 My background is that I represented John Lynn and have read a lot about history and the line, which is what we're talking about, the line between war and law. That's really what we're talking about. And the U.S. Constitution and its preservation and whether, if to be suspended in some way in time at War House so and to what extent and will we get it back. The Patriot Act was enacted very shortly after 9-11 at a time when the political, I think of the American people, was that something had to be done. And it was the nature of the attack that fueled the Senate, the House who passed it as they did. And in that political context, the executive first editorial comment ran around to see what old list they had of things they'd always wanted but never been able to get. And produced that list for Congress and said, here, pass this and we'll be able to say we're doing something. That's basically what happened. In that Patriot Act, among other things, it provides that the government may surreptitiously listen into and record conversations between lawyers and their clients. It provides for a roving wiretap, which I'd like to explain to you in this sense because you may have been overheard on a telephone and not be aware of it. I say that rhetorically. I don't have any evidence that it's happened. But it certainly could happen because traditional wiretaps, starting with a case called Olmsted, which Justice Holmes had a dissent in and had an opinion in, authorized wiretaps, if you go to a court and you show probable cause, that is you've got a level of evidence and you say, here, these specified crimes, and it's only certain violent crimes are involved, are such, but we want to listen to the phone of the target person. And here's the evidence we have against the target person. So if they have a phone in their office or they have a phone in their home, then you have an authorized wiretap search warrant and you can go and do that. And that's how the mafia always gets on these wiretaps and they're not very good at avoiding that. And they make it worse by thinking that they're going to disguise what they're saying. So they say things like, you know, we ought to, you know, him, you know what I mean? And then, you know, two later, two days later, Louis dies, you know. So in the trial they introduce it, it's pretty good evidence against the defendants. Well, all right, a lot of people don't like those wiretaps. And there's a lot of abuse of them. In my practice, I have listened to the records, listened to a receptionist who was talking to her boyfriend about what they did the night before when one of them is married. And I have heard, I've sat and I've listened to that because they were produced to me as a criminal defense lawyer. So wiretaps are not great. A roving wiretap allows them to pick any phone that the defendant, the person they're talking about might use, including public phones. So if you've picked up a phone and it happens to be somewhere, you can do it. That's the Patriot Act. They can have sneak and peek introductions into private premises which are protected by the Fourth Amendment. They can go in. These are referred to historically as black bag jobs. That's what the FBI called them. And they were legal. They are certainly unconstitutional. We still have basic rights. You have your home, you may have your area within your office, your desk, your area there, and that may be personal to you. And you have a constitutional right to not have a general Ashcroft or somebody he's directed sneak into your house and look at materials to see whether you've got something that they don't like. The potential for abuse in all this is extensive. Beyond the Patriot Act itself, and I hope we have time to discuss some of these things, I'll just mention, Peter, if I may, a couple of the cases that are pending that you've heard about in the papers. One is Mr. Hamdi who was found in Afghanistan and is still in a cell in the United States, but he's not been allowed to see a lawyer. He's been there for a year and a half or see anybody else, see his family or see anybody. He's declared to be an unlawful combatant. He's not a U.S. citizen. That's number one. Number two, Mr. Masawi, about I'm sure you've read, is in the Virginia District Court. Masawi is not a U.S. citizen. He's accused of being a terrorist and they're giving him process, but they will not bring the witnesses from Guantanamo that might give favorable evidence to him and so Judge Brankama, a very able judge there, has declared they cannot go after the death penalty for him. Mr. Padilla presents the most important case that will, I think, get to the U.S. Supreme Court eventually. Mr. Padilla is a U.S. citizen. Supposedly a Chicago gangbanger. In the criminal law we call this a bad guy. And he gangbanks. We don't even dare think about what it might be that he does, but he's a terrible person. And we don't know this because we don't have any evidence. But we're told by the Attorney General that in a worldwide broadcast from Moscow, one of my favorite touches from the Attorney General, this man is a bad guy. And they declared him to be an unlawful combatant. And they are holding him. And remember the small point, he's a U.S. citizen. And he's not allowed to see a lawyer. And he's not allowed to see family. If they establish that precedent without alarming anybody, because I hope we're going to talk about certain issues in history tonight that happened during war. These things happened during war. But if they establish that precedent, if they declare anyone to be an unlawful combatant in a matter of national security, they can seize them and put them in a cell and nobody can see them. And they can hold them for the duration of something. Whatever that might be. I think I'll stop. I think I've hopefully wedded your interest. We're going to talk more about this. Peter, I'll just say that I do try to be objective about it. You've got Guantanamo. That's another area. You've got prisoners down there, mostly who were seized in Afghanistan. Mostly Taliban people. Taliban and al-Qaeda are different. We'll get into that a little bit. And they've been down there a year and a half. There have been over 30 suicide attempts in Guantanamo. It's a rights-free zone. Nobody can visit it. Nobody comes out. Nobody goes in. And the U.S. government is doing that in our name. Then, of course, there were the arrests following 9-11 in which 6,700, 800 people were arrested and then have been released or some have been charged. Some have been deported. And then there were the arrests of secret immigration hearings that are closed. The Sixth Circuit, one of the Federal Appellate Court says, that's not right. You have to open them. The Third Circuit, Judge Becker says no, you can have them closed. And I'll stop, I will stop with this, Peter. I promise. Judge Becker, who is a very good judge, but this is what happens to judges in time of war, he says you can close immigration hearings on the say so of the Attorney General. Any hearing that the Attorney General wants to close, you can do that, because we should, at this