"We're very concerned about civil rights and about the potential discrimination," City Councilwoman Heidi Herrell told ABC News. "We spent a lot of time since September 11 making sure that the Muslim members of our community felt safe' 1510 The very next city to pass a resolution was Denver, CO, which, unlike Ann Arbor, is not normally considered a “liberal college town." Its resolution drive came after the ACLU of Colorado discovered that before 9/11, Denver police had collected 3,400 secret files on protestors over a period of several years. Most of the subjects of these secret dossiers were actually peaceful social activists who had never been in trouble with the law. In one case, the Denver police department actually labeled a venerable Quaker organization and a 73-year-old nun "criminal extremists. 11 Significantly, the resolution states that the Denver police should not gather information on individuals' First Amendment activities unless the information relates to criminal activity and the subject is suspected of criminal activity.12 "We were concerned about the abridgement of free speech because of national security concerns," said Councilwoman Kathleen MacKenzie. "As awful as we felt about September 11 and as concerned as we were about national safety, we felt that giving up the right to dissent was too high a price to pay." The next community to resist the PATRIOT Act and the new Administration policies was Amherst, MA. On April 24, 2002, the town council voted overwhelmingly in favor of a resolution defending civil rights and civil liberties. The preamble to the resolution stated, “The citizens of Amherst are concerned that actions of the Attorney General of the United States and the U.S. Justice Department since the September 11, 2001 attacks pose significant threats to constitutional protections in the name of fighting terrorism. Such undermining of basic civil rights and liberties run the serious risk of destroying freedom in order to save it.' "The Attorney General asserted before the Senate Judiciary Committee that civil libertarians who criticized the Department's policies aid terrorists ...erode our national unity and diminish our resolve.' We disagree," the preamble continued. "We believe that respect for Constitutional rights is essential for the preservation of democratic society." "...LEERY OF CHANGING THE LYRICS" 15 Two days later, the nearby town of Leverett, MA, a rural community with a population of 1,663, passed its own resolution. Following the vote, the citizen who submitted the resolution to the town's Select Board said, "It is truly Orwellian double-speak to call such unpatriotic efforts a 'PATRIOT Act.' If the American people do not speak out against such anti-democratic efforts, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. Amherst Town Mccting Warrant Article. 04/24/2002 they will only have themselves to blame when they, their children and grandchildren wake up in a totalitarian police state." 16 The City Council of the college town of Northampton, MA, unanimously passed a resolution on May 2 calling on local, state and federal officials to monitor any abuses of civil liberties that might result from the USA PATRIOT Act. "This was done in terms of supporting the freedoms that we have and that we cherish," Council President Michael R. Bardsley said at the meeting" Energized by their experience with this effort, several Northampton activists were spurred to set up the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, which, along with the ACLU, has served as a clearinghouse for resolution activities. By September 2002, only nine communities around the country had passed resolutions opposing the PATRIOT Act. In December, six more communities had passed resolutions, including the cities of Flagstaff, AZ and Detroit, MI. Art Babbott, the Flagstaff City Council member who sponsored the resolution, said, "We've been singing the same song in this country for more than 200 years. It's a very good song, and I want to keep singing it I'm very leery of changing the lyrics. 18 Art Babbott, Flagstaff City Council By February 2003, the national resolution drive was picking up 19 As word spread, the To date, more than 130 communities in 26 states have joined the movement, including many large municipalities like Philadelphia, Minneapolis, Oakland and Broward County in Florida, which contains Fort Lauderdale. (See appendix A for a full list of communities). In a sign of the movement's depth and reach, three state legislatures-Hawaii, Alaska and LEADING THE LOWER 48... 