We need a zero-tolerance policy on constitutional rights

By Jeff Milchen

A quick opinion poll: The Sept. 11 attacks were able to occur because: A) Allowing airline passengers to carry potentially deadly weapons like box-cutters was a bad idea.

B) Operating airport security is one job not suitable for cost-cutting corporations.

C) We didn't lock cockpit doors - duh!

D) Americans enjoy too much freedom, and police lacked the power to do their jobs.

Did anyone other than George Bush and John Ashcroft choose D?

Judging by public reaction to the so-called Patriot Act, passed just weeks after Sept. 11, not many of us would. Three states and more than 150 communities have passed resolutions affirming support for our Bill of Rights and opposing the act's intrusions on our freedoms - an unprecedented level of local government opposition to federal policy.

On Tuesday, Bozeman city commissioners will decide whether to pursue adding our voices to the growing chorus. These resolutions are not just symbolic gestures - they are turning the tide against the authoritarian impulses of the Bush administration and many in Congress. Witness the pending bipartisan bills to curtail pieces of the Patriot Act and the desperate speaking tour by Attorney General John Ashcroft, who evidently so fears average citizens that he speaks only before hand-picked audiences and allows no press questions.

Ashcroft also is pitching the even-more-disturbing proposal (and even more tortured acronym): "Vital Interdiction of Criminal Terrorist Organizations," which somehow yields "Victory Act." Could the Bush administration's desire to stifle intelligent discussion and intimidate critics be more blatant than these propagandistic titles?

Like the Patriot Act, the Victory Act is a huge, complex package with a few reasonable measures surrounded by unwarranted expansions of police power and infringements on our due process rights. For example, one item would make it virtually impossible for a defendant to exclude evidence obtained via illegal wiretaps by putting the burden of proof on the defendant to show "bad faith" on the part of law officials. In practice this would enable the FBI to do as it pleases and say "we made an honest mistake" when caught violating the law.

The Victory Act also recasts recreational drug users and street-level dealers as "narco-terrorists" in an attempt to revive support for the failed "war on drugs."

Inevitably this package will generate renewed debate on "striking the right balance" between freedom and safety, but the premise that American freedom either enabled the crimes of 9/11 to occur or hinders the effectiveness of terrorism prevention has no supporting evidence. Also lacking is any evidence that legalizing more invasive technology and granting law enforcement agencies the sweeping power to arrest, detain and spy on citizens enhances our safety.

To the contrary, history suggests that allowing law officials to spy on citizens based on their politics, as the Patriot Act effectively does, or to search property without judicial scrutiny simply wastes resources. The FBI's COINTELPRO operations of the 1960s and '70s, including the government's Church Commission Report, support this. Martin Luther King Jr. and Cesar Chavez were among those targeted by countless federal investigations which produced mountains of files but zero evidence of dangerous activity.

Rather than viewing political dissent - the focus of much FBI activity to this day - as a danger sign, authorities should recognize it as a safety valve that enhances stability. When opportunities to create peaceful change are available, people are less likely to turn to violence. Our cherished political freedom contributes to the nation's comparative low incidence of terrorism.

When Congress reacted to the Sept. 11 attacks by approving the Patriot Act, many agreed to support it only because the most drastic expansions of government power were made temporary. Those provisions will expire in 2005, but the Bush administration already seeks to make them permanent while blocking evaluation of their effectiveness or consequences.

One of the more absurd defenses offered by Mr. Ashcroft in his tour kick-off speech was a claim that nine of 10 Americans believed the Patriot Act had not yet harmed their civil liberties. Um, John, we're talking about the fundamental rights of citizens, not shooting free throws. When it comes to violating our constitutional rights, we need a zero-tolerance policy.

Please come out Tuesday afternoon to help Bozeman send a clear message in support of freedom and against dangerous expansions of federal power.

Jeff Milchen directs ReclaimDemocracy.org, a Bozeman-based national non-profit working to restore citizen authority over corporations and defend citizens' rights. You can view a sample resolution and get details by visiting ReclaimDemocracy.org/liberty or call 582-1224.

Reader Comments