time, defer to the executive. And you can look forever in the U.S. Constitution. You will not find a provision about deference to the executive, especially in matters that have to do with sort of judicial review in courts, even immigration courts, that kind of thing. Thank you, Jim. Susan, you're a librarian. There are some concerns for librarians in all of this, aren't there? Certainly. I think our situation may seem pale in comparison to some of the individual situations Mr. Brosnahan has mentioned. But in fact, it represents, I think, the chilling effect that's going on in our country right now. As we mentioned, the USA Patriot Act was passed immediately after 9-11, and I think everyone was very sensitive to Homeland Security. And whenever I personally talk about the Patriot Act, I like to reinforce that the public library certainly supports the value of personal and Homeland Security. And the Library Commission or the San Francisco City and Counties position on the Patriot Act is not in any way support they're not wanting to have a safe environment. But the Patriot Act does have a chilling effect on you as library users. One of the hallmarks of library services, I think it's something that people really take for granted, is privacy of your records. We don't divulge to anyone when you get your library card, those records are completely confident confidential. Also the records of what you use at the library, the books you check out, the videotapes you borrow, the internet sites that you visit. That's all confidential. And our California State law is extremely clear on that and has a very high level of proof that they require before any of that material would be shared with anyone. The San Francisco Public Library of course responds to requests for borrower information and we've done so based on warrants by courts with lots of specific information about individuals. But what the USA Patriot Act does is it certainly lowers the threshold of information that anyone would have to put together any FBI or any local law enforcement agency to gather information on individuals which is what is the most chilling thing to us I think as library professionals. I'm sure we'll talk about this as the program goes on, but we have not yet had a request presented to us under the USA Patriot Act. If we had one presented I would first confer with our city attorney and I believe that I have to act legally and I would respond based on their advice. But the library and the city of San Francisco have taken a strong stand against the elements of the USA Patriot Act that affect the information shared about borrowers as well as bookstores are under the same condition that they're required to give information about materials that individuals have purchased. So I think the key concern that I have is there's a very key balance here about protecting the privacy of our citizens. That's a very important element in our society. And would we jeopardize that for information about a very limited number of individuals. Some of you may know or may have heard that immediately after September 11th incident a librarian, a public librarian in a Florida public library recognized some of the individuals who were thought to be the perpetrators as having used the public internet terminals in this Florida branch library. What this individual did was she discussed with her library administration who later discussed with the local police and the FBI the information that they had and they did in fact provide that information because it was of national importance to try to obtain information on these individuals. Opportunities for public use of the internet in public libraries are widespread and I think that many members of the public including possibly the terrorists might think that their use of information at the public library could never be traced. Now again I say we don't keep track of the internet records or internet sites or anything like that but depending on how systems are configured you can in some situations trace IP addresses or the sign on of the individual to tell who has been using those internet sites but that kind of information should only be used under the highest levels of proof that that's required. So I think it puts librarians in a difficult dilemma we want to support Homeland Security but we also want to protect the user's rights that's a hallmark of our trade. I think in a way and we'll probably talk about this a little bit later it's really important that we didn't put the spotlight on librarians we're a good strong profession and we support wonderful beliefs and now we have the Attorney General Mr. Ashcroft thinking that we're all bunch of loonies so I think that's pretty good publicity when he talks against us on the today's show but we'll talk about that later. Did he attack librarians? Oh yes. Yes he did. What's next? Well librarians are not themselves silent even though they may want other people to be inside there. Jim you mentioned the whole thread of history we look back at history and we see things like the Alien and Sedition Acts Lincoln suspending habeas corpus tell us that we've been here before. We need a historian professional on this panel speaking for myself I'm an amateur but I've read and I was fascinated by the history of the line between war and law and the United States and specifically the Civil War the cases in Indiana the hysteria that was involved hysteria explains a lot of what happens in war and it isn't that they become hysterical it is to be honest about it we become hysterical because our our security is involved and in the Civil War there were military tribunals and people who were sympathetic to the south with charges drawn up against them not taken from the existing criminal law that existed when they did whatever they did but rather crimes that were made up for the purpose of the tribunal that's one of the key issues to keep your eye on is what are people charged with and they were brought in very vague evidence against them as to some of them it varied but then they were executed now Inray Milligan was the resulting case in the US Supreme Court some of them had already been executed but Inray Milligan in the US Supreme Court is a wonderful decision it didn't help those who had already been executed so the law is sometimes tardy let's put it that way but you read it and it's quite clear that the US Supreme Court at that time 140 years ago said and I quote the US Constitution it covers us as a people in time of peace and it covers us in time of war and that's Inray Milligan now then you jump forward you get to the Palmer raids in the First World War Attorney General Palmer and he was arresting people he thought were communists anybody with a beard any Europeans you know Sacco and Vence any you know people that are different from us people are a suspect and when you see that what you're really seeing is the unhooking of something that is really American and American believes in individual innocence or individual guilt that's it he did it he didn't not that group is guilty so that group is going to suffer and when