At the George School Meetinghouse on Oct. 17, citizens congregated to discuss the recent Patriot Act and it’s various issues. The basis of the George School Patriot Act Meeting was to identify and discuss problems and misunderstandings citizens might have with the new law.

The meeting was held and moderated by David A. Smith, who introduced three speakers that night. Two of the three speakers were Janet Orouke, a librarian, and Professor Jan Ting.

The meeting was held to voice and hear various opinions and questions about the controversial act passed by congress on October 26, 2001.

The first speaker, Professor Jan Ting gave a positive speech on the patriot act and the reasons for its enactment.

“95 percent of the Patriot Act isn’t controversial,” Ting said in defense of widespread criticism of the patriot act’s policies.

“The constitution says nothing about a citizen’s absolute right to privacy.”

Janet Orouke had some concerns about the ramifications of the Patriot act, however. She says that most libraries like hers are concerned over sections 215 and 216 of the Patriot act’s specifications on citizen’s library review. These sections state that a person who is being monitored by the FBI for suspected terrorist activities won’t be issued a notification in the way of a warrant or subpoena. Which she says worries many librarians who follow a solid idea that was officially stated in the 1930’s that citizens have the right of choice to read what they please without repercussions or suspicion.

“In the unlikely event that we are served with a subpoena or warrant… we are still developing procedures to handle it.”

She also touched briefly on the Freedom to Read Act, still in progress to alter some details of sections 215 and 216 of the Patriot Act.

The third speaker had a much broader criticism of the Patriot Act itself. He noted that in the process of signing the Patriot Act when it was a bill in the house, no public hearing or congressional notes were given when representatives were debating it’s passing into a law.

He also cited section 216 of the act, which covered Internet monitoring. This section brought into existence the Carnivore Program, a federal snooping tool, which some congressmen are moving to make permanent.

Also notable in the third speaker’s speech was section 411. Section 411 roughly states that Attorney General John Aschroft himself can declare any foreign group to be a terrorist organization, a subject which is defended by some who claim it was already a procedure before this administration used to cut subsidies to the IRA, PLO or other known terrorist groups.

Similarly section 412 states that Aschroft can detain any individual he decides to be guilty of an immigration crime. The third speaker says that big business is usually always in favor of open immigration and would help boost the overall American market. What impact, he argues, might this section have on an already faltering economy?

Questions were open for discussion following the three speeches given, varying from the causes of 9/11 to a woman being charged with terrorist threats for joking about hurting her contractor. The three guest speakers answered as much as they could before time ran out at nine o’clock. There were many more questions waiting to be answered after the meeting concluded.

Unlike most township meetings, the George School Patriot Act Meeting focused on a nationwide issue that seems to concern all Americans, though no suggestions for further conferences have been made.