(This is partially a response to Property v. ideas, too, which you link to.)

You should read this post by Stephen Green. "Ashcroft 1, Straw Man 0." Read the comments after the entry, too, they score some good points.

About the Goldberg article - I think Goldberg's article is wrong on some points. First, just because they haven't used sec. 215 doesn't mean they won't. Second, as you point out, just because it doesn't specifically mention libraries doesn't rule them out.

I think you emphasized the wrong phrase, though.

The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or a designee of the Director (whose rank shall be no lower than Assistant Special Agent in Charge) may make an application for an order requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution.

Section 215 is actually an amendment to the Foriegn Intelligence Surviellence Act. Here is section 215 in full.

`(2) An investigation conducted under this section shall--

`(A) be conducted under guidelines approved by the Attorney General under Executive Order 12333 (or a successor order); and
`(B) not be conducted of a United States person solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
`(b) Each application under this section--

`(1) shall be made to--
`(A) a judge of the court established by section 103(a); or
`(B) a United States Magistrate Judge under chapter 43 of title 28, United States Code, who is publicly designated by the Chief Justice of the United States to have the power to hear applications and grant orders for the production of tangible things under this section on behalf of a judge of that court; and
`(2) shall specify that the records concerned are sought for an authorized investigation conducted in accordance with subsection (a)(2) to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.
`(c)(1) Upon an application made pursuant to this section, the judge shall enter an ex parte order as requested, or as modified, approving the release of records if the judge finds that the application meets the requirements of this section.

`(2) An order under this subsection shall not disclose that it is issued for purposes of an investigation described in subsection (a).

`(d) No person shall disclose to any other person (other than those persons necessary to produce the tangible things under this section) that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained tangible things under this section.

`(e) A person who, in good faith, produces tangible things under an order pursuant to this section shall not be liable to any other person for such production. Such production shall not be deemed to constitute a waiver of any privilege in any other proceeding or context.

Going back to some comments from the VodkaPundit post: This is in fact an expansion of subpoena power. Subpoena power is already used this way in business investigations and RICO investigations. Section 215 does not allow trolling searches - it must be specific. They can't, for example, demand to see the name of everyone who checked out X book in the libraray. They can't start an investigation this way. This must be already ongoing.

However, the Patriot Act allows them to get this stuff through the FISA court. Mom said:

Why Mr. Ashcroft would think that judges are blabbermouths that can't be trusted to uphold their oaths of office is beyond me

This isn't just about judges. (d) No person shall disclose to any other person (other than those persons necessary to produce the tangible things under this section) that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained tangible things under this section.

Nobody can say anything, nobody.

And this:

John Ashcroft (for whom my wife works)

Someone's dissin' his wife by suggesting she works for someone who's not nice!

I'm not sure if Goldberg's wife comes in daily contact with Ashcroft. I doubt it. A large number of people work for Ashcroft - anyone who works for the DoJ works for Ashcroft. I think Goldberg mentions it in the interests of full disclosure.

As for my view - this section of the Patriot Act is an expansion of government power. I don't particulary agree with the government's use of subpoena power in other instances, and I don't agree withit here.

However, if a terrorist suspect is checking out chemistry books from the local library, I think the government ought to be able to find out. I would prefer, however, if the government sought secret warrants.

Additionally, the executive reports to congress on this:

SEC. 502. CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT.
`(a) On a semiannual basis, the Attorney General shall fully inform the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate concerning all requests for the production of tangible things under section 402.

`(b) On a semiannual basis, the Attorney General shall provide to the Committees on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Senate a report setting forth with respect to the preceding 6-month period--

`(1) the total number of applications made for orders approving requests for the production of tangible things under section 402; and
`(2) the total number of such orders either granted, modified, or denied.'.

As I said above, I wish it was warrants, not subpeonas. That makes me uneasy. But the act sunsets in a few years. And the Patriot Act, in this section anyway, is much more restrictive on what the govevernment may do than is widely acknowledged.

This is (barely) acceptable.