Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Why is this a local issue?
Your local or state government has the responsibility to protect its residents against First Amendment violations, unreasonable searches and seizures, and violations of due process, all of which have occurred as a result of post 9/11 counterterrorism law and policy. When most local elected officials take office, they swear to uphold both the state and federal constitutions throughout their jurisdiction. It is essential that community members hold them to their word.
Additionally, counterterrorism law and policy puts a significant strain on local and state budgets. Local law enforcement officers are expected to be the “first responders,” to participate in Joint-Terrorism Task Force activity, and to assist with Department of Homeland Security immigration responsibilities. With local and state budgets already on a shoestring, these unfunded mandates can force local law enforcement officers to set aside their other work—protecting the community against non-terrorist threats.
What are the goals of passing a local resolution?
There are many benefits to passing a Bill of Rights Defense resolution, such as:
- Educating your community;
- Shaping national debate;
- Protecting the civil liberties of people in your community;
- Influencing Congress; and
- Creating a coalition for future action
Educating your community
Most importantly, organizing to get a resolution passed provides an opportunity to educate your community about how the USA PATRIOT Act and other counterterrorism law and policy weaken rights guaranteed in the Constitution.
Shaping national debate
As over 300 communities have resolved to create a Civil Liberties Safe Zone, the Bill of Rights Defense movement has become a significant way to shape the discussion surrounding the USA PATRIOT Act and other counterterrorism laws and policies that threaten civil liberties.
Protecting the civil liberties of people in your community
While local communities cannot prohibit federal law enforcement agents from implementing the USA PATRIOT Act, they can maintain jurisdiction and control over local law enforcement and prevent them from endangering the civil liberties of people in their communities.
Influencing Congress
A community-wide action that involves local government will carry more weight with your federal legislators than phone calls and letters from a few individuals. We are already seeing some tangible effects from the movement – more politicians are responding to the loud and clear message their constituents are sending by taking a stand against counterterrorism laws and policies that threaten civil liberties. Many members of Congress have publicly questioned their vote on the USA PATRIOT Act and have called for increased Congressional oversight of Executive branch counterterrorism policy. As evidence of this trend, at least 15 bills or amendments proposing rolling back portions of the USA PATRIOT Act have been introduced. See our Legislation page for more information about these introduced bills.
Creating a coalition for future action
Community members are usually proud of their resolutions to uphold the Constitution. Coalition members are more apt to stay up to date on new developments and continue taking action as part of a well-organized growing movement.
Will a local government be penalized for passing a Bill of Rights Defense resolution?
The federal government cannot legally penalize a town, city, county, or state for invoking its duty to uphold the Constitution. The Bill of Rights Defense movement is driven by deep-rooted concerns about our identity as a society and our desire to uphold the freedoms and liberties that define our nation, something any member of the government should respect.
Over the last two and half years, the federal government has not withheld funding from any of the 340+ communities that have passed Bill of Rights Defense resolutions.
Doesn't the USA PATRIOT Act expire in 2005?
It is a very common misperception that the entire USA PATRIOT Act expires at the end of 2005. The sunset provision (Section 224) only covers about half of the provisions in Title II of the Act, which relates to enhanced foreign intelligence and law enforcement surveillance authority. For more information, see Lane County BORDC's page, UPA Provisions Which Do and Which Do Not Sunset December 31, 2005.
Additionally, the sunset provision is at risk. President Bush has called on members of Congress to renew those provisions that do expire and members of Congress have introduced bills to repeal the sunset provision.
The sunset provision serves a vital purpose. As Senator Leahy (D-VT) stated during debate, “[T]he sunset provision included in the final bill calls for vigilant legislative oversight, so that the Congress will know how these legal authorities are used and whether they are abused over the next four years.” Congressional Record, Thursday Oct. 25, 2001 pgs. S10991-92. The 9/11 Commission is correct in saying that “a full and informed debate on the Patriot Act would be healthy” prior to the 2005 “sunset” of the controversial provisions.
Is the USA PATRIOT Act unconstitutional?
The USA PATRIOT Act in totality is not unconstitutional; however, various sections of the Act, such as sections 203, 206, 213, 215, 412, 802, & 805, threaten rights guaranteed under the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments.
A provision that federal judges have declared unconstitutionally vague, violating the First and Fifth Amendments, is Section 805 (Material Support for Terrorism). While judges have yet to review the constitutionality of the other sections, legal practitioners from all over the spectrum are concerned. It is vital that community members question the constitutionality of these sections and encourage judicial review of the legislation.
Also, it is important to note that many of these USA PATRIOT Act provisions, such as section 215 (request of documents like library records using the FISA Court), occur in secret and create gag orders for providers of information. Thus, it is difficult to know if federal law enforcement officers are using these powers in a constitutional manner. Clearly, the nation needs a full and accurate discussion about the constitutionality of these sections.
Doesn't the USA PATRIOT Act apply solely to noncitizens?