war comes and we become fixated on our own survival then those lines come down you move to the Second World War and I've said this in many places in many venues you come to the Second World War the first of all the some Nazi saboteurs landed on Long Island eight of them with some dynamite they buried their German uniforms in the sand and they proceeded almost immediately to surrender themselves to Jay and Gohoover big mistake and who announced to the waiting public that he had apprehended them I think he apprehended them in his office when they walked in so all that's going on at the same time well these are bad guys I mean they were trained in Germany to blow up American installations and they got a military tribunal and they all six of them got executed two of them got life imprisonment later pardoned when the war was over but they got lawyers right away and in Ray Quarren which is the US Supreme Court case on it Justice Stone I'm going to recommend it to you it's not just about the subject of military tribunals but it's a minute by minute story the Nazi saboteurs on trial by Louis Fisher this is really I bet you have this in your library there you go but I think frankly for everything I've heard tonight you should be afraid to take this out because Ashcroft is going to know that you have this book but if you're a courageous kind of American person who thinks you're still free read that book and you'll find it the other one with which a number of people sitting here tonight are familiar was and I've put it just this way I've had opportunities to say this to a lot of people and to remind them that in 1942 small black bands came in and the order of General DeWitt to the Japanese-American community on the west coast and in San Francisco and in the Fillmore and they put in every resident kids grandparents everybody and they took some of them over Route 120 north of Yosemite they took them to Manzanar and I've been to Manzanar there's not much there it's a beautiful spot by the way and there are books on it with pictures that all happened and not only happened but I'm told by friends of mine who know that a lot of people that went through that never really got over it some did some didn't the people who did that I'm happy to say are remembered in American history as rogues General DeWitt anybody who knows about him is known for what he did the war was over there was an end to it when this war will end which is another subject we can get into the nature of this war is a different subject we should get into it a little bit I don't know this is not a war with a foreign army or armies in uniform from one country much different than that so when this will be over I don't know but that removal I will tell you and I had the chance we were talking a little bit about this earlier I think it was around 1986 or something there was a large dinner wonderful dinner about 600 people in the Japanese-American community and I was asked to come give a speech so I had to run around and educate myself so I could look like I knew what I was talking about and I did and but a lot of the folks at that dinner had never really in public before addressed the question that they were wrong that was wrong and I must tell you that until 9-11 I said to myself how could this happen and I just generally criticized the generation before mine I mean how could they do it but I'll tell you something else when I was representing John Lind I understood completely how it could happen because all it takes is that that is done and everybody else is quiet and that's the Patriot Act when General Ashcroft went to the Senate and said anybody who raises civil liberties concerns about this bill is helping terrorists not one senator said anything to him it was quiet and I've made that connection and I think it's a valid one I now understand sadly what it was like in the Fillmore in 1942 they had to get into the vans they had to sell their houses and nobody said anything and that's what happens in war Susan you mentioned a few moments ago the whole idea of being spotlighted in terms of librarians being spotlighted your profession being spotlighted much of this stuff is happening around all of us and a lot of us in our lives we're saying well it's not happening it really doesn't affect me it doesn't come down to what I'm doing but you as you say what does that do to you to your whole idea of yourself and your profession and your colleagues I think that the Patriot Act although it's an extremely challenging piece of legislation has really moved librarians into the forefront of defenders of civil liberties so often individuals look at librarians as as you said folks that want everybody to be quiet folks themselves unassuming, behind a desk, reading books now I have to tell you that we're very very busy here that's not at all like what it is to work in a library in fact when people say what do I need to be like if I want to work in a library and I say well if you like retail you can work in the library because that's what it's all about helping individuals but I think we're really carrying the flag of civil liberties and protection of confidentiality and that's as I said a hallmark of our profession but I'd like to just mention a little bit about some other issues that have been going on with the library to put this in context Mr. Brosnahan had mentioned to me that he had read recently the Supreme Court decision about filtering for internet computers and as many of you may know the Supreme Court has decided that filtering for internet computers is constitutional and if public libraries want to receive a certain type of federal subsidy on communications costs they must install filters on their public internet PCs now when this legislation was initially passed and it was fought by the American Library Association for over a two year period our Board of Supervisors here was so concerned about it that they passed legislation prohibiting us installing internet filters on adult or teen PCs so I have yet to find a jurisdiction that has passed similar legislation but as we all know San Francisco is on the forefront of these issues but I went in I talked about this because librarians for the last several years have been conveyed publicly by some members of the media as porn purveyors because we are out defending the rights of individuals that access information on the internet without filters we've gotten a lot of difficult publicity the Dr. Laura show I don't know if many of you listen to Dr. Laura but she had a tie raid for a long time about librarians and how we wanted kids to see porn and that's all we were all about and that's not what we're about we're about providing access to information but in fact I don't look upon welcome with the USA Patriot Act but I like the situation where we are seen as leaders because for the last several years frankly we've had some bad publicity in terms of librarians being concerned with this open access to what's on the internet so I think it's really a boon for us because it gives us a good opportunity to re-educate or educate everybody in our communities