Continuing Resolutions

by Lisa Poe

For Labor Day weekend, I went with a friend to Montreal. We had no trouble at the border and very short waits, despite what we had heard and read about crossing the border post-9/11. However, on the return trip, about an hour from the Canadian border in upstate New York, two state troopers were stopping both southbound lanes of traffic. We were at least 15 miles from any town, and could not see any reason for the traffic stop.

When we reached the trooper in our lane, he asked, “Are you United States citizens?” When we both said yes, he then asked, “Where were you born?” After we gave the names of our hometowns, we were allowed to proceed. The officer did not ask us for identification or search our vehicle, but the questions made me feel very uncomfortable. Considering that we had just answered similar questions to re-enter the country, the traffic stop did not seem to have a reasonable purpose. Why were state troopers stopping only southbound traffic in the middle of nowhere? I mentioned to my friend that if either of us had not been white, we probably would have had to prove our citizenship.

In May 2002, the Philadelphia City Council passed a resolution, sponsored by then councilman Angel Ortiz, that “Opposes federal policy giving local and state law enforcement agencies the authority to investigate the citizenship and residency status of any person, unless required by court decision or statute." The purpose of the resolution is to prevent, for example, a police officer from interrogating you about your citizenship for no apparent reason during a traffic stop.

This resolution was a first step leading to the nonbinding resolution against the USA PATRIOT Act passed a year later. When Philadelphia City Council passed the resolution in May 2003, we were the largest city to do so, and 117th over all. The resolution was again sponsored by Angel Ortiz and passed 13-3. Mr. Ortiz said at the time, "What could be more patriotic than standing up for the rights of citizens and taxpayers? And what could be more unpatriotic than to happily watch those rights trampled upon?" None of the three council members who voted against the resolution spoke against it, although Councilman Frank Rizzo said, "I believe the Patriot Act is a good act." Today, more than a year later, my district’s councilwoman, Jannie Blackwell, stands by her vote in favor of the resolution, asserting, “We can't arrest our way out of problems.” She believes we have to be careful and think seriously before we take away civil liberties in the name of fighting terror.

My favorite part of the resolution is the third clause: “the Declaration of Independence of the United States, which was written in Philadelphia, holds as self-evident that all people are created equal and are endowed with the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” That being the case, the City Council expressed “its support of the United States government in its campaign against global terrorism, but also reaffirm[ed] that any efforts to end terrorism not be waged at the expense of the fundamental civil liberties of the people of Philadelphia, and all citizens of the United States." The text of the entire resolution can be summarized as an expression of support for the government and recognition that the attacks on September 11, 2001, were terrible, but that the City Council believes infringement of civil liberties in the name of stopping terrorists goes too far.

The Bill of Rights Defense Committee, based in Massachusetts, has been largely responsible for the growing number of resolutions being passed against the USA PATRIOT Act. The Committee offers a template for communities to pass their own resolution. On the third anniversary of the PATRIOT Act, October 26, 2004, the Committee sent President Bush a full set of the resolutions opposing it. Their website states, “the collection of resolutions and ordinances is 400 pages long, more than triple the size of the USA PATRIOT Act."

The first of these was passed in January 2002. It was a short resolution “in Support of Due Process for All Members of the Ann Arbor Community” passed by the Ann Arbor, Michigan, City Council. The text of the resolution includes a reminder that due process is a right of all citizens under law, and that “a balance between national security and the prevention of discrimination based on race, religion or nationality” is an important matter to our country. Much like Philadelphia, Ann Arbor felt that the first resolution didn’t go far enough. In July 2003, they passed a further resolution “to protest the eroding of civil liberties under the USA PATRIOT Act.” The most recent resolution was passed by the County Commission of Multnomah County, Oregon. I was unable to reach County Chair Diane Linn for comment, but when the Commission passed the resolution on December 9, 2004, “Expressing Commitment to Protect Civil Rights in the Era of the USA Patriot Act,” the number of resolutions grew to 363.

The snowball effect of the large number of resolutions being passed does add up to something important. According to Julia Richardson of the Philadelphia chapter of the ACLU “the numerous USA-PATRIOT Act resolutions being adopted across the country are being used to influence congress to modify the act in the future.” When asked if she was aware of any problems as a result of the City Council’s passage of the resolution, Richardson said, “we haven't seen any negative effects in Philadelphia.”

In an attempt to counter the arguments against the USA PATRIOT Act, the Justice Department maintains a website called LifeandLiberty.gov as a marketing tool for the PATRIOT Act. Based on the growing number of resolutions against the Act, the marketing doesn’t appear to be working that well. The website claims that the Act "arm[s] law enforcement with new tools to detect and prevent terrorism". It also includes a page of what the website calls myths about the USA PATRIOT Act which is entirely made up of statements made by the ACLU against the Act.

When I contacted the Federal Bureau of Investigation in Philadelphia, I discovered that Special Agent Jerria Williams was unaware that the City Council resolution existed. She seemed surprised, and asked, “How can they pass a resolution against a Federal act?” I explained to her that the resolution was nonbinding and was more of a public statement against the excesses of the Act than an item of legislation. She said she “was going to Google it” to find out more after we spoke.

Special Agent Williams made it clear to me that relations between local and Federal law enforcement were very cordial. As proof, she described how the Terrorism Task Force made up of FBI agents and Philadelphia police detectives is based out of the FBI offices. She reiterated that the resolution has not caused any tensions and that there has been, “no effect on local police or law enforcement effectiveness.” Of course, she didn’t know the resolution existed, so her authority to speak on law enforcement problems that result from the resolution is weak. It would seem to indicate, however, that the FBI does not consider these resolutions to be a problem in getting their jobs done.

Jessie Baugher, Organizer for the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, said that she was unaware of any actions taken by the Federal government or law enforcement in retaliation for any of these resolutions, although she noted those arguments are often raised against passing such resolutions. She did say, however, that the groups that have come together to get the resolutions passed have created a “national network of folks” committed to civil rights. Ms. Baugher believes that the effect of these resolutions is tangible; when a minority group is harassed or a community feels that someone’s rights have been violated, they can hold up their resolution as a statement that “we have certain values in this country” which include “democratic community support of civil liberties.”

General opinion seems to lean toward repeal of the original Act, rather than passage of PATRIOT Act II. The government cannot justify erosion of civil liberties when they have proven so ineffective in fighting the War on Terror. As Ryan Janda, former Special Agent in the State Department’s Foreign Service commented, “If anything, the PATRIOT Act and our foreign policy approach are earning us an increasing likelihood of terrorist attack.” As with many items of law, the groundswell of public opinion seems set to overturn the more egregious segments of the USA PATRIOT Act, if not the entire thing, and each resolution shifts the balance toward the tipping point.