The Patriot ACT is Repealed!!!!

by Alex Cuff/PNN Community Journalist

Business at usual at City Hall when I stopped by on Friday to pick up the audio tape of the January 21 st Board of Supervisor’s weekly meeting. “Is there anything else I can do for you?” the receptionist asked me as she wrote out the receipt for the $5 tape. Well at least we are still able to access public records…on this level. Walking through the cavernous halls of our stately capital building I am thinking about the Patriot Act - so much talk about the Patriot Act - but for me it’s just gotten clumped up with all the injustices I’m feeling are being imposed on us here in the old US of A, as well as on folks we’re affecting all over the world with our egomaniacal foreign policy. As I walk down the long intimating hallway toward the offices of all the supervisors, I’m reminded of bits of news from the radio and
paper headlines – the unjust detaining of immigrants and citizens of color alike, words of the actors behind the Bush Administration who strive to instill fear in all of us while defending their own hate crimes. After a while I become numb and ask myself, how is the USA Patriot Act affecting me personally?

I still wake up and roll out of bed. Click power on the stereo catching the end of

94.1’s morning show. Walk around the clothes strewn all over the floor into the

kitchen towards the kettle. Cup of earl grey, maybe a shower, check the mouse traps,

maybe skim the paper or a book if I have time. Eventually off to work. For the

most part, this is my morning. The USA Patriot Act hasn’t altered my day to day

experience – yet. As I drift down the majestic corridor of city hall with the

intention of paying visits to Tony Hall and Jake McGoldrick, I wonder if I would still be on this assignment from Poor Magazine to report on the resolution the City of San Francisco passed opposing the act – if the Patriot Act was in full effect in SF.

When I ask acquaintances if they feel that they are affected by the Patriot

Act, the most common answer I’ve gotten is something like this: "I think it

sucks that the government uses terrorism as an excuse to invade our privacy." Of

course most of us wouldn’t know if FBI agents were sipping coffee and pouring

over our library history or reading about our hours of therapy, our abortions,

or any other information from our medical records because under the act, those who are being violated do not have a right to know about it! The Patriot Act limits disclosure of public documents and records under the Freedom of Information Act and also prevents let’s say the librarian, from telling you that she’s not the only one that knows what you’re borrowing.

On January 21st San Francisco joined 26 other US cities in resolving to oppose the crackdown on civil liberties, otherwise known as the USA Patriot Act. What does this mean? Well of course a city or state can’t repeal or overturn a federal act so the law hasn’t really changed but these cities are, in so many words, declaring that local law enforcement will refuse to enforce the Patriot Act when it refuses the rights of citizens under the Bill or Rights.

From the discussions I’ve been having with folks regarding the new authorization the government is seizing under the Homeland Security Act and the Patriot Act, there seems to be three tiers of folks when it comes to the degree people feel threatened by these powers: those who do not really understand the implications it has on their civil rights yet who support the ‘increased security’; those who, although don’t feel affected yet, do have an idea about the implications it has on our civil rights and are against it; and then there are those who have already been directly affected by it through racial profiling, violation of attorney/client privileges.

For those of us who aren’t fully aware of the awesome power the Patriot Act

affords the US government, let me share some of what I’ve learned: The USA Patriot Act is an acronym for The Uniting and Strengthening America by

Providing Appropriate Tools Requiring to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism. (How convenient that this clear, straight forward title spells out USA Patriot.) The

act has amended over 15 federal statutes, and overrides all existing state and

federal privacy laws. Section 802 expands the definition of terrorism to cover

"domestic" as opposed to international terrorism. So according to the patriot

act, you, yes you are a domestic terrorist if you commit an act that appears to

be intended to: 1. intimidate or coerce a civilian population 2. influence the

policy of a government by intimidation or coercion 2. affect the conduct of a

government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping.

These definitions are broad enough to include the activities of many non-profits, community based organizations, and elected officials that are active around everything the Patriot Act is designed to take away: freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly and privacy, protection from unreasonable searches and seizure, due process and equal protection to any person, equality before the law and the presumption of innocence, access to council in judicial proceedings, and a fair, speedy and public trial. You wouldn’t be reading this on PNN right now if the FBI decided to accuse Poor Magazine of "influencing the policy of government by intimidation or coercion” through its support of parents that file lawsuits against CPS, or it’s denunciation of police activity in Bay View Hunter’s Point.

Jake McGoldrick, the San Francisco supervisor who authored the resolution, spoke during the board meeting declaring “We can not live in that state of fear; we can not succumb to that fear because we will in fact be handing a victory to those who are the enemies to the kind of freedom we have.” Ten out of eleven of the supervisors joined with McGoldrick to pass the resolution.

Supervisor Tony Hall – who wouldn’t call me back for a comment – defended his position in voting against the resolution: “I’m not really interested in joining the ranks of protesters that have something negative to say about anything that relates to the federal government – I will defer to the law enforcement authorities when it comes to protecting our security.” He feels that “there’s more good about the Patriot Act then there is the bad that I’ve been told, I’ve been told, is wrong with it. So, that’s my feeling.” Um, if I could have gotten Hall on the phone I would have asked him if he’s ever even listened the “ranks of protesters” who have something negative to say about “anything that relates to the federal government.”

To my embarrassment for Hall, he said something that made me think he’s never even explored the provisions of the act: “What’s interesting here is the act itself deals mainly with immigration, now if there’s something wrong with the act where people are being detained – and I think this is what I’m hearing – being detained without a lawyer, and without the right to see a judge, then that’s wrong. I’m against that part of the act.” Well I’m glad that he’s against that part of the act.
If that’s all he’s opposed to, I guess he has no problem with the provision that allows law enforcement agencies to search homes and offices without notifying the owner for days or weeks after. Or the part of the Patriot Act that grants power to the Attorney General to subject citizens of other nations to indefinite detention or deportation even if they have not committed a crime.

I think that what freaks me out the most is section 806, Seizure of Assets. This section amended the civil asset forfeiture statute to authorize the government to seize and forfeit assets of an individual or organization on the mere assertion that “there is probable cause to believe that the assets were involved in domestic terrorism.” This grants the government power to bankrupt any political organizations they deem unpatriotic! The worst part is that at a civil hearing, a person is not entitled to an attorney at public expense – only well funded non-profits and persons would be able to successfully defend themselves against the forfeiture.

The resolution opposing the USA Patriot Act which was authored by McGoldrick and approved by all other supervisors, save Hall, states that “to the extent legally possible, no City employee or department shall officially assist or voluntarily cooperate with investigations, interrogations, or arrest procedures, public or clandestine, that are in violation of individuals’ civil rights or civil liberties…” It also declares “that the San Francisco Board of Supervisors calls upon all private citizens and organizations, including residents, employers, educators, and business owners, to demonstrate similar respect for civil rights and civil liberties, especially but not limited to conditions of employment and cooperation with investigations.”

A couple of weeks ago I attended a Police Commission meeting in which a ban on consent searches was proposed. The stories San Francisco citizens shared about witnessing, or being victimized by, police brutality due to racial and class profiling were unpardonable. Hopefully our local law enforcement will obey this resolution…not only in a stand of non-compliance with what’s being asked of them through the Patriot Act but because what the resolution is asking is for are basic human rights. Thank you to supervisors McGoldrick, Ammiano, Daly, Peskin, Ma, Sandoval, Gonzalez, Dufty, Maxwell, and Newsom for resolving that “any efforts to end terrorism not be waged at the expense of the fundamental civil rights and liberties of the people of San Francisco.”