about how important libraries are because we do many more things than just protecting the information of your records but it gives us a chance to make sure you all know we're here and all the many things that we do one of the things that I've done myself in the last few years besides being a lawyer and a law professor and a dean is I've sort of moved into the realm of journalism in the last 10 years or so by doing a lot of legal commentary on television radio and one directly in regard to this is Jim mentioned Jose Padilla who is now, who's an American citizen who's being, who was arrested in Chicago as he came into the United States and he's been held in Communicado away from his lawyer, can't talk to anybody under the provisions of fighting terrorism for secret military type tribunals and proceedings that no one knows anything about and at the time of the discussions relating to the Patriot Act and all of these secret proceedings that were going to take place for terrorists who were apprehended doing things to the United States one of the threads that was running through the discussions in Congress and was being said quite openly by the Justice Department by the Attorney General I remember it well because the experience I'm going to highlight for you was that no American citizen would ever find himself or herself in that situation of being the victim of secret proceedings. Those were the things that were said quite explicitly when these discussions were taking place right after 9-11 when Congress was involved in these things and I looked at the things that were being recommended and I saw no exemption for American citizens in this and in one of the commentaries that I did at one of the local networks I said Americans will be tied up in this and the program manager, the station manager called me the next day and said you know we had a lot of calls about your saying that last night from a lot of people and they had the Attorney General and people in Congress were all saying that this isn't going to happen to Americans so you were wrong about that I said no I'm not wrong about that and we had quite an argument over that and as a result of that they called me and used me again on that station and it was about a year later when they had a new station manager that called me and said you know we haven't been using you lately we would like your commentary would you come back? I said sure but that gives you a little bit of an overview of something else that's been bothering me the whole way the media and the lack of any critical coverage except for particular areas for the most part we live in the age of Fox News and if one criticizes this a journal a so called journalist in an outlet like Fox News will label you as someone who's unpatriotic or someone who is an appeaser of terrorists but the whole aspect of that that's my little editorial aspect of it but I want to segue then into the whole aspect of secret trials secret proceedings Kim, America and secret trials and secret proceedings by missing something but there was a time not long ago when that was something that was totally antithetical to what we are as a people it is antithetical and it's not only the legal principles that you're mentioning what the constitution says and all that the rights of the defendant the truth is Americans love trials I speak as a trial lawyer we love trials Kobe Bryant was in the room with the lady with the panties and all those things don't say you haven't been following it don't tell me that don't give me that stuff you understand what came out last week and he's got a defense lawyer I think the defense is doing a great job but we know we think we know about that now that's a matter I'm not saying it's not a serious matter but it's not as serious as our national security and our personal safety we need to know and a trial would show this what Padilla really did was he planning to have a dirty bomb in Washington DC to obliterate our government was he doing that if you had a public trial among other things the public would understand what it is that's going on and here's the key we would be better able to determine whether Ashcroft is doing a good job and I'll tell you I don't think he is not on the civil rights side alone I do not think General Ashcroft is a very good enforcer of the laws I don't think he's a very good detective I mean detectives on TV solve it within one hour that's a high standard but how do we know when he puts these people away where he does the irony is that in wartime you need more critique because it's more important lives are at stake and we have a stake in this you drive over the bay bridge you're daydreaming and you think this morning how hard would it be for somebody to blow it can they get there can we really stop them you need to know this it is true that the American press provide us with very much especially for the first 6, 8, 10 months the English press and just because in case I had access to it the BBC and so forth they would criticize us the European press would talk about the 400 people who died at Kuala Jungi in Afghanistan which is kind of neither here nor there but you know that's a lot of people and under what circumstances did they die are they are there issues there that involve us you know there is a right to know and so I guess the library is all about too really is you've got all these books in here you probably have a copy in this library of Hugo Grossius do you well I can check you're a retail person see that that's the way that works well Hugo Grossius lived I think in the late 1500s he lived in a city the same city that the painter Vermeer lived in Vermeer used to do these great paintings of interiors and you look at the painting and it's like you're in the room only they say 25 paintings the whole life because he took all the time but Grossius was so smart he was a lawyer that the king of France said he was he was a gift from god to Europe he must have been a very smart guy and he wrote a book on what he wrote a book on the rights and responsibilities with regard to war and he used the bible as his source that's my favorite point he used the bible as his source for natural law to cover when is a war justified when are you justified in starting a war there are circumstances he thinks when you can how should you treat prisoners of war because the bible says you will not vex your prisoners I like to say for emphasis that's the word of god that you will not vex your prisoners and in all this is some kind of swirling crazy fundamentalist Christian something or other that is public it was a general last week who made it public that we are somehow doing all this in god's mandate and I would question I think I accuse Ashcroft of this I don't think that he has read Hugo Grossius I don't think he has read this and we should send him a copy of this book we'll borrow it from this library we'll tell him we'll send it to him and I'm not afraid I'll tell him I took this book out of this library I'll send it to him and I'll tell him it's due in two weeks and if he doesn't get it back what will cost him up