It is possible that some of you are not yet aware of the fact
that among the many provisions of the oh-so self-righteously named
Patriot Act rammed into law following 9/11 is one authorizing our
trusted Justice Department to snoop into the records of our public
libraries to see what books we have been checking out.
It is possible that some of you are not yet aware of the fact that among the many provisions of the oh-so self-righteously named Patriot Act rammed into law following 9/11 is one authorizing our trusted Justice Department to snoop into the records of our public libraries to see what books we have been checking out. And it naturally flows that there is another provision prohibiting the library from informing anyone that their records have been perused. The justification for this is that some of the 9/11 hijackers apparently used library computers to communicate with each other.
Now I know you’re going to tell me it’s just me, but I can’t help but feel this particular invasion of privacy is anchored in rather tenuous ground. I mean, it would seem to follow that anything any terrorist does in any field of human endeavor can thus be the subject of surveillance of everybody by Ashcroft’s holy warriors. But of course since there is a connection to 9/11 no matter how thin it must be OK.
That’s where my problem comes in: when if ever do we decide that even given it’s magnitude and the outrage it has rightfully engendered, simply invoking 9/11 is neither a reason to abandon common sense nor a reason to allow America to be remade willy-nilly because some president or attorney general wants more unregulated power to implement a personal or ideological agenda?
History is regrettably replete with examples of folks who have handed over too much power and too much freedom in panicked response to a real but limited threat, and we should be on the lookout for that because we can’t just say “it can’t happen here”; it definitely can. When it comes to hot buttons, 9/11 is the hottest button there is, but when people in and out of government take to using it as a cover, an overbroad justification, a substitute for an explanation they go too far.
I don’t want John Ashcroft looking over my shoulder at the library; given his ideological propensities, if he should decide there are books in there nobody should be reading he just might decide to burn them to, you know, keep them out of the hands of those who would learn bad things from them. It’s happened before.
I don’t want Dubya spending our money like there is no tomorrow on wars with manufactured enemies because, like it or not, there is a tomorrow, and we’re gonna have to pay it back to all the people we’re borrowing it from.
I don’t want my government to offhandedly declare that most of the known world is “irrelevant” because it doesn’t happen to agree with us. Last time I looked, we are 5 percent of the world’s population, which means that for every person on this planet who is an American, there are 19 others who are not, and I don’t think it’s in our long-term best interests to throw temper tantrums like spoiled rich kids whenever we don’t get our way.
I don’t want to see Osama, who actually attacked us, get morphed into Saddam, who actually didn’t, without a lot better showing of why they’re the same guy with different hairstyles.
In other words, I think it’s time to think the unthinkable and speak the unspeakable: there has to be a limit to what can be justified by 9/11. If there isn’t, then Osama has succeeded beyond his wildest dreams.
