Hundreds Of Cities Say No to the Patriot Act

[ScottD]

Hundreds Of Cities Say
No To Patriot Act
By Kim Zetter
Wired News
6-7-4

Forget drug-free and nuclear-free zones. A growing grassroots movement seeks to make the United States a Patriot Act-free zone, one city at a time.

Or, at the very least, the people behind the movement hope to make their cities constitutional safe zones.

In the past two years, more than 300 cities and four states have passed resolutions calling on Congress to repeal or change parts of the USA Patriot Act that, activists say, violate constitutional rights such as free speech and freedom from unreasonable search and seizure.

Barring that, the resolutions declare that their communities will uphold the constitutional rights of their residents should federal law enforcement agents come knocking on the door of local authorities for assistance in tracking residents. This means local authorities will insist on complying with federal orders only in ways that do not violate constitutional rights. The resolutions are not binding, however, and do not affect the federal government's actions.

The national movement was launched in 2001 by the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, an organization led by activist Nancy Talanian. Talanian first lobbied her community -- Northhampton, Massachusetts, a town of 30,000 people -- to stand against the act in November 2001, when few people had heard about the legislation.

Talanian and fellow activists urged newspaper editors to write about the legislation and hosted a public forum attended by 400 people, including Northampton's mayor and chief of police. Word spread quickly to other communities, four of which passed their own resolutions before Northampton passed its declaration the following May.

Two years later, 322 municipalities and four states -- Alaska, Hawaii, Maine and Vermont -- have Patriot Act resolutions.

Congress passed the USA Patriot Act swiftly in October 2001, 45 days after the Sept. 11 attacks, easing restrictions on the government's ability to dig up personal information about citizens and non-citizens, and obtain wiretaps and search warrants. Only one senator, Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin), and 61 House of Representative members voted against the legislation.

Under the act, federal investigators can obtain individuals' library, financial, health and education records from cities while barring municipal workers from letting anyone know authorities have seized the documents. Officials can also monitor the activities of people who have not been identified as suspects and search a home or office without prior notice.

The municipal resolutions, crafted individually by each community, vary in language. They affirm, for the most part, that city employees aiding federal authorities in national security investigations will not violate the rights of people under investigation, such as monitoring political and religious gatherings where people are engaging in activities protected by the First Amendment.

Hawaii was the first to pass a statewide resolution, citing the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II as a motivating factor.

Talanian said fewer than five municipalities rejected resolutions brought before them. These included Boston and Petaluma, California, a small town north of San Francisco. Fairbanks, Alaska, did not pass it initially, but has since approved it.

Fred Hemmings, a Republican state senator in Hawaii who voted against a resolution passed in his state, called the resolution a political play by leftists bent on criticizing the government.

"There are constitutional zealots that somehow believe, especially in times of war, that some of our adversaries should be protected by rights given to us by the Constitution," he said. "But the people on the left are forgetting that we're fighting a war against a nationless enemy. It has to be fought on completely new terms."

He said although he has not read the Patriot Act in detail, he believes "it does provide for adequate judicial oversight of any intrusion into a person's personal life."

But Councilwoman Kathy Lantry from St. Paul, Minnesota, where a resolution passed 6-to-1, took issue with the interpretation that only liberals are behind the movement.

"There are many conservative councilors around the country who have stated emphatically that there are many portions of the Patriot Act that are in direct violation to the way that many of us thought we do things in America," she said. "It's an easy out to say it's just a liberal issue."

Talanian said the community movements, which act independently of her national group and draft their own resolutions, consist of coalitions of disparate groups, from conservative libertarians to liberal civil rights activists.

"It's been very nonpartisan," she said. "There have been mixtures of political parties, as well as peace and veterans groups and student and faculty groups, working together."

Although the resolutions don't carry official weight, the communities say they hope to send a message to Congress to change or repeal parts of the act.

"Resolutions are powerful in that a city council can tell employees in their jurisdiction how they will behave," said Talanian. "They can say we don't want law enforcement to engage in certain activities even if authorized by certain legislation."

Although the resolutions don't prevent federal agents from monitoring or arresting citizens on their own, Talanian said federal authorities would be less likely to pursue surveillance without probable cause, since they don't have the resources to pursue every person who interests them without the cooperation of local law enforcement.

"It might create some checks and balance by reason of logistics or budget priorities for the FBI," she said.

Councilwoman Lantry said no one should underestimate the power local communities can have over how the federal government does its work.