No. The surveillance provisions in the USA PATRIOT Act apply to any and all suspected terrorist activity, regardless of whether those affected are citizens, aliens, or immigrants. The groups that have thus far been most targeted are immigrants and aliens, but the USA PATRIOT Act – as well as related executive orders and Homeland Security Act powers – are being applied in numerous ways against the population as a whole. See our page especially about targeted communities for more information.
I live in a conservative community. Isn't it just liberals who oppose the USA PATRIOT ACT?
No. In fact, the USA PATRIOT Act is "Uniting and Strengthening America"--against itself. Conservatives are historically concerned with individual liberty and are uniting with liberals against the provisions of the Act that threaten constitutional rights. For more information on conservative organizations and individuals opposed to the USA PATRIOT Act and related counterterrorism legislation and policy, see our page on conservative opposition.
Contrary to Department of Justice claims that only locales with left-leaning constituencies are passing Bill of Rights Defense resolutions, diverse cities, towns, counties, and states, all over the political map, from the state of Alaska to Baltimore, Dallas, Boise, and Kansas City, are uniting in opposition to this legislation. For a complete list of places that have passed resolutions, see our alphabetical list by state.
Don't we need t0 give up some of our liberties to protect our nation from terrorism?
Persons in the United States, whether they are citizens or not, do not need to be deprived of their constitutional rights in order to protect our nation from terrorism. The “War on Terror” is not temporary and any reduction in civil liberties will last indefinitely unless the people band together and demand protection of their legal rights. Therefore, community members must question any law or policy that threatens civil liberties with the justification that it is protecting our nation against terrorism.
The 9-11 Commission’s final report echoes these concerns:
In wartime, government calls for greater powers, and then the need for those powers recedes after the war ends. This struggle will go on. Therefore, while protecting our homeland, Americans should be mindful of threats to vital personal and civil liberties. This balancing is not an easy task, but we must constantly strive to keep it right. (p. 394)
Isn't our nation safer because of post 9/11 government counterterrorism policy?
Doesn’t the USA PATRIOT Act give law enforcement greater ability to share information to prevent terrorist acts?
According to the Justice Department’s lifeandliberty.gov website, a main justification for the USA PATRIOT Act is that it “removed the major legal barriers that prevented the law enforcement, intelligence, and national defense communities from talking and coordinating their work to protect the American people and our national security.” (emphasis added).
However, confirming what many commentators and insiders have said for years, the 9/11 Commission’s Final Report, released July 22, 2004, denied the existence of these “legal barriers.” It said there “was no legal reason” that prevented the sharing of information prior to 9/11. Instead, “a set of complex rules and a widening set of beliefs—a bureaucratic culture—discouraged FBI agents from seeking to share information.” In other words, the USA PATRIOT Act was not needed to increase the ability of law enforcement officers to share information.
Also, leading sources such as the Markle Foundation’s Task Force on National Security in the Information Age, have noted that even after the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act, the sharing of information among intelligence agencies and law enforcement officials has failed to improve.
For more information, read The Truth About ‘the Wall’ and other articles.
Won’t repealing or rolling back the USA PATRIOT Act damage our government's effectiveness in fighting and preventing terrorism in the United States?
While Attorney General John Ashcroft asserts that the USA PATRIOT Act has led to important successes in the war on terrorism, constitutional law professor David Cole writes in this article that Ashcroft's "linkage of the act to indictments he has handed down is dubious." Professor Cole remarks that:
Ashcroft greatly exaggerates his "successes." He claims to have brought 255 criminal charges in terror investigations, but the vast majority of those charges were pretextual criminal charges (like credit card fraud or lying to an FBI agent) used to justify holding people who turned out to have no connection with terrorism. Similarly, he claims to have deported 515 people in the [9-11] investigation but fails to mention Justice Department policy that authorized deportation only after the FBI cleared immigrants of involvement in terrorism. To call these successes is to treat bullets that miss the target completely as bull's-eyes.
For more information on how the DOJ is misleading the public about the “successes” of the USA PATRIOT Act, read our Companion Guide to the DOJ’s Report from the Field: The USA PATRIOT Act at Work. See also Seeking Truth from Justice, an excellent point-by-point analysis of DOJ claims prepared by Dallas lawyer Chip Pitts.
Is the government’s current counterterrorism strategy working?
The federal government’s strategy in the “War on Terror,” including widespread detentions and immigration sweeps, is not working. A recently released report by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), based at Syracuse University, shows that the current strategy of casting a wide net to find terrorists is not effective. Of the 6,400 people referred to prosecutors because of possible relations to terrorism, 879 were convicted of a crime (in most cases minor immigration violations and other minor offenses), 373 were sent to prison, and only five received sentences of 20 years or more. TRAC’s David Burnham, quoted in this article, said "our report raises serious questions. When such large numbers of cases are declined, dismissed or acquitted, we have to ask: Is the government pursuing the right strategy (in the war on terror)? Are they targeting the right people?" The report suggests that the federal war on terrorism has targeted many people with no connections to terrorism. As a result, counterterrorism policy has permanently damaged the relationship between immigrant communities and the U.S. government.