20 Hawaii was the first to act, passing a resolution in late April of 2003. The state has a large Japanese-American population and memories of government internments during World War II are still alive for many. State Rep. Roy Takumi introduced the resolution, he said, as a way to open debate. Speaking to the Washington Post, he said, "States have every right to consider the concerns of the federal government and voice our opinions. If a number of states pass similar resolutions, then it raises the bar for Congress, making them realize our concerns. 21 16 Bill of Rights Defense Committee press release, "Third Massachusetts town votes to defend Bill of Rights from threats of USA PATRIOT Act". http://www.bordc.org/Northampton_PR.hum, 05/02/02 17 Thomas Breen, "Council OKs Civil Rights Measure,” Daily Hampshire Gazette, 05/3/2002 18 Michael Janovsky. "Cities Urge Restraint in Fight Against Terrorism," New York Times. 12/23/2002 19 hup://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfin?ID=11294&c=207 20 http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=12491&c=206 Evelyn Nieves, “Local Officials Risc Up to Defy the Patriot Act. Washington Post, 4/21/2003 Hawaii is a majority Democratic state, but concerns about the PATRIOT Act and related government actions span the political spectrum. The next state to pass a resolution was Alaska, which has not sent a Democrat to Congress in almost 25 years. Politically, Alaska is resolutely conservative with a strong independent streak. In speaking of the resolution he co-sponsored in the Alaska state legislature, Republican Rep. John Coghill said, “We hope that a resolution like this, with the bipartisan support that it has, will urge Congress to re-examine the provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act that challenge the individual freedoms that make this country great He added, "If we sacrifice our freedom, we let terrorism win. ..22 Democratic Rep. David Guttenberg, who co-sponsored the 9123 In late May 2003, Vermont joined Alaska and Hawaii with its own resolution, calling on Congress to revise the PATRIOT Act and other new policies to restore civil liberties. The Vermont effort brought together a Republican House of Representatives and a Democratic State Senate. Like the other statewide resolutions, the Vermont resolution called on Congress to fix the USA PATRIOT Act and related new policies to bring them back in line with the Constitution. 24 THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IS WATCHING The local resolutions have increasingly drawn the attention of the Justice Department and many in Congress. In fact, in a sign of the government's deepening concern about the resolutions movement, Attorney General Ashcroft acknowledged that fears about the potential for abuse of the PATRIOT Act are becoming widespread in America and called on the media to help the Justice Department explain the Act and quell those fears. In May 2003 when the City Council of Tucson, AZ was poised to pass a resolution opposing some provisions of the Act, it received a letter from Arizona Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) urging it to vote down the resolution. Kyl's letter misrepresented the legislation, implying that all the law really did was give law enforcement the authority to wiretap cellular telephones and e-mail, and incorrectly asserting that, prior to the PATRIOT Act, federal officials were hampered by not being able to engage in such surveillance. 25 In fact, the government has long possessed the power to wiretap land telephone lines, cell phones, and e-mail – after showing probable cause of a crime and obtaining a court order. What the PATRIOT Act really did was reduce oversight of wiretaps and other forms of surveillance by the courts or Congress Kyl's letter also claimed that only a "miniscule minority” of America's communities had passed such resolutions, while in reality these communities represented millions of Americans Despite Kyl's letter, the Tucson City Council adopted its resolution. Also in May of 2003, while the state legislature was considering Alaska's bi-partisan resolution to defend civil liberties, Timothy Burgess, the U.S. Attorney for Alaska, made inaccurate statements about the PATRIOT Act during his testimony before the Senate State Affairs Committee. Calling on state senators to vote against the resolution, Mr. Burgess said, "I think there are a lot of misconceptions being offered about what the PATRIOT Act does or doesn't do, and that's one of the concerns I have. I think, for instance, there is concern that under the PATRIOT Act, federal agents are now able to review library records and books checked out by US citizens. If you read the Act, that's absolutely not true.' --26 In fact, Mr. Burgess' statement is what is simply untrue. According to Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act, specific provisions are made for the standards under which records, including library records, of both non-citizens and those of US citizens can be seized The Alaska senators, unimpressed, proceeded to pass the resolution unanimously. 