimed. Everyone
knows
> > they will be put on Shahab rockets, which have been modified so that
they
> > can reach Israel. And everyone knows that if the button is ever pushed,
it
> > will be the end of Israel*.
> >
> > As far as I'm concerned, in light of these statements the Israelis are
> > entitled to launch a first strike of any magnitude, whenever they
choose.
> >
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/15/AR2005121501
428.html
> >
> > --
> > " An Iraqi woman has confessed to Jordanian authorities that she was to
be
> > the fourth suicide bomber in last week's Amman attacks, which killed 57.
> > Al-Rishawi claims her explosive belt failed, but it's easy to imagine
that
> > she got cold feet. After all, 72 virgins may be a Muslim fundamentalist
> > man's idea of paradise, but one suspects it's considerably less
appealing to
> > a woman."
> >
>
>
> --- IFFORUM mailing list:  ---
> IFFORUM is an unmoderated forum for the discussion of intellectual freedom

> issues.  For assistance with intellectual freedom issues, please visit
> http://www.ala.org/oif/faqs or contact the ALA Office for Intellectual
Freedom
> at oif@....



--- IFFORUM mailing list:  ---
IFFORUM is an unmoderated forum for the discussion of intellectual freedom
issues.  For assistance with intellectual freedom issues, please visit
http://www.ala.org/oif/faqs or contact the ALA Office for Intellectual
Freedom at oif@....


--- IFFORUM mailing list:  ---
IFFORUM is an unmoderated forum for the discussion of intellectual freedom
issues.  For assistance with intellectual freedom issues, please visit
http://www.ala.org/oif/faqs or contact the ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom
at oif@....

Yes, the MSM, better to rely on the Washington Times or Fox news instead?
:/)
   - Steve Denney


On Tue, 20 Dec 2005, Anton Kunckle wrote:

> It's funny. Watching Mary go after every crumb the MSM and her comrades
> amongst the Angry Left feed her is *exactly* like watching Charlie Brown try
> to kick the football Lucy holds for him :)
>
> Anton
>
>
> On 12/20/05, Mary Ann Meyers <ljmmam@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Bush's Snoopgate
>> The president was so desperate to kill The New York Times' eavesdropping
>> story, he summoned the paper's editor and publisher to the Oval Office.
>> But
>> it wasn't just out of concern about national security.
>>
>>
http://g.msn.com/0MN2ET7/2?http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10536559/site/newsweek/fr\
om/ET/&&CM=EmailThis&CE=1
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --- IFFORUM mailing list:  ---
>> IFFORUM is an unmoderated forum for the discussion of intellectual freedom
>> issues.  For assistance with intellectual freedom issues, please visit
>> http://www.ala.org/oif/faqs or contact the ALA Office for Intellectual
>> Freedom at oif@....
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> "The degree to which the MSM, academia, and other members of the Western
> intelligentsia live in a fantasy world of narcissistic self-righteousness is
> extraordinary."
> -- "Defeat the Defeatists" http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=121605A
>


--- IFFORUM mailing list:  ---
IFFORUM is an unmoderated forum for the discussion of intellectual freedom
issues.  For assistance with intellectual freedom issues, please visit
http://www.ala.org/oif/faqs or contact the ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom
at oif@....

I am probably preaching to the choir, for the most part, on this listserv, but I
think a few things need to be clarified.  First of all, domestic surveillance of
American citizens requires probable cause and a warrant, or at the very least a
National Security Letter issued by a FISA Court.  Second, the proper agency to
conduct surveillance, when authorized, is the FBI.  It is my understanding that
the NSA, like the CIA, has no mandate for operations involving American citizens
in the United States.  If this is not corrrect I would appreciate it if someone
would correct me and cite the governing code or regulation.  Finally, if his
eminence King George has broken the law he needs to be held accountable.  Let's
not let this be swept under the carpet.  Letters and phone calls to Senators and
Congressmen are in order.  The secret FISA Court itself, in my opinion, borders
on the unconstitutional, along with the Patriot Act.  The nightmarish prospect
of three more years of George W
. as president can be ameliorated by opposing the questionable activities of his
administration, all within legal channels.  The ACLU, ALAOIF, etc., should be
used to keep the pressure on.  I can't imagine a greater threat to our civil
liberties than the unilateral actions the president appears to have taken in
spying on American citizens without the required legal authorization.  The
Fourth Amendment was still good law the last time I checked.

Frank Anderton
Norman, Oklahoma

----- Original Message -----
From: Mary Ann Meyers <ljmmam@...>
Date: Monday, December 19, 2005 5:07 pm
Subject: [IFFORUM:5167] No President is Above the Law

