F.C. City Council OKs Sharp Resolution Vs. Patriot Act Abuses of Civil Liberties

Asserting that "the possible erosion of civil liberties has a direct impact on the operations of the Falls Church City government and on the lives of the people living in the City, necessitating that the City Council express its opinion," the Falls Church City Council, by a 6-1 margin, passed Monday a strongly-worded resolution calling for Congress to modify provisions of the U.S.A. Patriot Act that "threaten to undermine the fundamental rights of all our citizens."

The resolution, entitled "Resolution to Protect Civil Liberties and Fight Terrorism," directs that "no agency or employee of the government of the City of Falls Church shall divulge information records, including educational, medical, financial or library, pertaining to an individual" except "as lawfully directed by the federal government, by order of a court or pursuant to the Code of Virginia."

Further, it affirms that the Mary Riley Styles Library in Falls Church shall post in a prominent place a notice citing that under the Patriot Act, "Records of the books and other materials patrons borrow from this library may be obtained by federal agents" and that the law "prohibits librarians from informing a patron if records about him/her have been requested or obtained by federal agents."

It adds that a similar sign be posted at all computer workstations in the library stating, "Activity on this computer may be monitored according to state and federal law."

The complete text of the resolution is published elsewhere in this edition of the News-Press.

The draft resolution, which was uniformly praised by a succession of the City's most prominent civil libertarian citizen activists speaking during the Council's petition period Monday, was drafted for the Council by the bi-partisan team Vice Mayor Martha Meserve and Council member David Snyder. Meserve proudly identifies herself as a Democrat and Snyder has run for State Delegate as a Republican.

It was positively received when reviewed by the Council at a work session last month, and with the exception of Council member Sam Mabry, who voted "no" Monday, it was hailed by everyone on the Council this Monday, most notably by Mayor Dan Gardner.

"We are in a global war on terrorism, make no doubt," Mayor Gardner said. "It may get worse before it gets better, but it's going to last a long time. As a Navy veteran of 20 years who was working at the Pentagon on 9/11, I know only too well what that means," he said.

He went on to express his support for the resolution, saying, "It strikes a balance. It is a good attempt by good people and I support it. We're all concerned about our Constitutional rights and the continued support for them. It's a national issue but also a local issue, having a direct effect on our community. This is calling for a look at what's being done and to make sure it's being done correctly."

Council member Robin Gardner added, "This is guidance to decision makers. It allows our congressmen to know how we feel in advance of follow-up legislation on the Patriot Act. It is not asking to throw out the Patriot Act, but to ask for changes."

Snyder said the resolution came in response to urging by local citizens, that it had precedents in surrounding jurisdictions and speaks directly to matters of concern to the City government and its citizens. He hailed its "even-handed approach."

Similar support for the resolution was expressed by citizen activists Annette Mills, Sarah Eggleston, Rachel Clark, Carol Jackson, David Eckert, Peter Davis, Carol Ensign and Falls Church League of Women Voters president Edie Smolinski, who pointed out that not only has her organization supported at the national and local level measures of this kind, but that, in Virginia, the jurisdictions of Arlington, Alexandria and Richmond have already weighed in.

"It is a thoughtful, well-crafted expression of the rights of citizens," Mills said. "Your statement would be supported by the Founding Fathers many of whom are pictured in this hall."

Davis praised the Council for working together to bring the resolution to a vote Monday to oppose the unconstitutional provisions of the Patriot Act and to "stand up for what we believe in, fundamental Constitutional rights and as they apply to immigrants, too."

Two citizens, Tom Edmonds and Hillel Weinberg, spoke against passage of the act. Weinberg called it a "mistake," a "broad brush attack on the Patriot Act justified only by suspicion of government."

Mabry said that there are "definitely parts of the Patriot Act that are onerous and need to be changed," but that it confuses criminality with terrorism. "Enemy combatants don't have the right to a jury, but by a military court," he said, adding that the resolution "is well-intentioned but antiseptic in equating war with terror." Tuesday, in a written statement to the News-Press, however, he said the Council vote was "pure special interest pandering."

While Falls Church joined its Arlington and Alexandria neighbors with perhaps the most strongly-worded resolution on the Patriot Act of all, its Fairfax County neighbor was not willing to weigh in when the matter came before its Board of Supervisors last June 21.

In a 5-3 vote, the Fairfax Board voted to send a watered-down version of a Patriot Act resolution to the County executive for more study and no deadline for return. Voting to punt were Board chair Jerry Connolly, Dana Kaufman, Sharon Bullova, Lynda Smith and Joan DuBois. The resolution's sponsor, Cathy Hudgins, was joined by Penny Gross and Elaine McConnell in the unsuccessful effort to see the resolution through. Gerald Hyland and Michael Frey were not present.

Overall, more than 330 U.S. jurisdictions, including New York City, Baltimore, Philadelphia and the District of Columbia, have passed resolutions similar to the one passed in Falls Church Monday. The jurisdictions of Montgomery County, Takoma Park, Greenbelt and Prince George's County have joined Arlington, Alexandria, Falls Church and the District in this area.

The Patriot Act, which passed the U.S. House 356-66 and the Senate 98-1 in the wake of 9/11 in October 2001, expands the reach of law enforcement agencies to monitor and search people if they're suspected of involvement with terrorism. Since its passage, several members of Congress have voiced concerns for the overreaching application of the law, including some who originally voted for it, such as Rep. Jim Moran.