Local Officials Rise Up to Defy The Patriot Act 
by Evelyn Nieves
Washington Post

Sunday 20 April 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.  

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is 
distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest 
in receiving the included information for research and educational 
purposes.)  


(c) : t r u t h o u t 2003

                         -==-

Source: Truthout - http://truthout.org/docs_03/042303C.shtml

Cheers, Steve..

---