Opposition to Patriot Act grows resolute
Towns, cities, states record concerns 
By Toby Eckert 
COPLEY NEWS SERVICE
July 21, 2003

WASHINGTON – Some folks in North Pole, Alaska, don't think much 
of the USA Patriot Act. Ditto for Baltimore, Denver, Detroit and 
Tehama County. They are among a growing number of jurisdictions 
nationwide that have passed resolutions criticizing the federal 
law, in whole or part, as a threat to civil liberties. The law 
was approved after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to give 
the federal government broader surveillance and law enforcement 
powers.

While the local government resolutions are nonbinding, some of 
them advise police departments not to participate in certain 
federal law enforcement activities and direct public libraries to 
post warnings to patrons about possible surveillance of their 
reading habits.

What started as a protest movement concentrated in liberal 
college towns has spread to more than 130 cities and counties – 
some of them traditioonally quite conservative – in 26 states, 
according to the American CCivil Liberties Union, which has 
encouraged and helped organize the protests. Three states – 
Alaska, Hawaii and Vermont – have also passessed resolutions.

A group in San Diego is trying to build support for a city 
resolution that would declare that free speech, access to legal 
counsel and an array of other rights "are now threatened by the 
USA Patriot Act."

The Los Angeles Board of Library Commissioners recently asked the 
Los Angeles City Council to take a stand against portions of the 
law.

In California, more than 30 cities and counties, from San 
Francisco to Santa Monica, have passed such resolutions.

"This is part of what amounts to rebellion at the local level 
against the Patriot Act," said Damon Moglen, national field 
coordinator for the ACLU. "This needs to be seen as a growing 
grass-roots effort."

The Justice Department has played down the significance of the 
resolutions, saying they represent a small minority of Americans 
and are based on a misunderstanding of the law.

"I think it's a lot of political posturing," said Mark Corallo, a 
department spokesman. "And I also think it's misleading. . . . 
The overwhelming majority of Americans understand that the 
Patriot Act protects them from terrorism and protects civil 
liberties."

Many, however, question whether increased security is coming at 
too high a price.

"The law is so broad that somebody with less than honorable 
procedures could stretch it," said Alaska state Rep. John 
Coghill, a Republican who co-sponsored that state's toughly 
worded resolution. "We were saying, 'Caution, folks. We don't 
want protection against terrorists at the expense of our personal 
liberties.' "

Approved by Congress with little opposition six weeks after the 
Sept. 11 attacks, the Patriot Act gave law enforcement agencies 
several powers that lawmakers had long been reluctant to allow. 
Some of the most controversial provisions allow the indefinite 
detention of noncitizens who are deemed threats to national 
security, secret searches before a suspect is served with a 
warrant and broader wiretap and Internet surveillance authority.

One section of the law that has prompted particular concern 
allows the FBI to seek confidential court orders "requiring the 
production of any tangible things (including books, records, 
papers, documents, and other items)" for terrorism and 
intelligence probes. Libraries and bookstores say the provision 
allows snooping into their patrons' reading and Internet habits.

Many of the anti-Patriot Act resolutions direct libraries to post 
prominent warnings about the law. Some libraries, including 
several in California, have started routinely shredding paper 
records and erasing Internet logs.

Tom Phillips, a city councilman in Greensboro, N.C., who 
sponsored that community's resolution on the Patriot Act, called 
the search and surveillance powers "a little extreme."

"They really ought to take a hard look at it and see if some of 
these things need to be modified," said Phillips, a Republican.

Corallo said opponents of the law are overstating its reach and 
ignoring the fact that many of the surveillance powers are 
subject to judicial review and First Amendment limitations.

"The idea that the FBI can unilaterally get people's library 
records and tap people's phones is a flat-out lie," he said.

The wording of the resolutions varies widely. Some, like Tehama 
County's, don't mention the Patriot Act directly, but extol the 
virtues of the Constitution and advise public officials to be on 
guard against actions that erode civil liberties.

Others, including those in Baltimore, Denver and Detroit, advise 
their police departments not to enforce federal immigration laws 
or monitor the activities of groups and individuals unless there 
is reasonable cause to suspect they are involved in criminal 
behavior.

The proposed San Diego resolution wouldn't go that far. But it 
would require the police department and libraries to make 
quarterly reports to the City Council about requests for 
information under the Patriot Act. It would also direct the city 
manager to seek data from federal authorities about anti-
terrorism efforts in the city, including the extent of 
surveillance and the disposition of anyone arrested.

"The resolution doesn't say repeal the Patriot Act. Mainly it 
says we want accountability," said Kate Yavenditti, a lawyer and 
an organizer of the local effort. "We haven't approached the City 
Council yet. We're in the beginning stages. What we're trying to 
do is build a grass-roots movement so that we can bring the voice 
of the community to the City Council."

With federal officials stressing the importance of local 
cooperation in the war on terrorism, the resolutions have alarmed 
some law enforcement officials.

After the Denver City Council passed its resolution, the police 
union in that city issued a statement saying, "To attempt to 
hamstring the police from attempting to find out who is involved 
in the various causes and possibly not respond appropriately to 
these activities is wrong and maybe irresponsible."

The Justice Department's Corallo said the resolutions "have no 
practical effect because this is federal law."

Even if the statements are largely symbolic, local officials 
involved in the effort say it is important to let federal 
officials know that there are strong misgivings about the Patriot 
Act, especially after a Justice Department draft of a second, 
tougher version of the law surfaced early this year.

"I have to admit, I went back and forth about whether this was a 
shallow display," said Tehama County Supervisor Barbara McIver, a 
Democrat. "I realized it was not. I think the lack of discussion 
and participation by citizens at this time is alarming. It (the 
resolution) was absolutely useful. It got people talking."

Source:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/uniontrib/mon/news/news_1n21pa
triot.html