to five dollars and then he has to pay for the price of the book alright so no I should say we should give it to him for free no charge that's retail huh for Mr. Ashcroft our friend we'll find out so much of what's happening now in terms of the federal government and the Attorney General the way the whole institution of government is dealing with this and so many other things is to not give information to keep things secret to say information is bad information is dangerous and librarians are in the business of giving information they see things from another viewpoint don't they we certainly do that's really what we're all about is providing information in a variety of formats and you know I was just thinking historically a little bit about this issue of the confidentiality of information and when you think back historically even in our own lifetime I think libraries played a very low key local role an effective role but low key for many years now just think when you used to go to the library in your hometown or when you were a child and the system you had for checking out books was a card where you signed your name you handed it to the library and she stamped the book you brought it back you could look at that card and see every person that had checked out that book and you would think oh Smith took this out it must be a good one we like the same mystery so to a certain extent on a very localized level knowing who's read different books helped inform people make their choices about their reading but over the last part of this century libraries have become more and more complex all of our systems for the most part are computerized and we're retaining lots and lots of information about individuals now one of the things that we did here at the San Francisco Public Library when the Patriot Act when the USA Patriot Act was passed and this was something that was strongly recommended by the American Library Association was we did something called a privacy audit and we took a look at all the records that we were keeping about individuals and also transactions that they had here at the library and we realized as is won't for librarians to do we were really keeping more than we needed to keep you know we are we do keep we're keepers we love to have lots of information but we looked very carefully at what we were keeping and we decided that for business purposes we have to keep some amount of information but we reduce the amount of information we were keeping just to what we really needed to do for business purposes so for instance if the system our online system crash we could reconstruct it so from that point of view we were being proactive in looking at our situation and saying well if we're you know we're asked to provide some information for an individual if we don't have that information we just can't provide it so we weren't trying to be not helpful we were trying to be as business like as possible is an interesting story some of you may have been aware that earlier this year the Santa Cruz library director was very proactive about the situation and decided to post signs on all her public PCs and her library saying beware this information may be subpoenaed by the government and we could talk a little bit later about signs we didn't we didn't go the sign route but you know there's also the the part of the patriot act that requires an individual who might be required to provide information so if I had to give information on Virginia G for example which I know would never happen I could not after I gave the information the FBI I could not tell Virginia Virginia G the FBI just came in and I had to give them your borrowing record so what the Santa Cruz library director did and I think it's pretty savvy really every month on her library board agenda she had an item where she said we have received no request under the Patriot Act this month so if there was a month when she didn't say that then that would be the key that she got one so she had figured out this way to communicate to the public what was going on so I mean we are all about information and we're here to provide information to enrich people's lives and to have an environment that's very very comfortable something that was very chilling to all of us here at the library earlier this year when there was lots of discussion hitting the press about the USA Patriot Act we had a work with the teen group who was advising the library and how we could better provide services to teens that's what we're always we always want to do that and they're a particularly challenging group to work with and one of the teens was a GLBT young woman and she said at this meeting you know I've heard about this Patriot Act and I'm not checking out any books anymore I come here because I want to learn about my lifestyle and I don't want anybody to know so that was very chilling to us here in the library and of course we tried to assure her that that wouldn't happen but you know the word is getting out there and it's affecting how people think about and use their library but we're just here to say that if you use the San Francisco Public Library you can be assured of your privacy but it's a challenge for us when we're all about providing information and now we have to think about regrouping and making sure that what we're doing is effective yet still protecting our users' rights. One of the things I was listening to on the way over here today is that there was a congressional hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee and the senators are now starting to express the concern that as Jim said they shied away from when Ashcroft first came to them and accused them all of being traitors if any of them are being traitors who contradicted what he was asking for with the Patriot Act and they were Senator Biden was saying you know there's an empty chair there and we've been waiting for Senator for Attorney General Ashcroft to come and he never comes and we'd like to hear from him and he talks to compatible groups he doesn't come to debates like this and talk but let's give the devil his due Jim and if Ashcroft were here what he'd probably say is he'd look at the three of us and say well Mr. Brosnan, Ms. Hildris, Mr. Keane you're all very comfortable sitting here in the safety of a San Francisco library but there are terrorists out there and it's a dangerous world and look what happened at 9-11 and all of these things are for the protection of all of you what would your answer be to him? My answer was twofold first although this history will be written later and it's not too important the people in Washington by my observation knew everything they had to know about Osama bin Laden who had issued a fatwa which is a and he's not authorized to do it most Muslim scholars think he's not 100 people can issue fatwas but he could not but he did and it's like a declaration of war on the United States that President Clinton had bombed in Afghanistan in 1997 one of the camps where they were training terrorists that their intelligence sources surely must have known that there were great many Saudis who were not