> December 19, 2005 Senator Byrd: No President is Above the Law
>
> byrd2006.com
> Senator Byrd
>
> Americans have been stunned at the recent news of the abuses of
> power by an
> overzealous President.  It has become apparent that this
> Administration has
> engaged in a consistent and unrelenting pattern of abuse against our
> Country's law-abiding citizens, and against our Constitution.
>
> We have been stunned to hear reports about the Pentagon gathering
> information and creating databases to spy on ordinary Americans
> whose only
> sin is choose to exercise their First Amendment right to peaceably
> assemble.Those Americans who choose to question the
> Administration's flawed policy in
> Iraq are labeled by this Administration as "domestic terrorists."
>
> We now know that the F.B.I.'s use of National Security Letters on
> Americancitizens has increased one hundred fold, requiring tens of
> thousands of
> individuals to turn over personal information and records.  These
> lettersare issued without prior judicial review, and provide no
> real means for an
> individual to challenge a permanent gag order.
>
> Through news reports, we have been shocked to learn of the CIA's
> practice of
> rendition, and the so-called "black sites," secret locations in
> foreigncountries, where abuse and interrogation have been exported,
> to escape the
> reach of U.S. laws protecting against human rights abuses.
>
> We know that Vice President Dick Cheney has asked for exemptions
> for the CIA
> from the language contained in the McCain torture amendment banning
> cruel,inhumane, and degrading treatment.  Thank God his pleas have
> been rejected
> by this Congress.
>
> Now comes the stomach-churning revelation through an executive
> order, that
> President Bush has circumvented both the Congress and the courts.
> He has
> usurped the Third Branch of government -- the branch charged with
> protectingthe civil liberties of our people -- by directing the
> National Security
> Agency to intercept and eavesdrop on the phone conversations and e-
> mails of
> American citizens without a warrant, which is a clear violation of the
> Fourth Amendment.  He has stiff-armed the People's Branch of
> government.  He
> has rationalized the use of domestic, civilian surveillance with a
> flimsyclaim that he has such authority because we are at war.  The
> executiveorder, which has been acknowledged by the President, is an
> end-run around
> the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which makes it unlawful
> for any
> official to monitor the communications of an individual on American
> soilwithout the approval of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
> Court.
> What is the President thinking?  Congress has provided for the very
> situations which the President is blatantly exploiting.  The Foreign
> Intelligence Surveillance Court, housed in the Department of Justice,
> reviews requests for warrants for domestic surveillance.  The Court
> canreview these requests expeditiously and in times of great
> emergency.  In
> extreme cases, where time is of the essence and national security
> is at
> stake, surveillance can be conducted before the warrant is even
> applied for.
>
> This secret court was established so that sensitive surveillance
> could be
> conducted, and information could be gathered without compromising the
> security of the investigation. The purpose of the FISA Court is to
> balancethe government's role in fighting the war on terror with the
> FourthAmendment rights afforded to each and every American.
>
> The American public is given vague and empty assurances by the
> Presidentthat amount to little more than "trust me."  But, we are a
> nation of laws
> and not of men.  Where is the source of that authority he claims?
> I defy
> the Administration to show me where in the Foreign Intelligence
> SurveillanceAct, or the U.S. Constitution,  they are allowed to
> steal into the lives of
> innocent America citizens and spy.
>
> When asked yesterday what the source of this authority was,
> Secretary of
> State Condoleezza Rice had no answer.  Secretary Rice seemed to
> insinuatethat eavesdropping on Americans was acceptable because
> FISA was an outdated
> law, and could not address the needs of the government in combating
> the new
> war on terror.  This is a patent falsehood.  The USA Patriot Act
> expandedFISA significantly, equipping the government with the tools
> it needed to
> fight terrorism.  Further amendments to FISA were granted under the
> Intelligence Authorization Act of 2002 and the Homeland Security
> Act of
> 2002.  In fact, in its final report, the 9/11 Commission noted that
> theremoval of the pre-9/11 "wall" between intelligence officials
> and law
> enforcement was significant in that it "opened up new opportunities
> forcooperative action."
>
> The President claims that these powers are within his role as
> Commander in
> Chief.  Make no mistake, the powers granted to the Commander in
> Chief are
> specifically those as head of the Armed Forces.  These warrantless
> searchesare conducted not against a foreign power, but against
> unsuspecting and
> unknowing American citizens.  They are conducted against
> individuals living
> on American soil, not in Iraq or Afghanistan.  There is nothing
> within the
> powers granted in the Commander in Chief clause that grants the
> Presidentthe ability to conduct clandestine surveillance of
> American civilians.  We
> must not allow such groundless, foolish claims to stand.
>
> The President claims a boundless authority through the resolution that
> authorized the war on those who perpetrated the September 11th
> attacks.  But
> that resolution does not give the President unchecked power to spy
> on our
> own people.  That resolution does not give the Administration the
> power to
> create covert prisons for secret prisoners.  That resolution does not
> authorize the torture of prisoners to extract information from
> them.  That
> resolution does not authorize running black-hole secret prisons in
> foreigncountries to get around U.S. law.  That resolution does not
> give the
> President the powers reserved only for kings and potentates.
>
> I continue to be shocked and astounded by the breadth with which the
> Administration undermines the constitutional protections afforded
> to the
> people, and the arrogance with which it rebukes the powers held by the
> Legislative and Judicial Branches.  The President has cast off
> federal law,
> enacted by Congress, often bearing his own signature, as mere
> formality.  He
> has rebuffed the rule of law, and he has trivialized and trampled
> upon the
> prohibitions against unreasonable search and seizures guaranteed to
> Americans by the United States Constitution.
>
> We are supposed to accept these dirty little secrets.  We are told
> that it
> is irresponsible to draw attention to President Bush's gross abuse
> of power
> and Constitutional violations.  But what is truly irresponsible is to
> neglect to uphold the rule of law.  We listened to the President
> speak last
> night on the potential for democracy in Iraq.  He claims to want to
> instillin the Iraqi people a tangible freedom and a working
> democracy, at the same
> time he violates our own U.S. laws and checks and balances?
> President Bush
> called the recent Iraqi election "a landmark day in the history of
> liberty."I dare say in this country we may have reached our own
> sort of landmark.
> Never have the promises and protections of Liberty seemed so illusory.
> Never have the freedoms we cherish seemed so imperiled.
>
> These renegade assaults on the Constitution and our system of laws
> strike at
> the very core of our values, and foster a sense of mistrust and
> apprehensionabout the reach of government.
>
> I am reminded of Thomas Payne's famous words, "These are the times
> that try
> men's souls."
>
> These astounding revelations about the bending and contorting of the
> Constitution to justify a grasping, irresponsible Administration
> under the
> banner of "national security" are an outrage.  Congress can no
> longer sit on
> the sidelines.  It is time to ask hard questions of the Attorney
> General,the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and the
> Director of the
> CIA.  The White House should not be allowed to exempt itself from
> answeringthe same questions simply because it might assert some
> kind of "executive
> privilege" in order to avoid further embarrassment.
>
> The practice of domestic spying on citizens should halt immediately.
> Oversight hearings need to be conducted.  Judicial action may be in
> order.We need to finally be given answers to our questions:  where
> is the
> constitutional and statutory authority for spying on American
> citizens, what
> is the content of these classified legal opinions asserting there
> is a
> legality in this criminal usurpation of rights, who is responsible
> for this
> dangerous and unconstitutional policy, and how many American
> citizens' lives
> have been unknowingly affected?
>
> ###
> http://www.byrd2006.com/news/news.cfm?ID=40
>
>
>
> --- IFFORUM mailing list:  ---
> IFFORUM is an unmoderated forum for the discussion of intellectual
> freedom issues.  For assistance with intellectual freedom issues,
> please visit http://www.ala.org/oif/faqs or contact the ALA Office
> for Intellectual Freedom at oif@....
>
>



--- IFFORUM mailing list:  ---
IFFORUM is an unmoderated forum for the discussion of intellectual freedom
issues.  For assistance with intellectual freedom issues, please visit
http://www.ala.org/oif/faqs or contact the ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom
at oif@....

I didn't say anything about a rule I said people don't comment on things that
don't happen because they don't don't happen to be commented on.

  You done playing 'gotcha' or do you have more time to waste?

  Greg
  SHUSH

----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles Shumar" <cshumar@...>
To: "Intellectual Freedom Forum" <IFFORUM@...>
Subject: [IFFORUM:5183] Re: Umass Dartmouth case
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 13:00:26 -0500

>
> >>> From:greg@...
> >>> Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 12:25 PM
> >>> To: Intellectual Freedom Forum
> >>> Subject: [IFFORUM:5181] Re: Umass Dartmouth case
>
> First Greg said (in an obvious dodge)
>
> >>> but since they don't happen we don't comment on them.
>
> Then he said
>
> >>> If an agent approached me about a book I checked out I'd laugh in his
face.
> >>>
> >>> Greg
> >>> SHUSH
>
>
> It sound like you are "commenting on things that don't or didn't happen?
> Tip, Greg - one of the keys to a good argument is consistency
>
> Has an FBI agent approached you about a book you checked out?
> Or are you breaking your own rule?
>
>
> --- IFFORUM mailing list:  ---
> IFFORUM is an unmoderated forum for the discussion of intellectual freedom
> issues.  For assistance with intellectual freedom issues, please visit
> http://www.ala.org/oif/faqs or contact the ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom
> at oif@....



--- IFFORUM mailing list:  ---
IFFORUM is an unmoderated forum for the discussion of intellectual freedom
issues.  For assistance with intellectual freedom issues, please visit
http://www.ala.org/oif/faqs or contact the ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom
at oif@....

What you really want is World War III.

   - Steve Denney

On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Anton Kunckle wrote:

> *Lest you get carried away with today's good news from Iraq, consider what's
> happening next door in Iran. The wild pronouncements of the new Iranian
> president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, have gotten sporadic press ever since he
> called for Israel to be wiped off the map. He subsequently amended himself
> to say that Israel should simply be extirpated from the Middle East map and
> moved to some German or Austrian province. Perhaps near the site of an old
> extermination camp? . . .*
>
> *Everyone knows where Iran's nuclear weapons will be aimed. Everyone knows
> they will be put on Shahab rockets, which have been modified so that they
> can reach Israel. And everyone knows that if the button is ever pushed, it
> will be the end of Israel*.
>
> As far as I'm concerned, in light of these statements the Israelis are
> entitled to launch a first strike of any magnitude, whenever they choose.
>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/15/AR2005121501428.\
html
>
> --
> " An Iraqi woman has confessed to Jordanian authorities that she was to be
> the fourth suicide bomber in last week's Amman attacks, which killed 57.
> Al-Rishawi claims her explosive belt failed, but it's easy to imagine that
> she got cold feet. After all, 72 virgins may be a Muslim fundamentalist
> man's idea of paradise, but one suspects it's considerably less appealing to
> a woman."
>


--- IFFORUM mailing list:  ---
IFFORUM is an unmoderated forum for the discussion of intellectual freedom
issues.  For assistance with intellectual freedom issues, please visit
http://www.ala.org/oif/faqs or contact the ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom
at oif@....

