Home > Cities Say No to the Patriot Act
By Kim Zetter Wired News
Forget drug-free and nuclear-free zones. A growing
grassroots movement seeks to make the United States a
Patriot Act-free zone, one city at a time.
Or, at the very least, the people behind the movement
hope to make their cities constitutional safe zones.
In the past two years, more than 300 cities and four
states have passed resolutions calling on Congress to
repeal or change parts of the USA Patriot Act that,
activists say, violate constitutional rights such as
free speech and freedom from unreasonable search and
seizure.
Barring that, the resolutions declare that their
communities will uphold the constitutional rights of
their residents should federal law enforcement agents
come knocking on the door of local authorities for
assistance in tracking residents. This means local
authorities will insist on complying with federal
orders only in ways that do not violate constitutional
rights. The resolutions are not binding, however, and
do not affect the federal government’s actions.
The national movement was launched in 2001 by the Bill
of Rights Defense Committee, an organization led by
activist Nancy Talanian. Talanian first lobbied her
community — Northhampton, Massachusetts, a town of
30,000 people — to stand against the act in November
2001, when few people had heard about the legislation.
Talanian and fellow activists urged newspaper editors
to write about the legislation and hosted a public
forum attended by 400 people, including Northampton’s
mayor and chief of police. Word spread quickly to other
communities, four of which passed their own resolutions
before Northampton passed its declaration the following
May.
Two years later, 322 municipalities and four states —
Alaska, Hawaii, Maine and Vermont — have Patriot Act
resolutions.
Congress passed the USA Patriot Act swiftly in October
2001, 45 days after the Sept. 11 attacks, easing
restrictions on the government’s ability to dig up
personal information about citizens and non-citizens,
and obtain wiretaps and search warrants. Only one
senator, Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin), and 61 House of
Representative members voted against the legislation.
Under the act, federal investigators can obtain
individuals’ library, financial, health and education
records from cities while barring municipal workers
from letting anyone know authorities have seized the
documents. Officials can also monitor the activities of
people who have not been identified as suspects and
search a home or office without prior notice.
The municipal resolutions, crafted individually by each
community, vary in language. They affirm, for the most
part, that city employees aiding federal authorities in
national security investigations will not violate the
rights of people under investigation, such as
monitoring political and religious gatherings where
people are engaging in activities protected by the
First Amendment.
Hawaii was the first to pass a statewide resolution,
citing the internment of Japanese-Americans during
World War II as a motivating factor.
Talanian said fewer than five municipalities rejected
resolutions brought before them. These included Boston
and Petaluma, California, a small town north of San
Francisco.
Fred Hemmings, a Republican state senator in Hawaii who
voted against a resolution passed in his state, called
the resolution a political play by leftists bent on
criticizing the government.
"There are constitutional zealots that somehow believe,
especially in times of war, that some of our
adversaries should be protected by rights given to us
by the Constitution," he said. "But the people on the
left are forgetting that we’re fighting a war against a
nationless enemy. It has to be fought on completely new
terms."
He said although he has not read the Patriot Act in
detail, he believes "it does provide for adequate
judicial oversight of any intrusion into a person’s
personal life."
But Councilwoman Kathy Lantry from St. Paul, Minnesota,
where a resolution passed 6-to-1, took issue with the
interpretation that only liberals are behind the
movement.
"There are many conservative councilors around the
country who have stated emphatically that there are
many portions of the Patriot Act that are in direct
violation to the way that many of us thought we do
things in America," she said. "It’s an easy out to say
it’s just a liberal issue."
Talanian said the community movements, which act
independently of her national group and draft their own
resolutions, consist of coalitions of disparate groups,
from conservative libertarians to liberal civil rights
activists.
"It’s been very nonpartisan," she said. "There have
been mixtures of political parties, as well as peace
and veterans groups and student and faculty groups,
working together."
Although the resolutions don’t carry official weight,
the communities say they hope to send a message to
Congress to change or repeal parts of the act.
"Resolutions are powerful in that a city council can
tell employees in their jurisdiction how they will
behave," said Talanian. "They can say we don’t want law
enforcement to engage in certain activities even if
authorized by certain legislation."
Although the resolutions don’t prevent federal agents
from monitoring or arresting citizens on their own,
Talanian said federal authorities would be less likely
to pursue surveillance without probable cause, since
they don’t have the resources to pursue every person
who interests them without the cooperation of local law
enforcement.
"It might create some checks and balance by reason of
logistics or budget priorities for the FBI," she said.
Councilwoman Lantry said no one should underestimate
the power local communities can have over how the
federal government does its work.
"Maybe one tiny little city council in St. Paul,
Minnesota, isn’t going to change the way this country
does business, but as others join in that cause, it
will give pause to those passing policy that perhaps
they didn’t think about, and need to think about, the
negative impact (of the legislation)," she said. "That
idea — that because we can’t have a direct impact we
shouldn’t say anything — is not the way our country
works."
Talanian said the community groups don’t oppose all of
the Patriot Act’s provisions. "We’re not saying the
entire Patriot Act should be repealed but that certain
sections need to be debated to make sure people’s
rights are being protected."
She pointed to the recent case involving Oregon lawyer
Brandon Mayfield, who was arrested by the FBI after it
mistakenly matched Mayfield’s fingerprint to one found
on a bag related to the train bombing in Madrid.
"Brandon Mayfield illustrates what can happen if there
are laws that are so elastic that they allow people to
be picked up and detained and have their houses
searched and their careers harmed using ways that are
not effective for catching terrorists," Talanian said.
Some provisions of the Patriot Act will expire in
December 2005. But the Bush administration and
congressional allies have been pushing aggressively to
get Congress to null the expiration clause. In January,
President Bush called on Congress to renew the Patriot
Act in his State of the Union address. He has been
urging the same in stump speeches on his campaign
trail.
Attorney General John Ashcroft has said repealing or
changing the Patriot Act would hamper the government’s
ability to catch terrorists and protect the public.
But the government may be getting the message that
citizens are unhappy with the legislation. In March,
Chuck Rosenberg, chief of staff to James Comey, the
second-highest official in the Justice Department, told
a reporter in St. Louis, Missouri, "We’re losing this
fight."
Talanian said it’s important for people to understand
that they, not just Congress, can and should
participate in debates about national security and
legislation that will likely be around a long time.
"Hopefully, the more communities pass resolutions, (the
more it) will help change the laws and make people more
aware of what their rights are and the importance of
protecting them in the future, so that a Patriot Act in
a few years couldn’t be passed quietly without being
read," she said.