only coming to Afghanistan but were helping to finance Osama bin Laden if they didn't know that they were incompetent but that's not in history now let's go to how to defend us at this point first of all the question arises how long two big questions first one is general Ashcroft how long is this war going to last is this the second world war four and a half years is this the troubles in Northern Ireland Peter knows a lot about that and I know a little bit about that the troubles in Northern Ireland from 1972 they're still going on a little bit to this day are you changing America for the next 30 or 40 years and by the way are you if I could just get him somewhere to debate what are your qualifications to tell us to be quiet who are you and what do you know and this world that you want to take us to this new country that you want to create which this country has never been is fundamentally different from the one created by the founders of this country and don't tell me they didn't have problems they had the revolution Jefferson had to flee his own home because the British troops were coming they thought the French were going to invade that's what the sedition act that Peter mentioned was all about the French were going to invade they had all kinds of problems but when they wrote the constitution they said the 4th amendment they said the 5th amendment they said the 6th amendment and you're sitting here in this auditorium I wish you were telling us how long and do you suppose we even wanted to do it for a year are you a person of sufficient discretion so that we should trust your stability I don't think so and that's where congress I can't believe I try to understand politics but I don't think I do even if you thought well we got to do this for a while and let's be reasonable the last person you would give these powers to is general Ashcroft he is the last person do you know what he's done among other things he has provided a writer in a bill that if any federal judge different part of the government goes under the sentencing guidelines there are these guidelines and there are procedures for going under them there's still some discretion a judge can do if any federal judge does it their name gets reported to congress that's what he thinks you should do you should just report everybody that has any opinion other than what he believes in now you couldn't run a computer company in silicon valley that way by telling all the bright engineers we don't care what you think it's only what I think you have to have freedom of speech you have to let people say what they want to say and he's against that he's as strongly against that as anybody that I've seen so we I'll stop for a second we ought to come back and talk a little bit more about what this war is really like because this is a different kind of a war why don't you go ahead Jim well I'm just going to make this point and we've referred to part of it there are fundamental fundamentalist Muslims I don't know what the number is but I don't think it's very large it may be growing but I don't think it's very large if we start in Afghanistan there was Osama bin Laden and there were members of Al Qaeda who were trained to be terrorists these are bad guys bad people no question about it they mean us harm they don't like us and mostly they don't like Israel and we support Israel and so they really don't like us so now and they're not in one place they're in the Philippines they're in Indonesia they're in Chechnya they're in Kashmir they're in Pakistan they're they're maybe in Yemen they're they're all over the world now we are facing those dangers and to be serious about it we've got to be serious people that figure out how to deal with that I mentioned Northern Ireland to you this is not people didn't follow this very closely Peter did but others didn't President Clinton was able to achieve a ceasefire in Northern Ireland when there was no political support for it at all in the United States people didn't care and all that they had 400 years of religious differences which is part of what's going on here he did it with money he did it with diplomacy he did it with charm if somebody tells you that we cannot get a ceasefire in Israel I suggest you tell them that President Clinton did exactly in Northern Ireland it can be done by leaders who are smart enough diplomatic enough and far sighted enough to do it if we could get a ceasefire in Israel a ceasefire I'm not talking about resolving all of the problems I'm talking about a ceasefire in Israel you would de-escalate the heat in the Arab world against not only Israel against the United States that would be to me the most effective thing you could possibly do number two we gave Saudi Arabia a pass on what they have done to us in New York and in the Pentagon building and no one denies it was on a panel up in Boise, Idaho and former Senator Slade Gordon was there and on the panel and he's on the commission that's studying 9-11 but I asked him this question I said can you explain to me why the US government has given the Saudis a pass on what they did in Afghanistan and what they're doing by way of financing some of the people in Saudi Arabia financing terrorism can you explain or justify that he's a Republican and he's certainly close to the administration he said no he couldn't justify it now should you worry about that are you entitled to think about that you mean to say that every time I get on Southwest to go to Los Angeles I have to take my shoes off but in Saudi Arabia they are still they still have people who are attuned to the idea that they're gonna kill Americans and they've got money to do it there were Saudis in Afghanistan in pretty good numbers and that's not a secret of the hijackers a large percentage were Saudis what's that all about you're entitled to think about it worry about it so the real point on the war the nature of this war is diplomatically how do we reduce the world and pressures if we don't end this war the head of the UN said the other day I couldn't Kofi Fan and I couldn't agree with them more he just said it so simply he said as long as there are western troops on Arab land there will be people trying to kill them I think we all know that I don't think that's a secret inside the Beltway they do not know that so send them a letter call them up email is a wonderful thing make sure they understand this because as long and finally Peter I'm afraid of a great leg there were very few Iraqis in Afghanistan and those that were there were alienated from the Iraqi government they almost had fled the Iraqi government the Iraqi government was a non-sectarian government it was not a religious thing it wasn't Osama bin Laden it wasn't anything this is over and above the weapons of mass destruction and all this stuff in addition to that they were not at the center of this terrorism thing that is plaguing our people but Saudi Arabia was so I think we need to reflect on that and just think about it a little bit I just could I add one comment Peter I really listened and picked up on what Mr. Brosnahan said about the Beltway being