Won't this resolution hurt MacDill AFB?
No. The Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process is designed to keep political issues like our resolution and political pressure from impacting the process. For specific details on the BRAC process, click here.

Won't this resolution hurt the morale of our troops?
No. The Patriot Act impacts the civil liberties of all Americans. Changing it will, in no way, undermine the soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines we have placed in harm's way. They will serve with honor. We should honor their service by acting to preserve the Constitutional rights of Americans they are sworn to defend.

Isn't it just liberals who oppose this legislation?
No. In fact, the USA Patriot Act is "Uniting and Strengthening America" -- against itself. Conservative organizations such as the American Baptist Churches USA, American Conservative Union, Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum, Americans for Tax Reform, Center for National Security Studies, Gun Owners of America, and the Presbyterian Church USA have historically been concerned with individual liberty. Such groups are uniting with liberals against this legislation. Contrary to Department of Justice claims that only locales with left-leaning constituencies are passing resolutions creating Civil Liberties Safe Zones, diverse cities, towns, counties, and states, all over the political map, from Boise, Idaho and the state of Alaska to Baltimore, Maryland and Kansas City, Missouri, are uniting in opposition to this legislation. For a list of conservative organizations supporting such resolutions, click here.

Won't repealing or rolling back these anti-terrorism measures damage our government's effectiveness in fighting and preventing terrorism in the United States?
The current federal war on terror is not working. A recently released report by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), based at Syracuse University, shows that the current strategy of casting a wide net to find terrorists is not effective at finding terrorists. Of the 6,400 people referred to prosecutors because of possible relations to terrorism, 879 were convicted of a crime (in most cases immigration violations and other minor offenses), 373 were sent to prison, and only five received sentences of 20 years or more. David Burnham, of TRAC, said "Our report raises serious questions. When such large numbers of cases are declined, dismissed or acquitted, we have to ask: Is the government pursuing the right strategy (in the war on terror)? Are they targeting the right people?" The report suggests that the federal war on terrorism has targeted too many people with no connections to terrorism. (www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20031207-101622-3249r)

While Attorney General John Ashcroft asserts that the Patriot Act has led to important successes in the war on terrorism, David Cole, Constitutional law professor, writes in The Nation magazine (http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0905-01.htm) that Ashcroft's "linkage of the act to indictments he has handed down is dubious. He typically points to an indictment, asserts that it depended on cooperation among local, state and federal intelligence and law-enforcement officials, and then vaguely claims that the act broke down the 'wall' that previously blocked communication between law enforcement and intelligence agencies. But with the exception of a single provision allowing prosecutors to share grand jury information with intelligence officials, the Patriot Act did not eliminate any legal 'wall.' As insiders have observed, the walls between agencies were cultural and bureaucratic, not legal, and the Administration did not need the Patriot Act to bring them down."

According to a recent report released by the Markle Foundation (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A27763-2003Dec2?language=printer), a Task Force on National Security in the Information Age, the sharing of information among intelligence agencies and law enforcement officials has failed to improve since the September 11, 2001 attacks, after the Patriot Act. The Act was simply unnecessary. When the government abandoned its requirement that men from 25 countries register with the government every year, Asa Hutchinson, the U.S. Undersecretary for Border and Transportation admitted that the controversial program had yielded no terrorist leads. Similarly, other post 9/11 legislation, passed in the name of antiterrorism has not yielded any arrests with charges of terrorism. There is no inherent conflict between national security interests and protecting our fundamental constitutional rights. The United States government had all of the legal tools it needed before September 11, 2001 to prevent the attacks, without the USA Patriot Act.

Why is this a local issue?
It is the municipality's responsibility to ensure that its residents feel safe and protected by just laws from unfair treatment, from invasion of privacy without probable cause, and from detentions without charges cloaked in secrecy. When most local elected officials take office, they swear to uphold both the state and federal constitutions, including the Bill of Rights in their municipality. The USA Patriot Act undermines the State and Federal Constitutional protections our local officials are sworn to uphold.

There is also the issue of the unfunded mandate. Under the USA Patriot Act, local law enforcement is expected to be the "first responder," to have FBI liaisons on local police forces, to question people from certain countries without probable cause, to assist with federal immigration responsibilities, etc. With local and state budgets for law enforcement tighter than ever, this unfunded mandate can force local police to set aside its other important work--protecting our community from crime.

