[Peace-discuss] Fwd: [ALACOUN:9315] Town ordinance penalizes officials who cooperate with Patriot Act

[Alfred Kagan]

 From the San Francisco Chronicle

Arcata the defiant
Town ordinance penalizes officials who cooperate with Patriot Act, 
but law may not stand up in court

Kevin Fagan, Chronicle Staff Writer	Sunday, April 13, 2003 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Arcata, that tiny North Coast bastion of the robustly liberal, has 
quietly made itself the first city in the nation to outlaw voluntary 
compliance with the USA Patriot Act.

Town leaders know their new law outlawing the bigger law is probably 
illegal. And they don't know anyone local who's had troubles because 
of the Patriot Act.

But the very existence of the sweeping federal policy -- passed by 
Congress swiftly after Sept. 11, 2001, to expand powers to search, 
conduct surveillance and throw people in jail during terrorism probes 
-- so rubbed them the wrong way that they felt they had to make a 
stand.

So about a week ago, the Arcata City Council approved an ordinance 
telling its management workers they cannot "officially assist or 
voluntarily cooperate" with any investigators trying to carry out 
what the city considers provisions of the Patriot Act that violate 
the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.

Which, city leaders said, is pretty much all of the act except the 
heading on the governmental letterhead.

"We already had a resolution condemning the Patriot Act, and that was 
all well and good, but we needed something with some bite in it," 
said David Meserve, the councilman who introduced the ordinance. "A 
resolution makes a recommendation, but this now actually takes on the 
force of law.

"Call it a pre-emptive attack. Only not a violent one."

The fine for breaking the new law is $57. The ordinance officially 
kicks in May 2. 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.

Brian Willson, the national peace protester who lost his legs trying 
to block a Concord munitions train in 1987, lives in Arcata and 
helped draft the law.

"I think a lot of people are freaking out," he said. "You can see the 
developing police state, and we have to start opposing it."


LIBERAL BASTION

Arcata has about 16,000 residents, about 5,000 of whom are students 
at Humboldt State University. Its biggest claims are the university, 
an annual race to determine the best or weirdest human-powered 
sculpture, and its liberal resolutions or legal actions to oppose 
seemingly everything from the war in Iraq to global warming.

So even though few outside the city limits have so far noticed the 
new law, it is right in line with the city's tendency for "never a 
dull moment," said City Attorney Nancy Diamond.

The law also seems to be right in line with most townsfolk.

"I don't blame them (the council) for saying 'no,' " Susan Mattson 
said as she rang up customers at her Garden Gate gift shop 
overlooking the rustic little town square. "I don't know anyone in 
town who likes the Patriot Act."

She said she's never seen any FBI agents probing around Arcata. "But 
they're certainly welcome -- if they want to buy something," she said 
with a chuckle.

The vote on April 2 for the law in Arcata was 4 to 1, but even the 
lone "no" voter said his quibble was more with the tactic than the 
concept.

"I find the act very troubling and very scary in many areas, but this 
is not the right venue to challenge it," said Councilman Michael 
Machi. "You take it through the court system."


CONSIDERABLE PUBLIC INPUT

Several council meetings leading up to the vote drew dozens of public 
speakers, and city officials recalled a stray few who thought the 
Arcata measure wasn't a good idea. Machi said he still feels 
"disappointed" the whole issue wasn't discussed more before passage.

"Just remember that this is the only city in the whole United States 
that has done this, so I am not in the minority," he said.

Resolutions condemning the Patriot Act already have passed in 83 
cities from San Francisco, Oakland and Berkeley to Baltimore and 
Detroit, and Mill Valley joined the list just Monday. But no city had 
gone all the way to an ordinance, said Nancy Talanian, co-director of 
the Bill of Rights Defense Committee of Florence, Mass.

Talanian, whose organization has been urging cities to pass 
anti-Patriot Act resolutions since 2001, was "delighted" that Arcata 
pushed the envelope.

Among the main objections to the act are that it gives investigators 
greater authority to jail suspects, plant wiretaps, sift through 
e-mails and scrutinize what library books people check out.

So far, there seem to be no opportunities to use Arcata's soon-to-be- 
enacted law, because no federal or state agents have ever tried to 
use the Patriot Act in Arcata. But that's not for a lack of wanting. 
City leaders are actually itching for a fight.

"We're not going to go looking for it, but we'd welcome it," said 
City Manager Dan Hauser. "Maybe then this act could actually be 
tested in court."


LAW PROBABLY ILLEGAL

He admitted that the law is "probably illegal, if you accept the 
Patriot Act as legal" -- and that viewpoint was shared by veteran San 
Francisco trial attorney John Keker, who compared Arcata's ordinance 
to local medical marijuana laws, which have been squashed in federal 
court challenges.

"I applaud Arcata, but the law is completely illegal," Keker said. 
"We used to have something called the U.S. Constitution, and 
supposedly we still do -- and the Constitution says the federal law 
is supreme in the land. So it's a nonstarter."

If City Manager Hauser or anyone else is hoping to stare down some 
agent holding a Patriot Act subpoena, he shouldn't hold his breath, 
cautioned LaRae Quy, spokeswoman for the San Francisco FBI office, 
whose jurisdiction includes Arcata. She said there are no plans to go 
dashing the 279 miles up to Arcata anytime soon. And even if there 
were, she doubted there would be trouble.

"I really don't understand what the concerns are with the act," Quy 
said. "What it did was primarily streamline existing laws on the 
books. I know some people feel their privacy rights are being 
violated, but I think there's some hysteria out there . . . some 
misunderstanding.

"We still have to show probable cause for any actions we take," she 
said. "It's not just an agent descending and saying, 'Hey, I want to 
go in and see what this person is doing.' "

E-mail Kevin Fagan at kfagan at sfchronicle.com.

>
>
>"Call it a pre-emptive attack. Only not a violent one."
>
>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/04/13/BA283270.DTL
>
>(article brought to my attention by Howard Besser)
>
>
>--
>Jenna Freedman, MLIS
>
>Coordinator of Reference Services
>Barnard College
>3009 Broadway
>New York, NY 10027
>
>212.854.4615
>212.854.3766 fax
>
>jfreedma at barnard.edu


-- 


Al Kagan
African Studies Bibliographer and Professor of Library Administration
Africana Unit, Room 328
University of Illinois Library
1408 W. Gregory Drive
Urbana, IL 61801, USA

tel. 217-333-6519
fax. 217-333-2214
e-mail. akagan at uiuc.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20030414/684c9433/attachment.htm