out of touch and I think they really are I think what we're seeing happening is the heightened awareness of the USA Patriot Act and library confidentiality is a grassroots way for people to weigh in about their concerns about the USA Patriot Act I mean it's very hard for those of us that aren't in tune with government or the legal system on a daily basis to figure out how to latch on to this issue but when we think about people finding out what we're checking out from the library that really hits at home and I think the folks in Washington do not understand how much that means to citizens they're not listening to that they're not in tune with that just like Mr. Ashcroft and the Daily Show and Maline's librarians who for the most part are a revered profession and folks in the society are respected I think that was a mistake on his part I think people tend to minimize what librarians can do another example is that Michael Moore who's a very radical author had a book ready to go on the Bush administration after 9-11 and his publisher was not going to publish it and he wasn't about to do that so he got the word out to some of his friends, librarians who do a lot of business with publishers and the librarians began an email campaign to his publishing house and they ended up publishing that book thanks to librarians advocating for it I think that we librarians represent grassroots America some of the benefits of our American life the public library is one of the last open civil institutions we have in our society and I think people value that and I think they're showing that through their response to the USA Patriot Act and I certainly think Mr. Ashcroft and maybe some of his other colleagues back there certainly have no idea of the level of of feeling that I think the whole thing is generating In the time remaining I'd like to open it up to some questions from you all I saw, yes that again so we'll have your question I heard on the radio some time back either KPFA or some other alternative radio station the former president of the American Library Association pointed out that even though Ashcroft has said we haven't used the Patriot Act against librarians that I know of this particular person said he said it's not true there were instances now he did not give the instances my first question are you aware of what he had said yes I'm aware number one and number two I know this is rather lengthy dialogue that I could pursue further but you know the question comes in as to what terror really is now terror historically can represent perhaps the killing of innocent people to arm conflict when Ashcroft would be asked when will terror ever end he can simply answer until we catch the last terrorist of course that will be never now Nam Chomsky pointed out that the only way you could end terror is stop being a terrorist yourself I know people are going to argue about this point Chomsky said that number one nation in the world that's a terrorist nation is the US people can argue that point here or not what I want to make a point is that when the Cold War ended it really didn't end it continued in another huge threat back in 1951 let's get the answer to your specific question first from Susan you had a specific question about how do you know whether or not the there is some sort of scrutiny of the librarians materials as to who's taking out what a survey was issued earlier this year before Mr. Ashcroft made his comment that documented about 50 requests that had been engendered around the country as a result of the USA Patriot Act to libraries all types of libraries and you have to understand many also go to academic libraries where there's a higher in some cases a higher likelihood at least a very high highly detailed research and then of course Mr. Ashcroft said none had been issued which is just contradictory to all the evidence that we have I don't want to cut you off sir but we have a lot of questions a little time remaining so can we go to yes ma'am down here Glenn heard rumors that there's an attempt to modify the USA Patriot Act and I've heard a term called Benjamin Franklin true Patriot Act is that an attempt to modify I forget there was the candidate there is a Patriot Act too right also some other modification or there's two things happening a number of legislators have put forward legislation to modify the Patriot Act particularly to amend out the information regarding bookstores and libraries and late late May we had Representative Bernie Sanders independent from Vermont who was really leading the charge there was right here in the Carrette Auditorium we had a great public town hall meeting with him and a number of other legislators including both our own senators have signed on to that at the same time there is a Patriot Act too which furthers the current initiatives of this Patriot Act which is very frightening but I do think that the tide in Washington and our elected officials is turning I think they're hearing from their voters that they're not comfortable with the USA Patriot Act and in fact Mr. Sanders made it very clear that this was an issue that was garnering the support of people on the far left and people on the far right because for each for their own purposes they really don't like the government intrusion into their affair so hopefully we'll get some amendments out of Congress on this legislation gentlemen over there briefly to follow up on your idea about diplomacy possibly ending the war in your example you gave about Ireland and to follow up on this gentleman's question how long will his terrorism go on the war on terrorism going I was monitoring the BBC on the 12th of September at that time a reporter from the Middle East had interviewed close contacts to Osama Bin Laden he had three demands for all terrorism against the United States demand one was to stop the one sided support of Israel demand two end the sanctions against Iraqi Iraq and demand three all U.S. businesses out of the Middle East three simple demands possibly had you heard about this I only heard this once on the BBC I never heard it again what do you think about this I don't trust Osama Bin Laden so he has those demands but I think and I and he is not a spokesperson for the Arab world and I think most Arab leaders would agree with that idea the idea of U.S. troops on Arab soil is a sensitivity that we have missed and if our national security requires it as it did in the Cold War I'm assuming that that's one situation the visibility of American troops on Arab soil is a provocative act not only to the Osama Bin Laden of the world but to others as well that's just a fact I don't suggest any policy as a result of it as to the support of Israel I think diplomacy is the order of the day to bring Mr. Sharon to Camp David Arafat if that's the right person and lock the door and they don't get out we are much more powerful than we think in that regard and they don't get out until they've agreed to something and then we make it then we make it happen so I really do believe now when you try to talk to people who know a lot more about this than I do they