Local Officials Rise Up to Defy The Patriot ActBy Evelyn Nieves
The Washington Post (website)
4/20/2003 ARCATA, Calif. — This North Coast city may look sweet -- old, low-to-the-ground
buildings, town square with a bronze statue of William McKinley, ambling pickup
trucks -- but it acts like a radical.
Arcata was one of the first cities to pass resolutions against global warming
and a unilateral war in Iraq. Last month, it joined the rising chorus of municipalities
to pass a resolution urging local law enforcement officials and others contacted
by federal officials to refuse requests under the Patriot Act that they believe
violate an individual's civil rights under the Constitution. Then, the city went
a step further.
This little city (pop.: 16,000) has become the first in the nation to pass an
ordinance that outlaws voluntary compliance with the Patriot Act.
"I call this a nonviolent, preemptive attack," said David Meserve, the freshman
City Council member who drafted the ordinance with the help of the Arcata city attorney,
city manager and police chief.
The Arcata ordinance may be the first, but it may not be the last. Across the
country, citizens have been forming Bill of Rights defense committees to fight what
they consider the most egregious curbs on liberties contained in the Patriot Act.
The 342-page act, passed by Congress one month after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist
attacks, with little input from a public still in shock, has been most publicly
criticized by librarians and bookstore owners for the provisions that force them
to secretly hand over information about a patron's reading and Internet habits.
But citizens groups are becoming increasingly organized and forceful in rebuking
the Patriot Act and the Homeland Security Act for giving the federal government
too much power, especially since a draft of the Justice Department's proposed sequel
to the Patriot Act (dubbed Patriot II) was publicly leaked in January.
Both the Patriot Act and the Homeland Security Act, which created the Cabinet-level
department, follow the Constitution, says Justice Department spokesman Mark Corallo.
Federal law trumps local law in any case, which would mean Arcata would be in for
a fight -- a fight it wants -- if the feds did make a Patriot Act request. LaRae
Quy, a spokeswoman for the San Francisco FBI office, whose jurisdiction includes
Arcata, said that the agency has no plans to use the Patriot Act in Arcata any time
soon, but added that people misunderstood it. Although some people feel their privacy
rights are being infringed upon, she said, the agency still has to show "probable
cause for any actions we take."
But to date, 89 cities have passed resolutions condemning the Patriot Act, with
at least a dozen more in the works and a statewide resolution against the act close
to being passed in Hawaii.
"We want the local police to do what they were meant to do -- protect their citizens,"
said Nancy Talanian, co-director of the Bill of Rights Defense Committee in Florence,
Mass., which gives advice to citizens groups on how to draft their own resolution.
Although cities across the country passed antiwar resolutions before the attack
on Iraq with little notice from the administration, Talanian said that the anti-Patriot
Act resolutions are "not quite as symbolic" as those that passed against the war.
"Normally, the president and Congress don't pay that much attention when it comes
to waging war," she said. "But in the case of the Patriot Act, the federal government
can't really tell municipalities that you have to do the work that the INS or the
FBI wants you to do. The city can say, 'No, I'm sorry. We hire our police to protect
our citizens and we don't want our citizens pulled aside and thrown in jail without
probable cause.' "
In Hawaii, home to many Japanese Americans who vividly recall the Japanese internments
during World War II, Democratic state Rep. Roy Takumi introduced a resolution on
the Patriot Act as a way to raise debate, he said. Although the resolution may be
seen as symbolic, he said, "states have every right to consider the concerns of
the federal government and voice our opinions. If a number of states begin to pass
similar resolutions, then it raises the bar for Congress, making them realize our
concerns. I hope to see what we've done here plays a role in mobilizing people to
take action."
Lawmakers and lobbyists on both ends of the political spectrum are beginning
to sound more alarms about the antiterrorism act, which gave the government unprecedented
powers to spy on citizens. Rep. Bernard Sanders (I-Vt.) has introduced a bill, the
"Freedom to Read Protection Act" (H.R. 1157), that would restore the privacy protections
for library book borrowers and bookstore purchases. The bill has 73 co-sponsors.
Earlier this month, Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.), the chairman of
the House Judiciary Committee, and Rep. John Conyers Jr. (Mich.), the ranking Democrat,
asked the Justice Department for more information on the government's use of the
Patriot Act to track terrorists, questioning what "tangible things" the government
can subpoena in investigations of U.S. citizens.
Sensenbrenner and Conyers sent an 18-page letter to Attorney General John D.
Ashcroft, challenging the department's increased use of "national security letters"
requiring businesses to hand over electronic records on finances, telephone calls,
e-mails and other personal data.
They questioned the guidelines under which investigators can subpoena private
books, records, papers, documents and other items; asked whether the investigations
targeted only people identified as agents of a foreign power; and asked the attorney
general to "identify the specific authority relied on for issuing these letters."
The Justice Department said it is working on the request.
But citizens groups, worried about a timid Congress, are not waiting for their
elected officials to act before launching a campaign against the proposed sequel
to the Patriot Act, the "Domestic Security Enhancement Act." The Idaho Green Party
has begun the Paul Revere Project to stop Patriot Act II before it can be passed.
The proposed addendum to the Patriot Act, which the Justice Department has insisted
is only a draft of ideas, would enlarge many of the controversial provisions in
the first Patriot Act. It would give the government authority to wiretap an individual
and collect a person's DNA without court orders, detain people in secret and revoke
citizenship, among other powers.
The proposed sequel to the act has galvanized communities in a bottom-up, grass-roots
way, Talanian said. "Before a community votes on resolutions, they engage in forums
and petitioning to show the town council they want this. After, communities band
together and do things like visit the offices of their entire congressional delegations
and say our communities have these concerns and now we are asking you to help."
In Arcata, where forums drew little debate, the new law is an unqualified hit.
It passed by a vote of 4 to 1, but has what looks like near-unanimous approval from
residents.
Meserve, a weather-worn builder and contractor in his fifties who wears a ponytail
and flannel shirts, hasn't felt so popular since he won his council seat running
on the platform, "The Federal Government Has Gone Stark, Raving Mad."
"The ordinance went through so easily that we were surprised," he said. "We started
going up to people asking what they thought. They thought, 'great.' It's our citywide
form of nonviolent disobedience."
The fine for breaking the new law, which goes into effect May 2, is $57. It applies
only to the top nine managers of the city, telling them they have to refer any Patriot
Act request to the City Council. Close |