|
|
Positive News was handed the guardianship of Global Village News and Resources in summer of 2004. Although we would like to continue to make the archives available to subscribers and readers we would like to point out that stories published prior to issue 89 were not under our editorial guidance and would like to make a distinction that these are not necessarily a reflection of the current opinions of our editorial team. US Cities In Revolt Over Patriot Act USA - The St. Paul City Council recently joined Minneapolis and more than 200 cities that have passed resolutions condemning the 2001 USA PATRIOT Act. The resolution was passed with a 6 to 1 vote, the only dissenter being member Dan Bostrom. The wording of the three and one-half page resolution reveals the specific concerns the Council has with how the legislation affects St. Paul residents, as well as how it encroaches on the city’s ability to run its own affairs without undue interference from the federal government. Council members Kathy Lantry and Dave Thune spoke with Pulse about the resolution late last week. “I think if people really took a look at some of the aspects of the PATRIOT Act and what rights they’re giving up, they would be appalled,” Lantry said, explaining her motivations for signing the resolution. A grassroots organization called The Bill of Rights Defense Committee first presented the resolution to the City Council more than a year ago. Some Council members found the language in parts of the original document problematic, but Patrick Harris, Ward 3 Council member, worked on a revision of it, eventually coming up with the version that passed, which is more similar to a resolution written by the National League of Cities. “That’s how democracy works,” Lantry said. “The general public decides what they want to have made an issue. I never think we should underestimate the force that a bunch of small entities getting together can have.” While emphasizing their recognition of the need for effective measures against terrorism, Lantry and Thune both gave specific examples of the aspects of the PATRIOT ACT that trouble them the most. A provision of the act requires librarians to turn over records of what reading material a library patron checks out when a federal agency demands it, but the librarian will be guilty of a felony for even revealing that the government has made such a demand. “At our St. Paul Public Library Board meeting,” Lantry explained, “one of the Council members asked the director of libraries if she had been asked to provide any of that. She said she couldn’t answer that. She can’t even report to the board she’s supposed to report to, because that would be illegal.” “The PATRIOT Act may have been well intentioned,” Thune argues, “but unfortunately I think it was sort of grounded in some kind of anti-citizenry thing that the right wing has been wanting to pass for a long time, and this was their excuse.” Thune agrees that the Library Board meeting alluded to by Lantry had a major effect on the City Council’s collective opinion regarding the resolution. “It’s interesting how things align themselves,” he said. “Off the top of my head I asked our chief librarian if the federal government had requested any records from our library ... That’s really wrong when a good civil servant, a marvelous library director, is put in that kind of a position by the federal government, because they can’t even answer ‘yes,’ ‘no,’ or deny to their own board of directors.” Other areas of the PATRIOT Act specifically referred to in the resolution are “Section 206, which effectively eliminates judicial supervision of telephone and internet surveillance,” and “Section 213, which permits law enforcement to perform searches with no one present and to delay notification of the search of a citizen’s home.” The resolution further condemns the expansion of the PATRIOT Act with the Domestic Security Enhancement Act (DSEA), which would further restrict Constitutional rights. The resolution also reaffirms St. Paul’s commitment to prevent racial profiling by the city police force. by Mark Connor (In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.) |