say it's difficult they're working on it you know they'd like to do it and all that but I again say that Clinton who in many ways is a very bright strong kind of person you may remember when he was going out of office when Bush was coming in he was still trying to settle the Israeli problem at least get a ceasefire right up to the 20th he knew he knew what was involved the reason he knew what was involved his people were fully aware of the dangers from Osama bin Laden there was a meeting I actually talked to the former ambassador to Afghanistan and he answered the phone and I asked him whether it was true that there was a meeting in Berlin of diplomats in late July of 2001 for the purpose of discussing the dangers of Afghanistan 6 plus 2 they called 6 countries that border Afghanistan plus Russia and the United States and there was indeed such a meeting he said and they discussed the problems there was a dispute about how strong the language was but basically it was a message to the Afghanis you either let us give you money and economics mostly there's a pipeline there that they've wanted through Afghanistan for years or we will bury you in bombs or we will this is America talking to Afghanistan in July there's no question that meeting happened that is I didn't read it from some left wing right wing book or something I didn't make it up this is coming from the ambassador so the diplomatic recognition the dependency on oil has been reduced since 1973 our panelists may remember the long lines of cars in 1973 our dependence on that has been reduced I read the other day from 45 to 35 percent our dependency on oil is a big part of this that's our problem in Saudi Arabia part of it we have to think about these things yes ma'am if you if you care to I mean you don't it's up to the individual a gentleman in the back has been very patient with the you got Mr. Bortani ready I like that way over there my question is for Ms. Hildreth and it has to do with resistance to the depotations of the patriot act on librarians and library patrons what would be effective as a method of resistance I would like a general answer if you have one for that but I would also like your specific comment on my own suggestion what if librarians in the United States generally through the ALA the SLA whatever all their organizations agreed or let's say 75 percent of them agreed I don't think that's outrageous but they were not going to comply now that's criminal but if they quit without notice as soon as they got instruction from the authorities to turn in the names of any of their patrons that's nothing that the authorities can do anything about and what if another library in that city hired them they're scot-free there's nothing the authorities can do about it and what if the library that hired them then had a surplus of one librarian who went to the first library let's get the answer for the woman who's going to go to jail on that one Susan would you like my card I'll have to Rosnan could really I could use his services I think that's a very valid question you know how far are you going to defend any of these issues I know that when we had our town hall meeting here in May a librarian was with us from Berkeley her name is Zoya Horn a very famous librarian who was working in an academic library during the Vietnam War and had materials subpoenaed and she absolutely refused and she did go to jail I have to be honest with you I'm not sure that I could get all my colleagues to be that dedicated to this cause of course I would recommend members of the public doing everything they can to advocate with their local legislators state and federal legislators and voice their concerns now here in the city of San Francisco the board of supervisors is considering legislation that would remove the authority or opportunity if you will for any department head to respond to any of these federal information act requests and all the requests would have to be funneled to the board of supervisors so in a sense and I think you know it's an interesting tact I think the legislation was introduced by supervisor McGoldrick who's very strongly concerned about the Patriot Act and in that way it would remove someone like myself a department head or one of our librarians from having to make that decision and move it into the higher realm now I don't know if other jurisdictions are looking at that but I do know in San Francisco that's a tact they're taking and I would you know I just like to say that I really appreciate your suggestion about us just saying no I don't know that we're there yet but we could get there yes you mentioned the survey responses or the ALA did or some groups of librarians query librarians across the nation 50 responded or at least one library with 50 responses it was a number of libraries up to 50 yeah did the survey ask if someone refused to answer or did they just ask no I think they just asked if you had been faced with a request from the USA Patriot Act from the survey I don't know if these people were identified but even if it was like identification what happens that if they refuse that something would happen right we can suggest that I don't understand what book it is that the library has that is going to help the terrorist no it's the internet well first of all we have many books and materials about bomb making and over the years they've always been challenged but I believe that the government is worried about the internet you know there's still a lot of information in books but we have we provide access to the internet every website you could possibly get at and that's what their interest seems to be focused on now luckily here at the San Francisco Public Library last summer yeah last summer before I'm sorry I'm going on here we installed an online sign-up system to our computers we didn't do this because of the Patriot Act we were planning to do it anyway but the result of that is that when you sign up for public use of a PC here you have a limited period of time a half an hour is your time slot when your time slot is finished then our online system automatically erases all the sites that you visited so we cannot provide to the government that information even if they asked us and we also instituted this online sign-up system which is also a private system and every day we dump the information of who signed up for what computer now many libraries don't have that level of sophistication on their PCs and they do hand sign-ups and you see these video images, media images of shredding of sign-up lists it's a very hot topic with the media when you talk about the role of the media when the media comes to us all they want to know is can we get a picture of you shredding sign-up lists I'm not kidding and we say we have an online system and we don't have that and we automatically get rid of all your names we have really good protection we don't care we just want a picture of shredding and then we say well you have to go to Santa Cruz if you want to get shredding ladies and gentlemen I think we've come to the end of our time please join me in thanking our panelists