"Maybe one tiny little city council in St. Paul, Minnesota, isn't going to change the way this country does business, but as others join in that cause, it will give pause to those passing policy that perhaps they didn't think about, and need to think about, the negative impact (of the legislation)," she said. "That idea -- that because we can't have a direct impact we shouldn't say anything -- is not the way our country works."

Talanian said the community groups don't oppose all of the Patriot Act's provisions. "We're not saying the entire Patriot Act should be repealed but that certain sections need to be debated to make sure people's rights are being protected."

She pointed to the recent case involving Oregon lawyer Brandon Mayfield, who was arrested by the FBI after it mistakenly matched Mayfield's fingerprint to one found on a bag related to the train bombing in Madrid.

"Brandon Mayfield illustrates what can happen if there are laws that are so elastic that they allow people to be picked up and detained and have their houses searched and their careers harmed using ways that are not effective for catching terrorists," Talanian said.

Some provisions of the Patriot Act will expire in December 2005. But the Bush administration and congressional allies have been pushing aggressively to get Congress to null the expiration clause. In January, President Bush called on Congress to renew the Patriot Act in his State of the Union address. He has been urging the same in stump speeches on his campaign trail.

Attorney General John Ashcroft has said repealing or changing the Patriot Act would hamper the government's ability to catch terrorists and protect the public.

But the government may be getting the message that citizens are unhappy with the legislation. In March, Chuck Rosenberg, chief of staff to James Comey, the second-highest official in the Justice Department, told a reporter in St. Louis, Missouri, "We're losing this fight."

Talanian said it's important for people to understand that they, not just Congress, can and should participate in debates about national security and legislation that will likely be around a long time.

"Hopefully, the more communities pass resolutions, (the more it) will help change the laws and make people more aware of what their rights are and the importance of protecting them in the future, so that a Patriot Act in a few years couldn't be passed quietly without being read," she said.

TG

[jerry]

Yup,
Let everyone pack and put the terrorist faces on the back of milk cartons. The P act albeit good intentions sux.

[Rufus Rhastus J]

Yup, guess I'm not the only nut around.

You're not the nut, John Ashcroft is. Does it bother anyone that he lost a senate race against a dead guy.

[BattleRifleG3]

Well it would make sense that dead people would vote for one of their own.

[ScottD]

Unless your from Chicago where the dead do vote. The old saying here is, "Get out and vote and vote often." It's so crooked here. Otherwise we would've had Daley out years ago.

[Rufus Rhastus J]

Originally Posted by Mr. Kaneko

You're not the nut, John Ashcroft is. Does it bother anyone that he lost a senate race against a dead guy.

If the dems don't want someone, well, he's/she's the one we want! So, I hoped, and prayed, for his approval....he seemed okay. Older, religous, repub and like that. Boy! What a surprise! How could I have ever know he was a megla-maniac! Bent on world domination and the total distruction of the Constitution and the bill of rights! Who would have guessed? The really sad part is that the rest of the elite ones love it! Especially the dems. They have longed for just that...the end of the bill of rights. Now, that the fourth has been gutted and, the first is pretty well gutted, there is only the second amendment which keeps them awake at night. As I have stated before, there is nothing patriotic about the patriot act. Those envolved with the patriot act should be tryed and executed for treason.

[SPOCAHP ANAR]

Originally Posted by Mr. Kaneko

You're not the nut, John Ashcroft is. Does it bother anyone that he lost a senate race against a dead guy.

He didn't lose to a dead guy he lost to a sensationalized media hype. That is one thing I can say I certainly have disdain for in this society is our need to bandwagon every mundane issue if for some reason the person happens to be famous. I mean this Reagan thing has gone off the deep end. I loved Reagan but the man isn't even cold yet and everyone is trying to put his face on every printable surface imaginable. I have even heard of adding him to Mt. Rushmore.

[Mandy]

:assult: :assult: :assult: :assult: :assult:

I'm not a criminal, don't behave like one, pay my taxes, work every day to pay my bills!!
I don't need big brother snooping in my private life just because they feel like it.
That P-act is a paranoid response to a deeper problem, let the law abiding citizens pack heat every where and protect themselves from the terrorists and criminals!! Hell, we can help the police in a situation!!

That bill is another atempt to erode our liberties slowly, It looks more like a liberal bill to me, just like the antigun agenda!!

How many terrorists have been arrested from the use of this act?