On Tue, 20 Dec 2005, greg@... wrote:

>
> First of all, it needs to be proven true. There are a lot of things in
> the world that don't happen that if they did happen would be considered
> unacceptable behavior but since they don't happen we don't comment on
> them.

While I have expressed some doubts about this particular news story (the
use of SSN, FBI taking the book with them when they interviewed the
student), I am not ruling it out yet, and in any case, it seems to me it
is better for our society to agree in advance on what are the appropriate
limits on this kind of behavior.

   >
> Second, I may not like the idea of a book watchlist but even if it
> existed you're implying something entirely different about whether we
> can or can not study something. The student hasn't been stopped from
> doing anything. If anything the real crime here, if it were true, would
> be that it makes the FBI look incompetent. If an agent approached me
> about a book I checked out I'd laugh in his face.

Most people would find that being interviewed by FBI agents over a book
they had checked out would have a definite intimidating effect, even if
they chose to resist such pressure.

   - Steve Denney

>
> Greg
> SHUSH
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Stephen Denney" <sdenney@...>
> To: "Intellectual Freedom Forum" <IFFORUM@...>
> Subject: [IFFORUM:5180] Re: Umass Dartmouth case
> Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 09:04:46 -0800 (PST)
>
>>
>>
>>
>> If this story turned out to be true, David, would you agree that this is
>> unacceptable behavior? In fact how can we study communism or any ideology,
>> including extreme Islam, if we do not read the source materials?
>>
>>   - Steve Denney
>>
>> On Tue, 20 Dec 2005, David Stevens wrote:
>>
>>> Well Thomas, that settles it then!
>>>
>>>
>>>>  Dr. Williams said he had been planning to offer a course on terrorism
>>>> next semester, but is reconsidering, because it might put his students at
>>>> risk.
>>>>
>>>> "I shudder to think of all the students I've had monitoring al-Qaeda Web
>>>> sites, what the government must think of that," he said. "Mao Tse-Tung is
>>>> completely harmless."
>>>>
>>>> Mao is "completely harmless"? Try telling that to the 40 million people he
>>>> killed. To be fair, though, the professor has a point. We're at war with
>>>> radical Islamism; why would the government care about a 40 year old
>>>> collection of quotes from a long-dead Communist despot, instead of say a
>>>> book by Qutb <http://www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/sayyid_qutb.htm> or
>>>> Mawdudi <http://www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/sayyid_abu.htm>? This is yet
>>>> another reason why this story makes no logical sense.
>>>>
>>>> To address Dr. Williams' other point: if the government is going to
>>>> investigate everyone who's ever monitored jihadist web sites, it's going to
>>>> be a long time before they get to his students.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In short, there are two alternate explanations here. One, the story is
>>>> true. In this case, one has to believe that the same federal government
that
>>>> can't keep a secret and has been reluctant to use its lawful investigative
>>>> powers to the full extent possible, is somehow successfully operating a top
>>>> secret program to monitor who's been reading a collection of quotes from a
>>>> Communist dictator who's been dead for thirty years.
>>>>
>>>> The other possibility, of course, is that, for all the reasons outlined
>>>> above, this story is false. In this case, the most likely explanation is
>>>> that the student was required to obtain a copy of Mao's Quotations for his
>>>> research, and for whatever reason simply failed to do so. When asked by his
>>>> professor why he couldn't get the book, he resorted to a postmodern,
>>>> paranoid, Moorewellian variant on "the dog ate my homework": it's all the
>>>> Bushitler's fault. Considering the intellectual climate in contemporary
>>>> academia, this was not at all a bad approach to try.
>>>>
>>>> I will leave it to the reader to determine which of these two
>>>> possibilities is more plausible.
>>>
>>> http://hereticallibrarian.blogspot.com/2005/12/patriot-act-paranoia.html
>>>
>>> *A Merry Christmas to all!*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12/20/05, Thomas Walker <walker@...> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Update on Umass Dartmouth situation:
>>>>
>>>> I personally contacted Prof. Pontbriand at U Mass and he replied, "No,
>>>> it is not a hoax."
>>>>
>>>> So... best wishes for the solstice in our "free" USA.
>>>>
>>>> Tom
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --- IFFORUM mailing list:  ---
>>>> IFFORUM is an unmoderated forum for the discussion of intellectual freedom
>>>> issues.  For assistance with intellectual freedom issues, please visit
>>>> http://www.ala.org/oif/faqs or contact the ALA Office for Intellectual
>>>> Freedom at oif@....
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --- IFFORUM mailing list:  ---
>> IFFORUM is an unmoderated forum for the discussion of intellectual freedom
>> issues.  For assistance with intellectual freedom issues, please visit
>> http://www.ala.org/oif/faqs or contact the ALA Office for Intellectual
Freedom
>> at oif@....
>
>
>
> --- IFFORUM mailing list:  ---
> IFFORUM is an unmoderated forum for the discussion of intellectual freedom
issues.  For assistance with intellectual freedom issues, please visit
http://www.ala.org/oif/faqs or contact the ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom
at oif@....
>
>


--- IFFORUM mailing list:  ---
IFFORUM is an unmoderated forum for the discussion of intellectual freedom
issues.  For assistance with intellectual freedom issues, please visit
http://www.ala.org/oif/faqs or contact the ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom
at oif@....

>>>From:greg@...
>>>Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 12:25 PM
>>>To: Intellectual Freedom Forum
>>>Subject: [IFFORUM:5181] Re: Umass Dartmouth case

First Greg said (in an obvious dodge)

>>> but since they don't happen we don't comment on them.

Then he said

>>> If an agent approached me
>>>about a book I checked out I'd laugh in his face.
>>>
>>> Greg
>>> SHUSH


It sound like you are "commenting on things that don't or didn't happen?
Tip, Greg - one of the keys to a good argument is consistency

Has an FBI agent approached you about a book you checked out?
Or are you breaking your own rule?


--- IFFORUM mailing list:  ---
IFFORUM is an unmoderated forum for the discussion of intellectual freedom
issues.  For assistance with intellectual freedom issues, please visit
http://www.ala.org/oif/faqs or contact the ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom
at oif@....

First of all, it needs to be proven true. There are a lot of things in the
world that don't happen that if they did happen would be considered unacceptable
behavior but since they don't happen we don't comment on them.

  Second, I may not like the idea of a book watchlist but even if it existed
you're implying something entirely different about whether we can or can not
study something. The student hasn't been stopped from doing anything. If
anything the real crime here, if it were true, would be that it makes the FBI
look incompetent. If an agent approached me about a book I checked out I'd laugh
in his face.

