Our targets are not the average American; our targets are people who want to kill average Americans.
- Mark Corallo
You can't just tell people, "Trust us, we're the government."
- Nancy Talanian
This may ultimately prove to be a futile effort, but I do admire local governments for showing some cojones. The latest resistance to the USA PATRIOT Act may well be coming out of the People's Republic of Austin. Now, some folks might consider Austin to be an island of Californication in the good, God-fearing Lone Star State- Like Berkeley with a warmer climate. In this case, though, I think the City Council might be onto something deserving of our attention.
If Council Member Jackie Goodman had her way, authorities in Austin would refuse to cooperate with some federal investigations conducted under the USA Patriot Act.
Such a stance would likely require a change in city law, a move Goodman isn't sure her colleagues on the City Council or their constituents would be comfortable with -- yet.
So today, she instead will offer a resolution critical of the federal anti-terrorism law, which she hopes will lay the foundation for a future ordinance that would defy it....
"People really need to know what's in the act," Goodman said. The resolution "gives you a philosophical base to say, `We need to talk about this.' I understand that people need to be comfortable with the specifics before we go further."
City lawyers were still reviewing the resolution Wednesday night. At today's meeting, city staff will brief the council on how the Patriot Act could potentially affect what they do. Local police, for example, could be called to assist in federal investigations.
The Patriot Act, approved by Congress shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, in part gives the government broad surveillance powers that critics say could lead to the infringement of citizens' civil rights.
Some government officials will argue that the USA PATRIOT Act gives the government little in the way of survellance rights that it doesn't already have. That may be somewhat disingenuous, and it does miss the essence of the problem.
The problem is what the Act gives the government the right to do if it so chooses. In the hands of an unscrupulous civil servant (or one with an axe to grind), the potential for invading someone's privacy and wreaking havoc is unbelievable. Is this what the Founding Fathers envisioned when they declared independence from the tyranny of the King of England?
Of course, in the end, anything the Austin City Council does will be full of sound and fury and will signify nothing. Still, protest has to begin somewhere. If what is going on in Austin gets a few Texans thinking about what our government is up to, then it will be a good thing. There is nothing wrong with asking why our government was unquestioningly given virtual carte blanche. It is, after all, what free speech should be all about.
