The Federal Government has gone stark raving mad!
I thought this was a great article on what one small town is doing to tell
the feds they're nuts. Personally I'm not a big fan of the patriot act, or any
legislation which attempts to erode our constitutional rights under the false
pretense of national security.
From: http://www.msnbc.com/news/902977.asp?0cv=CB20
Local officials defy the Patriot Act
Small towns say some federal measures would violate rights
By Evelyn Nieves
THE WASHINGTON POST
ARCATA, Calif., April 21
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.
On the homefront
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.
LOOKING FOR A FIGHT
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."
"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.
NOT MERELY SYMBOLIC
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."
SOUNDING ALARMS
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.
GRASSROOTS MOVEMENT
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.
© 2003 The Washington Post Company
Posted at: 14:06 on 22/04/2003
[ /essays ]
#
Older articles (2024):