At the 2004 Annual Conference in Orlando, Florida, ALA, the same organization that could not speak out against Cuba and the abuse of actual librarians in Cuba, chose to speak out against the United States, in a time of war, over mythical policies that have no basis in fact. The entire conference was meant to be a political rally with wall-to-wall anti-war, anti-Bush, and with this resolution as example, anti-America.
There is no excuse for this resolution. As librarians we can debate many issues that affect our profession and I am always willing to do so. This act is indefensible and those who voted for it did so in a nihilistic fashion. Not looking to enhance our work but to forward their own personal agendas these individuals threw mud on our profession and on the only nation that provides them with the almost unlimited freedoms they cry so much about.
If you know any of these people feel free to ask them (nicely) what they had in mind when giving a 'yes' vote to this abomination. In fact if any of you on this list would like to try please email me and I will post at the bottom without any comments from myself. No doubt someone will try to defend, but again, its indefensible.
| RESOLUTION AGAINST THE USE OF TORTURE AS A VIOLATION
OF THE AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION'S BASIC VALUES June 30, 2004 Whereas ALA is among the preeminent defenders of intellectual freedom and government openness in the US. Whereas intellectual freedom, our primary value as librarians, cannot be more seriously violated than by forcing speech or enforcing silence through systematic violence by government against detained individuals. Whereas the US government has proven its readiness to use torture (as well as hooding, shackling, drugging, sleep deprivation, etc.) in the interrogation of suspected terrorists or their suspected accomplices in its anti-terrorist legislation Whereas the use of torture and coercive interrogative practices is inhumane, illegal and destructive of the democratic sensibilities of a free society, the cultivation of which we as an Association and as a profession are committed. Whereas the secrecy which attends the use of torture violates our commitment to open government and the necessity of true and accurate information of our government's actions Whereas the violence of torture violates our commitment to the rule of law as a protector of the integrity and dignity of the human person Whereas the barbarity of torture fundamentally violates our commitment to the preservation of the human spirit and Whereas the threat of torture of the use of torture and similar practices of coercing testimony, confessions, information is, universally condemned under international law [e.g the Geneva Convention, Articles 3 and 31 and by the Univeral Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, Article 5 ] and (a)the Fourth Amendment's right to be free of unreasonable search or seizure (which encompasses the right not be abused by the police) (b)the Fifth Amendment's right against self-incrimination (which encompasses the right to remain silent during interrogations), (c)the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments' guarantees of due process (ensuring fundamental fairness in criminal justice system), and (d)the Eighth Amendment's right to be free of cruel or unusual punishment], Be it resolved that the ALA condemns the use or threat of torture by the US government as a barbarous violation of human rights, intellectual freedom, and the rule of law. The ALA decries--along with condemnation of the practice of torture anywhere--the suggestion by the US government that under a 'state of emergency' in this country or declared by this country torture is an acceptable tool in pursuit of its goals. submitted by Mark C. Rosenzweig, ALA Councilor at large second Al Kagan, SRRT Councilor |
Those Who Voted Yes 01. Acerra, Elizabeth |
I must say that finding myself on the Twit List made me feel sort of outlawish and notorious, which is not necessarily a bad thing, since I have a pretty boring life. I also saw your open invite to explain myself.
I went into that Council session pretty much determined to not vote in favor of the resolution, or for the resolution condemning the war. I get impatient with seeing real bread and butter library issues get less attention than I think they deserve. It doesn't mean I don't agree with a great deal of the larger political issues that are brought before council. I just question whether or not they are appropriate for ALA to discuss. I did not support the resolution against the war. Despite eloquent argument and my own personal feelings, I could not be convinced that it was, as *I see it, a library issue. I was, however, swayed by arguments I heard illustrating how torture is a library issue. I'm sure you've read plenty about it, but I'll give you my perceptions. Torture is the ultimate form of censorship. Torture is used by governments, renegades, and organized crime to silence people and suppress information by instilling fear. That's it, basically. Honestly, I would much rather have spent my Council time talking about and hearing discussion about issues that affect the daily operation of American libraries--closures, budget cuts, literacy, salaries, etc. But, the resolution was active, it was being discussed, and I was swayed by what I heard as compelling argument.
Rochelle Hartman
Twit