  Greg
  SHUSH

----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen Denney" <sdenney@...>
To: "Intellectual Freedom Forum" <IFFORUM@...>
Subject: [IFFORUM:5180] Re: Umass Dartmouth case
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 09:04:46 -0800 (PST)

>
>
>
> If this story turned out to be true, David, would you agree that this is
> unacceptable behavior? In fact how can we study communism or any ideology,
> including extreme Islam, if we do not read the source materials?
>
>   - Steve Denney
>
> On Tue, 20 Dec 2005, David Stevens wrote:
>
> > Well Thomas, that settles it then!
> >
> >
> >>  Dr. Williams said he had been planning to offer a course on terrorism
> >> next semester, but is reconsidering, because it might put his students at
> >> risk.
> >>
> >> "I shudder to think of all the students I've had monitoring al-Qaeda Web
> >> sites, what the government must think of that," he said. "Mao Tse-Tung is
> >> completely harmless."
> >>
> >> Mao is "completely harmless"? Try telling that to the 40 million people he
> >> killed. To be fair, though, the professor has a point. We're at war with
> >> radical Islamism; why would the government care about a 40 year old
> >> collection of quotes from a long-dead Communist despot, instead of say a
> >> book by Qutb <http://www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/sayyid_qutb.htm> or
> >> Mawdudi <http://www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/sayyid_abu.htm>? This is yet
> >> another reason why this story makes no logical sense.
> >>
> >> To address Dr. Williams' other point: if the government is going to
> >> investigate everyone who's ever monitored jihadist web sites, it's going to
> >> be a long time before they get to his students.
> >>
> >>
> >> In short, there are two alternate explanations here. One, the story is
> >> true. In this case, one has to believe that the same federal government
that
> >> can't keep a secret and has been reluctant to use its lawful investigative
> >> powers to the full extent possible, is somehow successfully operating a top
> >> secret program to monitor who's been reading a collection of quotes from a
> >> Communist dictator who's been dead for thirty years.
> >>
> >> The other possibility, of course, is that, for all the reasons outlined
> >> above, this story is false. In this case, the most likely explanation is
> >> that the student was required to obtain a copy of Mao's Quotations for his
> >> research, and for whatever reason simply failed to do so. When asked by his
> >> professor why he couldn't get the book, he resorted to a postmodern,
> >> paranoid, Moorewellian variant on "the dog ate my homework": it's all the
> >> Bushitler's fault. Considering the intellectual climate in contemporary
> >> academia, this was not at all a bad approach to try.
> >>
> >> I will leave it to the reader to determine which of these two
> >> possibilities is more plausible.
> >
> > http://hereticallibrarian.blogspot.com/2005/12/patriot-act-paranoia.html
> >
> > *A Merry Christmas to all!*
> >
> >
> >
> > On 12/20/05, Thomas Walker <walker@...> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Update on Umass Dartmouth situation:
> >>
> >> I personally contacted Prof. Pontbriand at U Mass and he replied, "No,
> >> it is not a hoax."
> >>
> >> So... best wishes for the solstice in our "free" USA.
> >>
> >> Tom
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --- IFFORUM mailing list:  ---
> >> IFFORUM is an unmoderated forum for the discussion of intellectual freedom
> >> issues.  For assistance with intellectual freedom issues, please visit
> >> http://www.ala.org/oif/faqs or contact the ALA Office for Intellectual
> >> Freedom at oif@....
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
> --- IFFORUM mailing list:  ---
> IFFORUM is an unmoderated forum for the discussion of intellectual freedom
> issues.  For assistance with intellectual freedom issues, please visit
> http://www.ala.org/oif/faqs or contact the ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom
> at oif@....



--- IFFORUM mailing list:  ---
IFFORUM is an unmoderated forum for the discussion of intellectual freedom
issues.  For assistance with intellectual freedom issues, please visit
http://www.ala.org/oif/faqs or contact the ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom
at oif@....

Bush's Snoopgate
The president was so desperate to kill The New York Times' eavesdropping
story, he summoned the paper's editor and publisher to the Oval Office. But
it wasn't just out of concern about national security.
http://g.msn.com/0MN2ET7/2?http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10536559/site/newsweek/fr\
om/ET/&&CM=EmailThis&CE=1




--- IFFORUM mailing list:  ---
IFFORUM is an unmoderated forum for the discussion of intellectual freedom
issues.  For assistance with intellectual freedom issues, please visit
http://www.ala.org/oif/faqs or contact the ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom
at oif@....

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-IFFORUM@... [mailto:owner-IFFORUM@...]On Behalf Of Thomas Walker
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 10:49 AM
To: Intellectual Freedom Forum
Subject: [IFFORUM:5174] Re: Umass Dartmouth case

It'll be interesting if someone reports on the whole story, with multiple corroborating sources.  The other bit of checking I did was to verify what someone earlier pointed out:  the interlibrary loan forms at U Mass Dartmouth do not require SSNs.  The original story that I read (and have since had forwarded to me by a few people) indicated that the student had provided his SSN on the form.  I'm still skeptical of that report and still curious about the story it covers. 

 

If I had more time, I'd love to learn the details and summarize them in an article, regardless of the findings.  Surely there is someone in MA who'd be closer to the action.

 

Tom

---

From: owner-IFFORUM@... [mailto:owner-IFFORUM@...] On Behalf Of Charles Shumar
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 9:35 AM
To: Intellectual Freedom Forum
Subject: [IFFORUM:5173] Re: Umass Dartmouth case

                   

Well, it may not "settle" it yet -

But it certainly adds more to the story than your groundless conjecture about whether this student just didn't get his homework done'.

More anti-intellectualism - where your goal is to "explain away" the story - rather than find out what the facts are.

Bravo "David" - you should write for the National Review!

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-IFFORUM@... [mailto:owner-IFFORUM@...]On Behalf Of David Stevens
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 10:07 AM

Well Thomas, that settles it then!

 

---

If this story turned out to be true, David, would you agree that this is
unacceptable behavior? In fact how can we study communism or any ideology,
including extreme Islam, if we do not read the source materials?

   - Steve Denney

On Tue, 20 Dec 2005, David Stevens wrote:

> Well Thomas, that settles it then!
>
>
>>  Dr. Williams said he had been planning to offer a course on terrorism
>> next semester, but is reconsidering, because it might put his students at
>> risk.
>>
>> "I shudder to think of all the students I've had monitoring al-Qaeda Web
>> sites, what the government must think of that," he said. "Mao Tse-Tung is
>> completely harmless."
>>
>> Mao is "completely harmless"? Try telling that to the 40 million people he
>> killed. To be fair, though, the professor has a point. We're at war with
>> radical Islamism; why would the government care about a 40 year old
>> collection of quotes from a long-dead Communist despot, instead of say a
>> book by Qutb <http://www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/sayyid_qutb.htm> or
>> Mawdudi <http://www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/sayyid_abu.htm>? This is yet
>> another reason why this story makes no logical sense.
>>
>> To address Dr. Williams' other point: if the government is going to
>> investigate everyone who's ever monitored jihadist web sites, it's going to
>> be a long time before they get to his students.
>>
>>
>> In short, there are two alternate explanations here. One, the story is
>> true. In this case, one has to believe that the same federal government that
>> can't keep a secret and has been reluctant to use its lawful investigative
>> powers to the full extent possible, is somehow successfully operating a top
>> secret program to monitor who's been reading a collection of quotes from a
>> Communist dictator who's been dead for thirty years.
>>
>> The other possibility, of course, is that, for all the reasons outlined
>> above, this story is false. In this case, the most likely explanation is
>> that the student was required to obtain a copy of Mao's Quotations for his
>> research, and for whatever reason simply failed to do so. When asked by his
>> professor why he couldn't get the book, he resorted to a postmodern,
>> paranoid, Moorewellian variant on "the dog ate my homework": it's all the
>> Bushitler's fault. Considering the intellectual climate in contemporary
>> academia, this was not at all a bad approach to try.
>>
>> I will leave it to the reader to determine which of these two
>> possibilities is more plausible.
>
> http://hereticallibrarian.blogspot.com/2005/12/patriot-act-paranoia.html
>
> *A Merry Christmas to all!*
>
>
>
> On 12/20/05, Thomas Walker <walker@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Update on Umass Dartmouth situation:
>>
>> I personally contacted Prof. Pontbriand at U Mass and he replied, "No,
>> it is not a hoax."
>>
>> So... best wishes for the solstice in our "free" USA.
>>
>> Tom
>>
>>
>>
>> --- IFFORUM mailing list:  ---
>> IFFORUM is an unmoderated forum for the discussion of intellectual freedom
>> issues.  For assistance with intellectual freedom issues, please visit
>> http://www.ala.org/oif/faqs or contact the ALA Office for Intellectual
>> Freedom at oif@....
>>
>>
>


--- IFFORUM mailing list:  ---
IFFORUM is an unmoderated forum for the discussion of intellectual freedom
issues.  For assistance with intellectual freedom issues, please visit
http://www.ala.org/oif/faqs or contact the ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom
at oif@....