27 When the Ithaca City Council in New York passed a resolution stating concern “that the USA PATRIOT Act threatens the civil rights and liberties of citizens of the United States and other nations..." and called on federal authorities to provide monthly notification to local authorities of detentions, wiretaps, and surveillance operations undertaken in the city, it received a letter from the FBI office in Albany. The letter contained the odd suggestion that the FBI could not provide the names of those people being secretly detained to local authorities and legal support groups because that would "directly infringe upon the privacy rights" of those being investigated or detained. 128 What the letter failed to mention was that the Justice Department has refused to provide the names to legal service organizations like the ACLU even when detainees had no objection to having their names released 29 Letter to Mayor and Council Members of the Tucson Mayor and City Council, 05/02/2003, by John Kyl, United States Senator, http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=12572&c=207 Alaska Senate State Affairs Committee hearing on CSHJR 22(RLS). 05/13/2003. by Mr. Timothy Burgess. U.S. Attorney for Alaska. http://www.kioo.com/gavel/audio.cfm?schf>ay-2003-5-13 http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=12707&c=207 *Letter to Julie Conley Holcomb, Ithaca City Clerk of the Ithaca City Council, on March 25, 2003. by Keith A. De Vincents. Special Agent In Charge, Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Department of Justice * CNSS v. US Dept. Of Justice, (D.D.C. Aug. 02, 2002) available at http://news findlaw.com/cnn/docs/terrorism/cnssvdoj080202ord pdf LIBRARIANS TELL ASHCROFT TO QUIET DOWN Cities, towns and states are not the only public institutions rebelling against the PATRIOT Act Librarians are refusing to cooperate with federal authorities; they are deeply concerned about the provision of the PATRIOT Act affecting the intellectual privacy of their patrons. Section 215 of the Act allows the FBI to request a court order for any "tangible thing [including books, records, papers, documents and other items] for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities." In practice, the FBI can force libraries to reveal what books you are checking out, what chat rooms and websites you are visiting and what e-mails you have sent. Likewise, bookstores can be forced to reveal what books you are buying. Astonishingly, Section 215 even contains a gag order that prevents any librarian or bookseller from telling anyone including you, that the FBI has asked for this information. Section 215 violates the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments, and the ACLU is considering a legal challenge seeking to have it declared unconstitutional. In the meantime, however, grassroots resistance to Section 215 has sprouted up around the country in conjunction with the resolutions campaign. Dozens of state library associations have passed their own anti-PATRIOT Act resolutions and the American Library Association has issued a stern warning in its national resolution stating, "sections of the USA PATRIOT Act are a present danger to the constitutional rights and privacy rights of library users.... 30 "PLEASE ACT APPROPRIATELY” Some libraries, including libraries in Killington, VT, and Skokie, IL are posting signs warning patrons that the FBI can now monitor their reading habits and Internet use. "We're sorry," wrote the librarians in Killington. “Due to national security concerns, we are unable to tell you if your Internet surfing habits, passwords and e-mail content are being monitored by federal agents. Please act appropriately.' 9931 The public library in Santa Cruz, California, has gone one step further. Every night, the librarian shreds the day's records, handwritten requests for reference books, logs of people who signed up for the library's Internet stations and more. 32 30 "Resolution on the USA Patriot Act and Related Measures That Infringe on the Rights of Library Users", on 01/29/2003, adopted by American Library Association Council. Available at http://www.ala.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Our_Association/Offices/intellectual_Freedom3/Statements_and_Poli cies/IF_Resolutions/Resolution_on_the_USA_Patriot_Act_and_Related_Measures_That_Infringe_on_the_Rights_o f Library Users.htm Judith Graham, "Libraries protest potential snooping,” Chicago Tribune, 04/04/2003 32 Dean E. Murphy, "Librarians Use Shredder to Show Opposition to New F.B.I. Powers,” New York Times, 04/07/2003 |