(May 2003). Taken together, all of these reports document policies that underlie this local discontent with the state of liberty today. I urge members of communities interested in passing their own resolutions to contact the nearest ACLU affiliate, or to visit our Web site (www.aclu.org/resolutions), for sample resolutions and strategies for getting them passed. Every resolution sends a message to the President, Justice Department and Congress that we can be both safe and free. The growing resistance to intrusive government policies is a reminder that Americans remain committed to liberty and democracy. What was true in 1776 remains true today; Americans will not tolerate infringements on our core freedoms Laura W Murphy, Director ACLU Washington Legislative Office HOW IT ALL STARTED... A week after the September 11 terrorist attacks, Attorney General Ashcroft submitted to Congress a package of legislative proposals ostensibly designed to combat terrorism in the United States. Formulated by the Department of Justice in part from proposals previously rejected by Congress, the package came with an ominous warning: pass these quickly because we need these new powers immediately to prevent other attacks. To win quick passage for the bill, which was to become known as the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 or the USA PATRIOT Act -- Attorney General Ashcroft and the Bush Administration told Congress that if it didn't rush the bill through immediately any further loss of life would be on lawmakers' hands. The Attorney General demanded that his bill be passed in less than a week, a speed unheard of in the deliberative world of congressional legislating 4 When lawmakers demurred, hoping to draft and pass more reasonable legislation than the wishlist bill the White House was trying to force into law, Ashcroft upped the pressure, using public speeches, phone calls, personal meetings and intensive lobbying on Capitol Hill. According to congressional aides, the Attorney General encouraged an atmosphere of hysteria, insisting that without this bill, new catastrophic attacks were a virtual certainty." In the end the Administration prevailed, and Congress passed the 342-page bill on October 26, 2001 with little debate and a precious few dissenting votes (66 in the House of Representatives and one in the Senate). Most Members of Congress did not even have a chance to read the bill, the final version of which was only made available to lawmakers in the House mere hours before they had to vote on it. As it was signed into law by the President, the USA PATRIOT Act includes a hodgepodge of expanded surveillance and law enforcement powers, many of which had actually been collecting dust at the Justice Department after having been rejected previously by Congress because of privacy or civil liberties concerns. Under the PATRIOT Act, the judiciary's role in serving as a check on certain executive branch powers was minimized, curtailing judicial oversight over wiretapping and other investigative techniques. The PATRIOT Act facilitated government secrecy while dramatically rolling back Americans' privacy rights. The Attorney General was given broad new powers to detain noncitizens and other provisions expanded the definition of “domestic terrorism,” so that it could potentially encompass domestic groups such as Greenpeace, Operation Rescue, PETA and World Trade Organization protesters. It imposes severe new criminal penalties for certain types of unlawful protest Groups on the political right and left were quick to point out those provisions of the PATRIOT Act violated basic constitutional freedoms of speech, free assembly and due process. Initially, those voices went unheeded. Yet, as national concern over these implications began to grow in intensity, the latest chapter in American political protest began to write itself. Gail Gibson and Thomas Healy, "Broad anti-terror measures sought," Baltimore Sun, 09/18/2001 "PATRIOT" UNPATRIOTIC? Controversial provisions in the PATRIOT Act include one that expanded the power of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court, which meets in secret, does not ordinarily publish its decisions and only allows the government to appear before it. With passage of the bill, Congress also granted its approval for "sneak and peek" warrants, which allow federal agents to enter private homes without notifying the owner until much later. Congress also weakened the standards for intelligence wiretaps, permitting them to be used for criminal investigations so long as a "significant purpose" of the surveillance is foreign intelligence. Given the vagueness of the term "significant," the potential for abuse is obvious. Under the highly controversial Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, the FBI was also granted access to highly personal "business records" - including financial, medical, mental health, library and student records -- with no meaningful judicial oversight. In other words, federal officials actually can obtain a court order for records of the books you borrow from libraries or buy from bookstores, without showing probable cause of criminal activity or intent - and the librarian or bookseller cannot even tell you that the government is investigating what you read. The only standard for obtaining these records is that the FBI must deem them "relevant to an ongoing investigation,” after which a judge must issue the court order to seize them. And, under new information sharing provisions, the agency can provide these and other records - without adequate safeguards to prevent their harmful dissemination - to other law enforcement and intelligence agencies, including the State Department and the