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-conntech@... [mailto:owner-conntech@...] On Behalf Of rmshea@...
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 9:43 AM
To: Conntech
Subject: [CONNTECH] FW: RE: Is the Department of Homeland Security Monitoring Interlibrary Loans in Near Real Time?

Here is a statement by UMass/Dartmouth, posted to the Law Librarians listserv by a Law Firm librarian who contacted UMass.

 

Roseanne

 

--
Roseanne M. Shea
Manager of Research & Information Services
Proskauer Rose LLP
1585 Broadway
New York NY 10036
Ph: 212-969-5007
Fax: 212-969-2900
rshea@...

 

-------------- Forwarded Message: --------------
From: "Library"
To: <law-lib@...>
Subject: RE: Is the Department of Homeland Security Monitoring Interlibrary Loans in Near Real Time?
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 21:30:41 +0000

Trying to determine just how factually accurate this story is, I contacted the UMass Dartmouth library via Live Chat and they gave me the address of the Dean of Library Services.  Below is the official statement they sent in reply.  Sounds as if we have a ways to go yet before determining exactly what happened.

 

 

 

The following is the UMass Dartmouth statement on the Homeland Security issue.

12/19/2005

CONTACT: John Hoey, 508.999.8027

University of Massachusetts Dartmouth statement regarding Homeland Security library issue

University of Massachusetts Dartmouth officials are investigating reports that a student at the university was visited by officials from Homeland Security after the student requested a copy of Chairman Mao’s “Little Red Book”. UMass administrators have interviewed the student who has requested that his identity be shielded, and the University is complying with that request.

At this point, it is difficult to ascertain how Homeland Security obtained the information about the student’s borrowing of the book. The UMass Dartmouth Library has not been visited by agents of any type seeking information about the borrowing patterns or habits of any of its patrons and did not handle the request for the book in question. The student has indicated that another university library processed the request.

The UMass Dartmouth library has established policies for handling requests under the Patriot Act and has taken every lawful measure possible to protect the confidentiality of patron records.

The Library subscribes to the American Library Association Library Bill of Rights and was a signatory to the MCCLPHEI (Massachusetts Conference of Chief Librarians of Public Higher Educational Institutions) resolution on the USA Patriots Act submitted to the Massachusetts Civil Liberty Union in 2003.

UMass Dartmouth Chancellor Jean F. MacCormack said, “It is important that our students and our faculty be unfettered in their pursuit of knowledge about other cultures and political systems if their education and research is to be meaningful. We must do everything possible to protect the principles of academic inquiry.’’

Ann Montgomery Smith
Dean of Library Services
University of Massachusetts Dartmouth Library
voice 508-999-8664, fax 508-999-8987
asmith@...

 

Thanks for the info.

MM

----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Walker" <walker@...>
To: "Intellectual Freedom Forum" <IFFORUM@...>
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 7:53 AM
Subject: [IFFORUM:5170] Umass Dartmouth case



Update on Umass Dartmouth situation:

I personally contacted Prof. Pontbriand at U Mass and he replied, "No,
it is not a hoax."

So... best wishes for the solstice in our "free" USA.

Tom



--- IFFORUM mailing list:  ---
IFFORUM is an unmoderated forum for the discussion of intellectual freedom
issues.  For assistance with intellectual freedom issues, please visit
http://www.ala.org/oif/faqs or contact the ALA Office for Intellectual
Freedom at oif@....



--- IFFORUM mailing list:  ---
IFFORUM is an unmoderated forum for the discussion of intellectual freedom
issues.  For assistance with intellectual freedom issues, please visit
http://www.ala.org/oif/faqs or contact the ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom
at oif@....

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-IFFORUM@... [mailto:owner-IFFORUM@...]On Behalf Of David Stevens
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 10:07 AM

Well Thomas, that settles it then!

 

---

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/20/politics/20fbi.html?ei=5094&en=171df5b870cdd147&hp=&ex=1135141200&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print

   The New York Times
   _________________________________________________________________

   December 20, 2005

                F.B.I. Watched Activist Groups, New Files Show

   By ERIC LICHTBLAU

   WASHINGTON, Dec. 19 - Counterterrorism agents at the Federal Bureau of
   Investigation have conducted numerous surveillance and
   intelligence-gathering operations that involved, at least indirectly,
   groups active in causes as diverse as the environment, animal cruelty
   and poverty relief, newly disclosed agency records show.

   F.B.I. officials said Monday that their investigators had no interest
   in monitoring political or social activities and that any
   investigations that touched on advocacy groups were driven by evidence
   of criminal or violent activity at public protests and in other
   settings.

   After the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, John Ashcroft, who was then
   attorney general, loosened restrictions on the F.B.I.'s investigative
   powers, giving the bureau greater ability to visit and monitor Web
   sites, mosques and other public entities in developing terrorism
   leads. The bureau has used that authority to investigate not only
   groups with suspected ties to foreign terrorists, but also protest
   groups suspected of having links to violent or disruptive activities.

   But the documents, coming after the Bush administration's confirmation
   that President Bush had authorized some spying without warrants in
   fighting terrorism, prompted charges from civil rights advocates that
   the government had improperly blurred the line between terrorism and
   acts of civil disobedience and lawful protest.

   One F.B.I. document indicates that agents in Indianapolis planned to
   conduct surveillance as part of a "Vegan Community Project." Another
   document talks of the Catholic Workers group's "semi-communistic
   ideology." A third indicates the bureau's interest in determining the
   location of a protest over llama fur planned by People for the Ethical
   Treatment of Animals.

   The documents, provided to The New York Times over the past week, came
   as part of a series of Freedom of Information Act lawsuits brought by
   the American Civil Liberties Union. For more than a year, the A.C.L.U.
   has been seeking access to information in F.B.I. files on about 150
   protest and social groups that it says may have been improperly
   monitored.

   The F.B.I. had previously turned over a small number of documents on
   antiwar groups, showing the agency's interest in investigating
   possible anarchist or violent links in connection with antiwar
   protests and demonstrations in advance of the 2004 political
   conventions. And earlier this month, the A.C.L.U.'s Colorado chapter
   released similar documents involving, among other things, people
   protesting logging practices at a lumber industry gathering in 2002.

   The latest batch of documents, parts of which the A.C.L.U. plans to
   release publicly on Tuesday, totals more than 2,300 pages and centers
   on references in internal files to a handful of groups, including
   PETA, the environmental group Greenpeace and the Catholic Workers
   group, which promotes antipoverty efforts and social causes.