:uzi: :uzi: :uzi: :uzi: :uzi:

[Rufus Rhastus J]

Mandy, have you forgotten? There are many on this forum who are more than willing to sing the praises of the PA! Sad, they don't see the real picture. And, even worse, I doubt if anyone here will argue, a freedom lost is one that will never be regained. Let's see if even one infringement on the fourth amendment is returned! The gumint just cannot be trusted to do the right thing. History is the best witness to my last charge, as well as, recent events...some mentioned in the article.

[Mandy]

:assult: :assult: :assult: :assult: :assult:

My question still stands, how many terrorist have been arrested due to the use of this so called P-Act?
Does the number of arrests, if any, justify the lost of privacy and money spent in upholding this Act?

:uzi: :uzi: :uzi: :uzi: :uzi:

[Rufus Rhastus J]

Your question is one I can't answer. The gumint will probably say they have been alerted to many terrorists. I will imagine that is true. But, my concern is why these people are not deported, assuming they can be found. Moreover, why are they here in the first place. Though there are those, high upon thier high horses, who condem my suggestions which were to deport all of that persuasion who are not citizens and not allow them back until they can prove they are no problem, at thier own expense, of course. Yes, I guess this is harsh but, let's face it, Greeks, spanish, cuban and the rest are not the problem of which we speak. Those from the sand box are the problem. Let's deal with them, primarilly and leave Americans alone. i guess my ideas are too simple for most folk but, as stated before, if it walks like a duck....

We missed the boat on this thing.
Remember, one man's "terrorist" is another man's "freedom fighter".

[Rufus Rhastus J]

Mr. K, you are correct....I said something like that concerning Tim McVeigh [sp.?]. But, for practical puposes, speaking about America, never mind the politics, these people, from the sand box, are not freedom fighters! For they are causing us to lose freedoms. But, i guess, from thier point of view, yes, freedom fighters. All the more reason to send them packing! No more Mr. Nice Guy!

[Shaun]

see my signature line

[Rufus Rhastus J]

Yes, agreed!

Thank you Bush Administration! I wasn't using my civil liberties anyways...

[Despoiler]

I have been ignorant of the patriot act, till recently I had not read the act. I have asked some on this forum if they would let me what they found so distasteful about it. Since no one responded I researched it myself.

Well, the Patriot Act passed in Congress after Sept. 11. Nearly fours years later there are 152 communities, including several major cities and three states, that have now passed resolutions denouncing the Patriot Act as an assault on civil liberties. More than one member of Congress has introduced legislation taking the teeth out of it. Last July the "Otter Amendment" which removed the funds for the act's "sneak-and-peek" provision passed in the House. Introduced by a congressman from Idaho, C.L. "Butch" Otter ( R ). Then there are the lawsuits. One filed recently by the ACLU, asking the court to “invalidate provisions of the act that threaten privacy or due process”.

On the other hand, there's the John Ashcroft, Ashcroft says that, had the Patriot Act been in place earlier, 9/11 wouldn't have happened and that without the Patriot Act, the country may have seen more 9/11s over the past two years. Making the point that the act has prevented acts of terror while maintaining that it made only minor changes to the existing laws. Part of the reason for all the new activity is that some of the really great bits of the act are set to sunset in 2005, and some Republican senators are planning to introduce legislation to repeal the sunset provisions altogether.

While some portions of the Patriot Act are truly scary, others are minor. Parts of the act regulate government conduct that was unregulated, like allowing the FBI and the CIA to share information. Other parts increase the government’s powers and allow it to spy on us, the people. A violation of the Fourth Amendment. But what is the scariest is the lack of government in describing how it’s being implemented. Requests have been half-answered; questions from the judiciary committee are blown off or classified. In the absence of any knowledge about how the act has been used, someone isn't wrong to fear it or to worry about its potential, since that is all we can know.

The ACLU, in a new “fact sheet” challenging the DOJ Web site, wants you to believe that the act threatens our most basic civil liberties. Ashcroft calls the changes in law "modest and incremental." Since almost nobody has read the legislation, much of what we think we know about it comes from third-hand and spin. Both sides are guilty of lying in some instances. So I would recommend to you read it.

The Patriot Act DOES give the FBI power to conduct warrant less records searches, on people who are not terror suspects, with no oversight. This is the main reason that I have come to the conclusion the Patriot Act must go!

[Rufus Rhastus J]

Frightning, for sure! Imagine, a citizen held for ever...no lawyers or anything. It's just plain unAmerican! Non-citizens, with good reason, that's another story. But, Americans...absolutly NO!

[Mandy]

:assult: :assult: :assult: :assult: :assult:

Very good post AllenT, I agree!!

:nod: :nod: :nod: :nod: :nod: