Greens and Gun Owners Unite!

A quick opinion poll: The mass murders of Sept.11, 2001, were able to occur because:

A. Letting airline passengers carry potentially deadly weapons such as box-cutters was a bad idea.

B. Locked doors between pilots and passengers might have been a good idea

C. Americans enjoy too much freedom and law enforcement officials lacked the power to prevent the attacks.

John Ashcroft and George Bush may have opted for "C," but they didn't convince folks in my home of Bozeman, MT. Our City Commissioners' meeting hall couldn't hold the crowd that turned out to back a resolution that supported civil liberties and symbolically expressed opposition to so egregious provisions in the "USA Patriot Act."

Almost 90 percent of attendees favored the resolution and burst into applause when the city joined (now more than 370) communities nationwide in passing ordinances or resolutions opposing the Patriot Act.

The opposition ranges from liberal college cities like Boulder, CO, to conservative rural towns like Peterborough, NH, to entire states: Alaska, Hawaii and Vermont [and now, Montana and Maine]. Support also spans the political spectrum within communities. In Boise, ID, members of the Green Party and Gun Owners of America worked side by side to pass a local resolution.

These organizing efforts demonstrate an extraordinary level of grassroots opposition to federal policy, and they've become more than symbolic. The resistance is credited with sparking bills like one from Idaho Rep. Butch Otter (R). His measure to halt secret searches of personal property --as authorized by the Patriot Act--was approved 309-118. A bi-partisan collection of Senators announced their sponsorship of the new Security and Freedom Ensured Act (SAFE) written by Senators Larry Craig (R-ID) and Dick Durbin (D- IL). SAFE would expand on Otter's House bill by curtailing overly broad wiretapping powers and other Patriot Actr provisions.

Attorney General Ashcroft's recent public relations tour defending the Patriot Act also appeared to be a reaction to the local uprisings. Not surprisingly, Ashcroft failed to quell public concerns by speaking only to hand-picked audiences and refusing press questions. Even the most basic fact-checking revealed his claims of the Patriot Act's success to be dubious and the rate of successful local resolutions accelerated around the country once his PR tour commenced.

Bush administration officials claim the Patriot Act strikes the "right balance" between freedom and safety, arguing that terrorism can be defeated by increasing police power and reducing judicial oversight over detentions and investigations. But the implicit argument that our freedom endangers us lacks compelling evidence.*

Legalizing more invasive technology and granting law enforcement agencies the sweeping power to arrest, detain and spy on citizens will not enhance our safety. To the contrary, history indicates that allowing politically-based investigations or searches of personal property without evidence that can pass judicial scrutiny simply wastes resources.

Our freedom to engage in vigorous political dissent is a safety valve that enhances our stability. With opportunity to create peaceful change, people are less likely to turn to violence. Yet the Patriot Act grants Mr. Ashcroft broad power to label organizations as "terrorist" without meeting objective criteria to justify the label. It invites a return to past abuses of law enforcement powers against political opponents.

This is not to say that the Patriot Act contains no sensible measures that could increase our safety without infringing on liberty. It does, but they are surrounded by many serious threats to our freedom.

On tour, Ashcroft defended the Patriot Act by arguing that nine of 10 people polled said the Act had not infringed on their personal liberty. Um, John, we're talking about the core freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution, not shooting basketball free throws. And how meaningful is this number when the greatest concern of Patriot Act opponents is the unprecedented secrecy in which it is used? Groups filing Freedom of Information Act requests to learn about the Act's use have been shut out or receive documents censored to the point of uselessness.

Many of our Congressional representatives approved the 342-page Patriot Act without adequate time to comprehend or even read it because some of the more drastic measures were due to expire in 2005. Yet the Bush Administration already seeks to make the Act permanent and further expand police powers while blocking evaluation of its impacts.

Thankfully, citizens across the political spectrum are awakening to this assault on constitutional freedoms and fighting back. Watch out George--defenders of our Bill of Rights, from gun advocates to Greens, might just cut the Patriot Act down to its proper size.

The writer directs ReclaimDemocracy.org. This is adapted from his essay published in the High Country News in October, 2003.

* for much more on this topic, see Security v. Freedom, the False Choice

• Read a neutral summary of some of Patriot Act's impacts
• Looking to pass a local or state ordinance? See the tools created by the Bill of Rights Defense Committee
• See a map of the communities having passed resolutions as of 9/23/03
• Go to our Civil Rights index page