   Many of the investigative documents turned over by the bureau are
   heavily edited, making it difficult or impossible to determine the
   full context of the references and why the F.B.I. may have been
   discussing events like a PETA protest. F.B.I. officials say many of
   the references may be much more benign than they seem to civil rights
   advocates, adding that the documents offer an incomplete and sometimes
   misleading snapshot of the bureau's activities.

   "Just being referenced in an F.B.I. file is not tantamount to being
   the subject of an investigation," said John Miller, a spokesman for
   the bureau.

   "The F.B.I. does not target individuals or organizations for
   investigation based on their political beliefs," Mr. Miller said.
   "Everything we do is carefully promulgated by federal law, Justice
   Department guidelines and the F.B.I.'s own rules."

   A.C.L.U officials said the latest batch of documents released by the
   F.B.I. indicated the agency's interest in a broader array of activist
   and protest groups than they had previously thought. In light of other
   recent disclosures about domestic surveillance activities by the
   National Security Agency and military intelligence units, the A.C.L.U.
   said the documents reflected a pattern of overreaching by the Bush
   administration.

   "It's clear that this administration has engaged every possible
   agency, from the Pentagon to N.S.A. to the F.B.I., to engage in spying
   on Americans," said Ann Beeson, associate legal director for the
   A.C.L.U.

   "You look at these documents," Ms. Beeson said, "and you think, wow,
   we have really returned to the days of J. Edgar Hoover, when you see
   in F.B.I. files that they're talking about a group like the Catholic
   Workers league as having a communist ideology."

   The documents indicate that in some cases, the F.B.I. has used
   employees, interns and other confidential informants within groups
   like PETA and Greenpeace to develop leads on potential criminal
   activity and has downloaded material from the groups' Web sites, in
   addition to monitoring their protests.

   In the case of Greenpeace, which is known for highly publicized acts
   of civil disobedience like the boarding of cargo ships to unfurl
   protest banners, the files indicate that the F.B.I. investigated
   possible financial ties between its members and militant groups like
   the Earth Liberation Front and the Animal Liberation Front.

   These networks, which have no declared leaders and are only loosely
   organized, have been described by the F.B.I. in Congressional
   testimony as "extremist special interest groups" whose cells engage in
   violent or other illegal acts, making them "a serious domestic
   terrorist threat."

   In testimony last year, John E. Lewis, deputy assistant director of
   the counterterrorism division, said the F.B.I. estimated that in the
   past 10 years such groups had engaged in more than 1,000 criminal acts
   causing more than $100 million in damage.

   When the F.B.I. investigates evidence of possible violence or criminal
   disruptions at protests and other events, those investigations are
   routinely handled by agents within the bureau's counterterrorism
   division.

   But the groups mentioned in the newly disclosed F.B.I . files
   questioned both the propriety of characterizing such investigations as
   related to "terrorism" and the necessity of diverting counterterrorism
   personnel from more pressing investigations.

   "The fact that we're even mentioned in the F.B.I. files in connection
   with terrorism is really troubling," said Tom Wetterer, general
   counsel for Greenpeace. "There's no property damage or physical injury
   caused in our activities, and under any definition of terrorism, we'd
   take issue with that."

   Jeff Kerr, general counsel for PETA, rejected the suggestion in some
   F.B.I. files that the animal rights group had financial ties to
   militant groups, and said he, too, was troubled by his group's
   inclusion in the files.

   "It's shocking and it's outrageous," Mr. Kerr said. "And to me, it's
   an abuse of power by the F.B.I. when groups like Greenpeace and PETA
   are basically being punished for their social activism."

     * Copyright 2005The New York Times Company
     * Home
     * Privacy Policy
     * Search
     * Corrections
     * XML
     * Help
     * Contact Us
     * Work for Us
     * Site Map
     * Back to Top


--- IFFORUM mailing list:  ---
IFFORUM is an unmoderated forum for the discussion of intellectual freedom issues.  For assistance with intellectual freedom issues, please visit http://www.ala.org/oif/faqs or contact the ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom at oif@....

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-IFFORUM@... [mailto:owner-IFFORUM@...]On Behalf Of David Stevens
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 10:07 AM

Well Thomas, that settles it then!

 

 Dr. Williams said he had been planning to offer a course on terrorism next semester, but is reconsidering, because it might put his students at risk.

"I shudder to think of all the students I've had monitoring al-Qaeda Web sites, what the government must think of that," he said. "Mao Tse-Tung is completely harmless."

Mao is "completely harmless"? Try telling that to the 40 million people he killed. To be fair, though, the professor has a point. We're at war with radical Islamism; why would the government care about a 40 year old collection of quotes from a long-dead Communist despot, instead of say a book by Qutb or Mawdudi? This is yet another reason why this story makes no logical sense.

To address Dr. Williams' other point: if the government is going to investigate everyone who's ever monitored jihadist web sites, it's going to be a long time before they get to his students.


In short, there are two alternate explanations here. One, the story is true. In this case, one has to believe that the same federal government that can't keep a secret and has been reluctant to use its lawful investigative powers to the full extent possible, is somehow successfully operating a top secret program to monitor who's been reading a collection of quotes from a Communist dictator who's been dead for thirty years.

The other possibility, of course, is that, for all the reasons outlined above, this story is false. In this case, the most likely explanation is that the student was required to obtain a copy of Mao's Quotations for his research, and for whatever reason simply failed to do so. When asked by his professor why he couldn't get the book, he resorted to a postmodern, paranoid, Moorewellian variant on "the dog ate my homework": it's all the Bushitler's fault. Considering the intellectual climate in contemporary academia, this was not at all a bad approach to try.

I will leave it to the reader to determine which of these two possibilities is more plausible.

Update on Umass Dartmouth situation:

I personally contacted Prof. Pontbriand at U Mass and he replied, "No,
it is not a hoax."

So... best wishes for the solstice in our "free" USA.

Tom



--- IFFORUM mailing list:  ---
IFFORUM is an unmoderated forum for the discussion of intellectual freedom
issues.  For assistance with intellectual freedom issues, please visit
http://www.ala.org/oif/faqs or contact the ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom
at oif@....

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/20/politics/20fbi.html?ei=5094&en=171df5b870cdd14\
7&hp=&ex=1135141200&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print

     The New York Times
     _________________________________________________________________

     December 20, 2005

                  F.B.I. Watched Activist Groups, New Files Show

     By ERIC LICHTBLAU

     WASHINGTON, Dec. 19 - Counterterrorism agents at the Federal Bureau of
     Investigation have conducted numerous surveillance and
     intelligence-gathering operations that involved, at least indirectly,
     groups active in causes as diverse as the environment, animal cruelty
     and poverty relief, newly disclosed agency records show.

     F.B.I. officials said Monday that their investigators had no interest
     in monitoring political or social activities and that any
     investigations that touched on advocacy groups were driven by evidence
     of criminal or violent activity at public protests and in other
     settings.

     After the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, John Ashcroft, who was then
     attorney general, loosened restrictions on the F.B.I.'s investigative
     powers, giving the bureau greater ability to visit and monitor Web
     sites, mosques and other public entities in developing terrorism
     leads. The bureau has used that authority to investigate not only
     groups with suspected ties to foreign terrorists, but also protest
     groups suspected of having links to violent or disruptive activities.

     But the documents, coming after the Bush administration's confirmation
     that President Bush had authorized some spying without warrants in
     fighting terrorism, prompted charges from civil rights advocates that
     the government had improperly blurred the line between terrorism and
     acts of civil disobedience and lawful protest.

