Council opposes parts of Patriot Act

 No comments  
 E-mail Story
 Print Story
  Share

 digg it!
 Facebook
 del.icio.us
Seed Newsvine
Fark It
Reddit

Text Size: 

Tools Sponsor

BY NATE JENKINS / Lincoln Journal Star

The Lincoln City Council on Monday joined nearly 350 other local governments across the country in opposing portions of the Patriot Act, and by the slimmest of margins.

On a 4-3, party-line vote, the council approved the Defense of Liberty Resolution that urges federal officials, among other things, "to change those sections of the USA Patriot Act that unduly infringe upon fundamental rights and liberties as recognized in the United States Constitution."

Council members voted after taking public testimony and asking questions for approximately five hours. Among the people who testified were Michael Heavican, U.S. attorney for Nebraska, and former U.S. Rep. Bob Barr, a Republican from Georgia who now works as a consultant for the American Civil Liberties Union.

The debate centered on whether the federal act passed on a 98-1 vote in the weeks after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, offers reasonable tools to combat terrorism, or overreaches constitutional bounds.

"Many of the provisions in this 342-page bill contain things that everyone agrees are appropriate," said Mark Weddleton, leader of the group that requested the resolution, the Lincoln Bill of Rights Defense Coalition. "But now, three years after its passage, we can look back more dispassionately and ask ourselves, 'Don't some of these sections go too far?'"

Council members Jonathan Cook, Annette McRoy, Patte Newman and Terry Werner, all Democrats, voted in favor of the resolution.

"I believe that we are not asking Congress to repeal the Patriot Act," McRoy said before voting in favor of the resolution, the first of its kind to be approved in Nebraska. "We just want more checks and balances and oversight."

Because the Patriot Act is a federal law, local governments do not have the authority to change it. Some council members argued it was not an appropriate issue for the council to formally consider.

"Why are we doing this at the City Council level?" Councilman Ken Svoboda asked at the outset of the public hearing, attended by about 50 people. About five were left when the council voted after 9 p.m. "We have no jurisdiction over the federal courts."

The resolution does urge local libraries to inform patrons of the law, including a portion that prohibits staff from informing them if federal agents have requested library records.

It also calls on federal officials to periodically report the law's effect on Lincoln residents, including the number of residents who have been arrested or detained by federal authorities as a result of terrorism investigations since Sept. 11.

"There isn't anyone in Lincoln, Nebraska, who's had a constitutional problem since the Patriot Act was enacted," said Heavican. "I can guarantee you that."

Along with members of the FBI, Heavican argued that the Patriot Act mostly codified practices, such as delaying notice to people their homes have been searched, that have been upheld by the courts and that law enforcement for about a decade has argued are necessary.

"We'd been lobbying Congress to get some of these provisions enacted," said Gina Palokangas, chief division counsel with the FBI, based in Omaha.

Barr said the Patriot Act offers questionable leeway to law enforcement, such as lessening criteria needed to gather evidence on a person from a third party. The government used to be required to show the person being investigated was doing something criminal, or acting as an agent of a foreign power. Now, officials only have to show the person is part of an ongoing investigation.

Michael Baker, a veteran who recalled giving an oath to defend the Constitution before going to war, spoke in support of the resolution.

"I don't think debating civil liberties for the last four or five hours was a waste of time," Baker said.

Reach Nate Jenkins at 473-7223 or njenkins@journalstar.com.