ARCATA, California (AP) # More than 100 cities and one state have passed resolutions condemning the USA Patriot Act, saying it gives the federal government too much snooping power. But in this liberal fold of Northern California’s Redwood Curtain, a simple denouncement just doesn’t go far enough.
To cooperate with the act, the City Council says, is criminal.
Starting this month, a new city ordinance would impose a fine of $57 on any city department head who voluntarily complies with investigations or arrests under the aegis of the Patriot Act, the anti-terrorism bill passed after September 11.
Arcata’s law is mostly symbolic, since federal law trumps any local ordinance. Still, the notion of civic disobedience is drawing plenty of attention.
“We knew we were doing something a little bit bold,” says Dave Meserve, the councilman who sponsored the ordinance. “It certainly did not occur to me that it would catch the imagination of the American public.”
In Arcata, the ordinance is the latest in a long line of actions that set the former mill town apart from the flannel-clad conservatism of California’s North Coast.
Home to about 16,000 and nearly 300 miles up the coast from San Francisco, Arcata made waves in the early 1990s as the first city with a Green Party majority. Greens now hold two of five seats on the council, which recently issued a proclamation against war in Iraq.
At Northtown Books, one of several businesses lining Arcata’s charming town square, employees have followed reaction to the ordinance with interest.
“Some of the reports of what’s going on here have made it seem like, ‘Oh, it’s those crazy hippies in Arcata,”‘ Jay Herzog said.
The USA Patriot Act gives the government new powers to use wiretaps, electronic surveillance and other information gathering. Opponents say it violates civil liberties; supporters say it has helped fight terrorism.
“The Patriot Act has been an invaluable tool in the government’s efforts to prevent terrorist attacks,” said Justice Department spokesman Jorge Martinez, who said the act is constitutional and is being used only against people suspected of acting as agents of a foreign power or foreign terrorist organizations.
But Martinez calls the groundswell of resolutions “merely symbolic. We haven’t had an instance where localities are not complying.”
Usually Northern Cal is reasonably patriotic and mostly “conservative”. However, some years ago while BillieBob was CinC and the ‘gooders were running the country there was a massive change in the laws in N-Cal among the Redwoods and on the seashores. Where traditionally you could hike and enjoy the woods, take a few photos, pick up a piece of floatsam on the seashore, all those things were shut out for the commoners and only the federally-appointed “contractors” could step off the beaten path or pick up a piece of wood on the seashore. Many people lost their livlihoods gathering floatsam and making objects out of it and a bunch of other endeavors. In fact, it was reported that if you were out hiking and had to step off the path to make a quick nature call it could result in the loss of five c-notes and some slammer time. If you picked up a piece of wood on the seashore (those places where you were allowed, anyway, because much of the shore was closed to the commoners) you had the same problems. This takeover by the ‘gooders was a serious blow to the economy of an already strained economy on the N.Cal coastal areas. I was there in the late ’90’s and the entire area was very obviously depressed economically.
Not too surprising they became anti-gov. But they are barking in the wind if they think they can outlaw Federal laws. In fact, if they pushed it to a head-to-head, they could find theirselves under martial-law and armed guard.
(Sorry, could not find the edit option for the prior)
comment on (10 U.S.C. 332)
Whenever there is an insurrection in any State against its government, the President may, upon the request of its legislature or of its governor if the legislature cannot be convened, call into Federal service such of the militia of the other States, in the number requested by that State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to suppress the insurrection.
Similar statutory authority permits you to use military force without any state request to address circumstances whenever and wherever you determine that the laws of the United States cannot be enforced (10 U.S.C. 332)
Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State or Territory by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.