     One F.B.I. document indicates that agents in Indianapolis planned to
     conduct surveillance as part of a "Vegan Community Project." Another
     document talks of the Catholic Workers group's "semi-communistic
     ideology." A third indicates the bureau's interest in determining the
     location of a protest over llama fur planned by People for the Ethical
     Treatment of Animals.

     The documents, provided to The New York Times over the past week, came
     as part of a series of Freedom of Information Act lawsuits brought by
     the American Civil Liberties Union. For more than a year, the A.C.L.U.
     has been seeking access to information in F.B.I. files on about 150
     protest and social groups that it says may have been improperly
     monitored.

     The F.B.I. had previously turned over a small number of documents on
     antiwar groups, showing the agency's interest in investigating
     possible anarchist or violent links in connection with antiwar
     protests and demonstrations in advance of the 2004 political
     conventions. And earlier this month, the A.C.L.U.'s Colorado chapter
     released similar documents involving, among other things, people
     protesting logging practices at a lumber industry gathering in 2002.

     The latest batch of documents, parts of which the A.C.L.U. plans to
     release publicly on Tuesday, totals more than 2,300 pages and centers
     on references in internal files to a handful of groups, including
     PETA, the environmental group Greenpeace and the Catholic Workers
     group, which promotes antipoverty efforts and social causes.

     Many of the investigative documents turned over by the bureau are
     heavily edited, making it difficult or impossible to determine the
     full context of the references and why the F.B.I. may have been
     discussing events like a PETA protest. F.B.I. officials say many of
     the references may be much more benign than they seem to civil rights
     advocates, adding that the documents offer an incomplete and sometimes
     misleading snapshot of the bureau's activities.

     "Just being referenced in an F.B.I. file is not tantamount to being
     the subject of an investigation," said John Miller, a spokesman for
     the bureau.

     "The F.B.I. does not target individuals or organizations for
     investigation based on their political beliefs," Mr. Miller said.
     "Everything we do is carefully promulgated by federal law, Justice
     Department guidelines and the F.B.I.'s own rules."

     A.C.L.U officials said the latest batch of documents released by the
     F.B.I. indicated the agency's interest in a broader array of activist
     and protest groups than they had previously thought. In light of other
     recent disclosures about domestic surveillance activities by the
     National Security Agency and military intelligence units, the A.C.L.U.
     said the documents reflected a pattern of overreaching by the Bush
     administration.

     "It's clear that this administration has engaged every possible
     agency, from the Pentagon to N.S.A. to the F.B.I., to engage in spying
     on Americans," said Ann Beeson, associate legal director for the
     A.C.L.U.

     "You look at these documents," Ms. Beeson said, "and you think, wow,
     we have really returned to the days of J. Edgar Hoover, when you see
     in F.B.I. files that they're talking about a group like the Catholic
     Workers league as having a communist ideology."

     The documents indicate that in some cases, the F.B.I. has used
     employees, interns and other confidential informants within groups
     like PETA and Greenpeace to develop leads on potential criminal
     activity and has downloaded material from the groups' Web sites, in
     addition to monitoring their protests.

     In the case of Greenpeace, which is known for highly publicized acts
     of civil disobedience like the boarding of cargo ships to unfurl
     protest banners, the files indicate that the F.B.I. investigated
     possible financial ties between its members and militant groups like
     the Earth Liberation Front and the Animal Liberation Front.

     These networks, which have no declared leaders and are only loosely
     organized, have been described by the F.B.I. in Congressional
     testimony as "extremist special interest groups" whose cells engage in
     violent or other illegal acts, making them "a serious domestic
     terrorist threat."

     In testimony last year, John E. Lewis, deputy assistant director of
     the counterterrorism division, said the F.B.I. estimated that in the
     past 10 years such groups had engaged in more than 1,000 criminal acts
     causing more than $100 million in damage.

     When the F.B.I. investigates evidence of possible violence or criminal
     disruptions at protests and other events, those investigations are
     routinely handled by agents within the bureau's counterterrorism
     division.

     But the groups mentioned in the newly disclosed F.B.I. files
     questioned both the propriety of characterizing such investigations as
     related to "terrorism" and the necessity of diverting counterterrorism
     personnel from more pressing investigations.

     "The fact that we're even mentioned in the F.B.I. files in connection
     with terrorism is really troubling," said Tom Wetterer, general
     counsel for Greenpeace. "There's no property damage or physical injury
     caused in our activities, and under any definition of terrorism, we'd
     take issue with that."

     Jeff Kerr, general counsel for PETA, rejected the suggestion in some
     F.B.I. files that the animal rights group had financial ties to
     militant groups, and said he, too, was troubled by his group's
     inclusion in the files.

     "It's shocking and it's outrageous," Mr. Kerr said. "And to me, it's
     an abuse of power by the F.B.I. when groups like Greenpeace and PETA
     are basically being punished for their social activism."

       * Copyright 2005The New York Times Company
       * Home
       * Privacy Policy
       * Search
       * Corrections
       * XML
       * Help
       * Contact Us
       * Work for Us
       * Site Map
       * Back to Top


--- IFFORUM mailing list:  ---
IFFORUM is an unmoderated forum for the discussion of intellectual freedom
issues.  For assistance with intellectual freedom issues, please visit
http://www.ala.org/oif/faqs or contact the ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom
at oif@....

Media outlets largely ignored liberal Christian protest of budget and tax cuts

A peaceful religious protest on December 14 against Republican-sponsored budget cuts in social programs -- in which more than 100 participants were arrested -- went virtually unreported by major news outlets. A search* of major newspapers and broadcast and cable TV news from December 13-15 found only a handful of newspapers that carried news of the protest and a single broadcast mention on NBC.

On December 14, a coalition of religious groups organized by Rev. Jim Wallis of Call to Renewal, a faith-based organization dedicated to combating poverty, and Sojourners, "a Christian ministry whose mission is to proclaim and practice the biblical call to integrate spiritual renewal and social justice," protested Republican proposals in the House and Senate to cut spending on the poor while extending tax cuts that will primarily benefit the wealthy. According to the Sojourners website, the protesters "kneeled in prayer blocking the entrance to the Cannon House Office Building" in Washington, D.C. The bills passed in the House were presumably the primary targets of the protest, because those measures would cut spending on social programs by a greater amount than similar legislation in the Senate and also would benefit the wealthy to a greater degree by extending tax cuts on investments. The House budget legislation would cut spending on social programs for the poor by $50 billion while sacrificing $94 billion in government revenue to extend tax cuts, more than three-quarters of which would go to the 14 percent of U.S. households making more than $100,000 a year, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP). As the San Francisco Chronicle reported on November 19, the spending reductions would include $14.3 billion in cuts to student loan programs, $11.4 billion in cuts to Medicaid, and $4.9 billion in cuts to child support enforcement. The measure would also cut off 220,000 people from receiving food stamps.

But the December 14 protest was largely ignored by the media. The Associated Press (AP) and Reuters both issued wire reports mentioning the arrests, and a search of the 87 newspapers in the Nexis major newspapers database from December 13-15 found only 10 mentions of the event. While The Washington Post ran a December 14 article that reported the upcoming protest in the context of contrasting conservative and liberal religious leaders' views on the proposed budget, the only follow-up report in the paper was a photograph of the arrests, published on December 15. The San Francisco Chronicle also ran an article on December 13, prior to the protest, but did not offer a follow-up article discussing the arrests. The New York Times included a one-sentence description of the protest and subsequent arrests in a December 15 article focusing on Republican plans to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil drilling. The St. Paul Pioneer Press and the Minneapolis Star Tribune each ran, on December 15, brief mentions of the protests in articles about political strategies or legislation before the House and Senate, and The Denver Post published a column discussing the protest on December 15 by staff columnist Diane Carman. Also on December 15, the Chicago Tribune ran an article on the protest, and the Fort Worth Star-Telegram printed the AP wire story about the arrests. Internationally, the Toronto Star mentioned the protest in a December 15 article on Pentagon budget requests.