The National League of Cities, an organization advocating for the interests of cities and towns with the Federal government, has urged amendment of the Patriot Act in a December 2003 resolution passed at their annual meeting. The NLC resolution seeks to restore the protections of fundamental civil liberties for all Americans from the threats presented by the Patriot Act and to repeal the unfunded mandate presented by the Patriot Act against the strained municipal budgets of our cities and towns. The City of TAMPA is a member of the National League of Cities.

Amend PATRIOT Act Urges National League of Cities
Resolution Affirming the Principles of Federalism and Civil Liberties

What is the point of passing a local resolution?
Passing a resolution provides an opportunity to re-educate many people in our community about our Constitutional protections and inform them about the dangerous provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act and how they weaken democracy.

Passing a local resolution also expresses to the federal government, and specifically to our representatives in Congress that their constituents are not happy with limits on and violations of fundamental civil liberties.

As of February 18, 2004, 255 cities, towns, and counties, and three States have passed these resolutions. These localities represent more than 30 million people in America. We are already seeing tangible effects from the movement - more politicians are responding to the loud and clear message their constituents are sending, and taking a stand against further encroachments against civil liberties. While the USA PATRIOT Act, proposed shortly after Sept. 11, 2001, passed overwhelmingly (98-1 in the Senate and 357-66 in the House), already in the 108th Congress, at least 15 bills or amendments proposing the rollback of the USA Patriot Act have been introduced.

Aren't most provisions in the Patriot USA Act due to expire in 2005?
This is a very common misconception. Only a small portion of the Act is set to expire; the majority of the Patriot Act is not subject to expiration. See "USA PATRIOT Act Sunset Provisions": www.tampasafeandfree.org/sunset.html

I have nothing to hide, so why should I care if I'm under surveillance?
People have different reasons for resisting this law. Privacy advocates, people exercising their First Amendment rights of speech and assembly, and advocates of human rights should all be concerned.

Privacy advocates are concerned about those provisions that make it easier for the government to conduct different kinds of surveillance on people in America. Section 218 of the USA Patriot Act allows your home to be searched without a Judge finding probable cause. Section 213 allows for "sneak and peak searches," meaning law enforcement can search your home and tell you within a "reasonable time." If they don't take anything and just snoop around, they're not required to tell you at all! Section 215 allows the government to obtain virtually any business records revealing the private details of your personal life -- including your library, Amazon.com, employment, medical, financial, and other records. They obtain information on citizens who are not suspected or accused of any crime simply by saying it is relevant to an ongoing investigation. The section allows Federal law enforcement to obtain entire databases. Judges cannot deny the warrants. You will never know if your records have been obtained because the providers are gagged from telling you.

The USA Patriot Act also creates a new crime, "domestic terrorism," which is very broad and vaguely defined. This broad definition can be used against many political and religious activists exercising their Constitutional rights to assemble, protest, and dissent. It will chill legitimate First Amendment activity.

At least 1,200 people in America were detained after September 11. According to the Department of Justice's own Office of Inspector General, most of the detainees were denied due process; many were denied access to an attorney. The OIG found that virtually all of the detainees were not accused of terror-related offenses, but were accused merely of civil violations of the federal immigration law. The USA Patriot Act and related new anti-terror laws created many immigration policies that have caused lasting damage to the relationship between immigrant communities and the U.S. government. Local law enforcement is required to assist and enforce these policies under the Act.

Doesn't the Patriot Act apply solely to aliens and immigrants?
No! The broad surveillance provisions in the USA Patriot Act apply to any and all suspected "terrorist" activity and more, regardless of whether those affected are U.S. citizens, aliens, or immigrants. In some cases, the expanded powers of the Patriot Act may be used in routine criminal investigations. The groups that have thus far been most harassed are immigrants and aliens (including legal ones), but the USA Patriot Act -- as well as the new executive orders and Homeland Security Act powers -- are being applied in many ways against the American population as a whole, including in general criminal investigations and cases which do not involve any suspected "terrorist" activities.

Will a locality be penalized for passing a "civil liberties safe zone" Resolution?
There is no legal basis for penalizing a town, city, county, or state for invoking its right to make a resolution or pass a law. Any federal government that would resort to "punishing" any of its citizens for such a non-transgression would be behaving in a tyrannical fashion -- and would justify urgent opposition to such repression. The civil liberties resolution movement is driven by deep-rooted concerns about our identity as a society - our fundamental freedoms and liberties and the foundational rule of law. We cannot be waylaid by fears that we will be punished for trying to preserve our country's founding ideals.

Another concern is that the current Administration has already denied local and state governments vital assistance to address increasingly harsh economic conditions -- even to fund the Homeland Security measures it has trumpeted as being essential for our collective security.

Please click here to return home.