CIA. The White House's disregard for civil liberties continued after Congress passed the PATRIOT Act, as the Administration launched a flurry of executive orders, regulations, policies and new practices that, while of questionable practical use, run counter to basic American freedoms and undermine checks and balances enshrined in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights specifically to protect against potential government abuse. Under one executive order, the government was permitted to monitor communications between people held in federal prisons-whether they are guilty or innocent-federal detainees and their lawyers, undermining the long-respected privacy of attorney-client privilege and threatening the constitutional right to effective counsel.' Another presidential order paved the way for removing the right to a fair trial for citizens and non-citizens by labeling them “enemy combatants" or having them tried in front of secret military tribunals based solely on secret information and at the behest of the President or Secretary of Defense. Nor do these new tribunals adhere to the principles of justice in the traditional courts, including martial courts to which American soldiers are subject, but instead follow rules that fail to meet even minimal international standards. 8 Since its passage, average Americans, in communities across the country, are steadily gaining an appreciation for the threats to civil liberties in the USA PATRIOT Act and other new policies approved by Congress and the Administration. And in the grandest of American traditions, they are not standing idly by---they are organizing, speaking up and making their voices heard Their response and that of their elected representatives and community leaders sends a resounding message to the White House, Department of Justice and Congress that our safety need not come at the expense of the freedoms that make this country great. The main thrust of this popular backlash is the passage of community resolutions that, taken together, sound a resounding note of protest against the government's seeming inability to prosecute the "war on terrorism" in a way that makes us both safe and free. One after another, these communities - from tiny Crestone, CO (with a population of only 73), to large cities like Seattle and Detroit, to entire states like Alaska, Vermont and Hawaii - are passing ordinances and resolutions expressing their opposition to the PATRIOT Act and their fundamental disagreement with intrusive, post-9/11 federal policies. A MOVEMENT GROWS While communities as diverse as Beaverhead County, MT, Albany, NY and Orange County, NC have called on their federal representatives to repeal sections of the USA PATRIOT Act and related policies of the federal government, many others have also taken matters into their own hands, opposing troubling federal measures and explicitly adopting a different policy with respect to their own communities. For example, responding to federal dragnets in the aftermath of 9/11 in which hundreds of innocent people were rounded up largely because of their color, religion or national origin, 66 Fed. Reg. 55062 (October 31, 2001) * 66 Fcd Rcg 57831 (November 16, 2001) communities like Carrboro, NC, Hartford, CT and Fairfax, CA passed resolutions calling upon their police not to engage in racial profiling. Other communities, including Rio Arriba County, NM, Detroit, MI and Takoma Park, MD, wanting to ensure that the “war on terrorism” does not become a war on immigrants, instructed local police to "refrain from participating in the enforcement of federal immigration laws.” Reports of FBI spying on religious or political activities without indication of criminal activity has led communities like Baltimore, MD, New Haven, CT and Berkeley, CA to pass resolutions that direct local police not to participate in investigations involving activities protected by the First Amendment. And across the country -- from Minneapolis, MN to Alachua County, FL -- communities have protested against secret arrests, detentions, wiretaps and document seizures by instructing local officials to demand that federal authorities reveal details of these intrusive actions. The USA PATRIOT Act does not require local law enforcement to follow the federal government's bad example by engaging in abuse. Local municipalities have the legal right not to participate in joint federal, state and local terrorism task forces, not to enforce federal immigration law, which requires detailed legal training before it can be fairly enforced, and not to engage in racial profiling. They also have a right not to participate in any investigation, detention or surveillance unless it is based on individualized suspicion of criminal activity. What we are seeing is a sweeping national movement in which localities are choosing to respect their citizens civil rights even if the federal government will not. Local municipalities are passing these resolutions both to protect the civil liberties of local residents and to pressure federal legislators to roll back intrusive sections of the PATRIOT Act. ALL ROADS LEAD BACK TO...ANN ARBOR How did this grassroots movement against federal authority begin? Shortly after 9/11, many people were cautiously supportive of the PATRIOT Act and disinclined to overtly criticize the Bush Administration. But, as time went by, questions started to emerge that perhaps Congress and the White House had taken away too many of our civil liberties in implementing new national security policies. On January 7, 2002, the city of Ann Arbor, Michigan, became the movement (n.) moov ment. a. A 9 Text of Ann Arbor, MI Resolution. http://www.aclu.org/SafcandFree/SafcandFree.cfm?ID=11286&c=207 |