NBC's Nightly News was the only broadcast evening news program that reported on the event. Neither ABC nor CBS acknowledged the protest on their evening news broadcasts, nor did any of the three network morning news shows: Today (NBC), The Early Show (CBS), and Good Morning America (ABC). Further, no prime-time cable news show mentioned the event.*

* Nexis searches of major newspapers, as well as, NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC news files, with search terms "protest! or activist! w/50 relig! or budget or sojourner or faith" from December 13 through 15.

— J.M.

Posted to the web on Mon, Dec 19, 2005 at 12:54pm EST

----- Original Message -----

From: Thomas Walker

To: Intellectual Freedom Forum

Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2005 2:13 PM

Subject: [IFFORUM:5113] Re: Io Saturnalia!

And this is only the start.  As you likely know, Mary Ann, coming in March (on the 16th and 17th) will be the Bacchanalia, in honor of Bacchus -- also identified with the ancient Italian god, Liber (the free [one]) -- a name appealing to librarians for obvious reasons.

 

Funny how some modern Christmas celebrations turn into bacchanalia anyway.

 

---

From: owner-IFFORUM@... [mailto:owner-IFFORUM@...] On Behalf Of Mary Ann Meyers
Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2005 3:09 PM
To: Intellectual Freedom Forum
Subject: [IFFORUM:5109] Re: Io Saturnalia!

Next you'll have us meeting in very large places indoors -- when we'd rather be outside smelling God's/Gods' sweet green creation.

 

MM

----- Original Message -----

From: Robert L

To: Intellectual Freedom Forum

Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2005 1:56 PM

Subject: [IFFORUM:5108] Re: Io Saturnalia!

Pagans, pagans, pagans.   

 

Just for the record, we have a real Saturnalia tree in our front room.  

 

Perhaps we can get Air America to start a campaign to take back this time of the year from the thieving Christians and return it to the original celebration of Saturnalia.  

 

Lo Saturnalia!!

 

On 12/17/05, Thomas Walker <walker@...> wrote:

Thanks, Rob, for the alert.  I just found an appropriate e-greeting for
the day and for a happy new year (in Latin):

http://www.geocities.com/nabillatin/greet.html



--- IFFORUM mailing list:  ---
IFFORUM is an unmoderated forum for the discussion of intellectual freedom issues.  For assistance with intellectual freedom issues, please visit http://www.ala.org/oif/faqs or contact the ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom at oif@....

---

I agree -- I haven't had time to look further, but skepticism is in order
without some sort of verifying info.

MM

----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen Denney" <sdenney@...>
To: "Intellectual Freedom Forum" <IFFORUM@...>
Cc: "ALA MEMBER FORUM" <member-forum@...>
Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2005 8:57 PM
Subject: [IFFORUM:5119] Re: Everyone Should Request/ILL This Book


>
> It is an outrage if true. But it does seem a bit too absurd. The newspaper
> on the other hand, seems authentic, not a parody publication like the
> Onion.
>
> Some things that make me wonder about this news story:
>
> 1. That the Little Red Book would be on an FBI watch list.
>
> 2. That the Interlibrary Loan request form requires the Social Security
> number of the requestor. Is this normal?
>
> 3. That the FBI would bring this book with them when they interviewed the
> student, or did they just bring another copy of the Little Red Book?
>
>   - Steve Denney
>
>
> On Sat, 17 Dec 2005, Mary Ann Meyers wrote:
>
> > Is there a book "watch list"?  Five years ago I'd say this was an
Onion-type
> > prank article, but nothing Emperor Georgie oversees surprises me.
> >
> > MM
> >
> > Agents' visit chills UMass Dartmouth senior
> > By AARON NICODEMUS, Standard-Times staff writer
> >
> > NEW BEDFORD -- A senior at UMass Dartmouth was visited by federal agents
> > two months ago, after he requested a copy of Mao Tse-Tung's tome on
> > Communism called "The Little Red Book."
> >
> > Two history professors at UMass Dartmouth, Brian Glyn Williams and
Robert
> > Pontbriand, said the student told them he requested the book through the
> > UMass Dartmouth library's interlibrary loan program.
> >
> > The student, who was completing a research paper on Communism for
Professor
> > Pontbriand's class on fascism and totalitarianism, filled out a form for
the
> > request, leaving his name, address, phone number and Social Security
number.
> > He was later visited at his parents' home in New Bedford by two agents
of
> > the Department of Homeland Security, the professors said.
> >
> > The professors said the student was told by the agents that the book is
on
> > a "watch list," and that his background, which included significant time
> > abroad, triggered them to investigate the student further.
> >
> > "I tell my students to go to the direct source, and so he asked for the
> > official Peking version of the book," Professor Pontbriand said.
> > "Apparently, the Department of Homeland Security is monitoring
inter-library
> > loans, because that's what triggered the visit, as I understand it."
> >
> > Although The Standard-Times knows the name of the student, he is not
coming
> > forward because he fears repercussions should his name become public. He
has
> > not spoken to The Standard-Times.
> >
> > The professors had been asked to comment on a report that President Bush
> > had authorized the National Security Agency to spy on as many as 500
people
> > at any given time since 2002 in this country.
> >
> > The eavesdropping was apparently done without warrants.
> >
> > The Little Red Book, is a collection of quotations and speech excerpts
from
> > Chinese leader Mao Tse-Tung.
> > In the 1950s and '60s, during the Cultural Revolution in China, it was
> > required reading. Although there are abridged versions available, the
> > student asked for a version translated directly from the original book.
> >
> > The student told Professor Pontbriand and Dr. Williams that the Homeland
> > Security agents told him the book was on a "watch list." They brought
the
> > book with them, but did not leave it with the student, the professors
said.
> >
> > Dr. Williams said in his research, he regularly contacts people in
> > Afghanistan, Chechnya and other Muslim hot spots, and suspects that some
of
> > his calls are monitored.
> >
> > "My instinct is that there is a lot more monitoring than we think," he
> > said.
> >
> > Dr. Williams said he had been planning to offer a course on terrorism
next
> > semester, but is reconsidering, because it might put his students at
risk.
> >
> > "I shudder to think of all the students I've had monitoring al-Qaeda Web
> > sites, what the government must think of that," he said. "Mao Tse-Tung
is
> > completely harmless."
> >
> > Contact Aaron Nicodemus at anicodemus@...
> >
> > This story appeared on Page A9 of The Standard-Times on December 17,
2005.
> >
> > http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/12-05/12-17-05/a09lo650.htm
> >
> >
> >
> > --- IFFORUM mailing list:  ---
> > IFFORUM is an unmoderated forum for the discussion of intellectual
freedom issues.  For assistance with intellectual freedom issues, please
visit http://www.ala.org/oif/faqs or contact the ALA Office for Intellectual
Freedom at oif@....
> >
>
>
> --- IFFORUM mailing list:  ---
> IFFORUM is an unmoderated forum for the discussion of intellectual freedom
issues.  For assistance with intellectual freedom issues, please visit
http://www.ala.org/oif/faqs or contact the ALA Office for Intellectual
Freedom at oif@....
>



--- IFFORUM mailing list:  ---
IFFORUM is an unmoderated forum for the discussion of intellectual freedom
issues.  For assistance with intellectual freedom issues, please visit
http://www.ala.org/oif/faqs or contact the ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom
at oif@....