|
"I do solemnly swear (or
affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of
the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve,
protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."
The Presidential Oath of
Office, in accordance with Article II, Section 1 of the
U.S. Constitution. [OurDocuments.gov]
Most people are aware of the controversy
surrounding the Patriot Act, and know that civil liberties
groups like the ACLU and the Libertarian Party have been
actively opposing the legislation.
What may come as a surprise are some
of the other groups which have voiced their opposition to the Bush
administration's infringements on our Constitutional
rights:
The American Library
Association
The 64,000-member association of
librarians has been among the most active groups in the fight
against the Patriot Act. Why? Because Section 215 of the
Patriot Act contains a provision allowing federal authorities
to force libraries and bookstores to provide records of
what library materials individuals have used, including
internet usage. The following is an excerpt from the group's
"Resolution on the USA Patriot Act and Related
Measures That Infringe on the Rights of Library
Users":
| The American Library Association (ALA)
opposes any use of governmental power to suppress the free
and open exchange of knowledge and information or to
intimidate individuals exercising free inquiry . .
. ALA considers that sections of the USA PATRIOT ACT
are a present danger to the constitutional rights and
privacy rights of library users. [ALA] |
329 U.S. Cities and
Towns
According to the Bill of Rights Defense
Committee's website, the city councils and local governments
of 329 cities and towns have passed resolutions against the
main provisions of the Patriot Act. [sample resolution] And these aren't
just small, liberal college towns: these municipalities represent 52
million people, and, by my count, are home to 82 of the 100 World
Series Champion teams and 31 of the 38 Super Bowl Champion
teams:
| Dallas,
Pittsburgh, New York City, St. Louis, Atlanta, Minneapolis,
Denver, Oakland, Hartford, Tampa, Honolulu, Chicago,
Baltimore, Detroit, Jackson, Kansas City, San
Francisco, Tucson, Los Angeles, Albuquerque,
Sacramento, Raleigh, Albany, Portland, San Jose, Austin,
Philadelphia, Providence, Anchorage, Richmond, Seattle,
Milwaukee, Washington, DC . . . and 296 other
municipalities. [Bill of Rights Defense
Committee] |
Four states have also signed the resolutions: Alaska,
Hawaii, Maine, and Vermont. [Bill of Rights
Defense Committee]
DEFENDING THE U.S. CONSTITUTION
ARCHIVE
Miscellaneous Articles | Patriot Act | Patriot Act II | Enemy Combatants
Miscellaneous
Articles
Only half
of U.S. high school students think newspapers should be allowed
to publish freely without government approval of stories [CNN]
Patriot
Act
Archived
6/2/05:
New
group challenges PATRIOT Act sunset provisions [checksbalances.org]
Archived
7/1/04:
"One
provision in the Patriot Act allows federal agents to secretly
search a U.S.
citizen's home without informing the person of that search for an
unspecified period of time. Do you approve or disapprove of this
provision?"
|
Approve |
 26% |
| Disapprove |
 71% |
| No Opinion |
 3% |
|
|
CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll. Feb. 16-17,
2004. N=1,006 adults nationwide. MoE
±
3. |
Archived 6/24/04:
Baltimore Sun: "Librarians set aside 'shhh'
to speak out for privacy"
| The typically mainstream librarian
crowd has trained its efforts on one provision of the
Patriot Act, section 215, which could allow federal agents
to obtain a variety of business records, potentially
including library records, and which is scheduled to expire
next year unless extended by Congress. [Baltimore
Sun] |
Patriot Act
II
Archived 6/24/04:
"Patriot II: The Sequel. Why It's Even Scarier than the First
Patriot Act" [Findlaw]
Leaked Patriot Act II draft [Center for Public
Integrity]
Enemy
Combatants
Archived 6/20/04:
American Bar Association articles on enemy combatants
policy
President Bush's "Military Order of November 13,
2001" established his policy towards "enemy combatants." [Whitehouse.gov]
The American Bar Association's Individual
Rights & Responsibilities Committee issued a report titled
"Civil
Liberties and Human Rights in the Aftermath of September 11."
The following are excerpts from articles on President Bush's enemy
combatants policy:
|
|
| On November 13,
President Bush signed an executive order
allowing him to try non-U.S. citizens in
military courts with penalties up to death for
activities that the president determines to be
involved in international terrorism or harboring
international terrorists. The normal rules of
evidence in civil cases will not apply; the
trial can be closed; the members of a military
panel need only decide by two-thirds; and there
is no civilian judicial review of the decision
(instead of review only by the president or the
secretary of defense).
Without any showing of necessity, this
assertion of power to punish even resident
aliens after an irregular, military trial for
actions taken within the borders of the United
States shows an arrogant disdain for American
pride in, and foreign admiration of, the
fairness of our courts.
Philip B. Heymann, professor
of law at Harvard Law School and the author of
Terrorism and America (2000).
[American Bar
Association] |
| By penalizing even wholly
lawful, nonviolent, and counter-terrorist
associational activity, we are likely to waste
valuable resources tracking innocent political
activity, drive other activity underground,
encourage extremists, and make the communities
that will inevitably be targeted by such
measures far less likely to cooperate with law
enforcement. And by conducting law enforcement
in secret, and jettisoning procedures designed
to protect the innocent and afford legitimacy to
the outcome of trials, we will encourage people
to fear the worst about our government. As
Justice Louis Brandeis wrote nearly seventy-five
years ago, the framers of our Constitution knew
"that fear breeds repression; that repression
breeds hate; and that hate menaces stable
government." In other words, freedom and
security need not necessarily be traded off
against one another; maintaining our freedoms is
itself critical to maintaining our security.
David Cole, professor of
constitutional law at Georgetown University Law
Center. [American Bar
Association] |
|
| |
|
|
