U.S. ANTI-TERROR LAW

Civics and civil liberties

Huntington is close to passing measure against Patriot Act

BY ALFONSO A. CASTILLO
STAFF WRITER

August 15, 2004

The Town of Huntington plans on becoming the latest government to go on the record with objections to the USA Patriot Act, which critics say does more to attack citizens' civil liberties than it does to protect them from terrorism.

The town board is expected next month to adopt a version of the so-called anti-Patriot Act - a nonbinding resolution criticizing several provisions of the far-reaching congressional package adopted in 2001, following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Prompted by a national movement spearheaded by the American Civil Liberties Union, local organizers have successfully lobbied for similar resolutions in more than 300 towns, cities and states - including New York City, Vermont and Maine.

Locally, the drive is being led by the Suffolk Bill of Rights Defense Campaign, a civil liberties group of about 20 members formed last year. Group members have already gotten about 1,000 signatures, held standing-room-only forums and met with some town lawmakers and U.S. Rep. Steve Israel (D-Huntington), who have expressed their support for the movement.

Huntington Supervisor Frank Petrone is reluctant to call the resolution the "anti-Patriot Act" but said he hopes to give federal representatives food for thought.

"We are in this era of terrorism. That is the single most problematic thing that we're dealing with," Petrone said. "But on the same hand, there are things that they should look at, to see if they are absolutely necessary to go as far as they've gone."

After the Huntington vote, members of the Suffolk Bill of Rights Defense Campaign plan to push for similar legislation in other towns and in the county legislature.

The 342-page USA Patriot Act - the name is an acronym for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism - was drafted to give the federal government unprecedented powers to stop possible terrorist activities on U.S. soil and was passed by a large margin.

But the legislation came under fire for what critics call its infringement on citizens' constitutional freedoms. Critics say the law allows the government to seize records of the library books you read, spy on political activists and conduct searches without showing probable cause.

"After a couple of years, I think people have finally had the chance to see what has happened," said Jared Feuer, director of the NYCLU and secretary of the campaign. "Innocence is no longer assumed."

Civil libertarians have been pushing for anti-Patriot Act resolutions in hopes of giving their elected federal representatives support in opposing some of the more controversial aspects of the law - some of which are set to expire in December 2005, if Congress doesn't renew them.

"This will help a legislator say, 'Look at my town,'" said campaign organizer Charlotte Koons of Northport. "'My town passed a resolution to this effect, and I have to represent my people.'"

Israel called the movement "extremely important" and said he would take it into consideration when voting on whether to renew the Patriot Act, which he voted for. He now acknowledges, however, that he didn't have time to digest it thoroughly before doing so.

"I'm usually given more time to figure out a tip at a Long Island diner than I was given to read and absorb the Patriot Act," said Israel, who says he now believes the act goes too far. "I think we can protect Americans from terrorists without allowing the federal government to investigate what videos honest Americans are renting from Blockbuster," he said.

Mark Corallo, a spokesman for the U.S. Department of Justice - which has launched a public information campaign to defend the act - rebuked Israel's representation of the act. "That's not just way off the mark; it's horribly misleading."

Corallo dismissed anti-Patriot Act movements as partisan political lobbying and a fund-raising ploy by the ACLU, and said the resolutions "don't really have any consequence."

He said that, contrary to protesters' beliefs, the act does not look to label peaceful political organizers as "terrorists," nor does it look to spy on citizens. He said that surveillance provisions in the bill have always been in place in federal law, and that the authors went out of their way to protect First Amendment rights.

"We have to use every tool we have to protect the American people," Corallo said. "We're going to protect their lives and their liberties, and the Patriot Act does that."

But campaign member Stan Gewanter, a Republican, said the problem is that the act can be so vague as to be open to several interpretations.

"I think I know how to read something," Gewanter, a Melville attorney, said. "I think I know what the Bill of Rights says, and the provisions are in violation thereof, in my opinion."

Republican Huntington Town Councilman Mark Capodanno said that the group has brought up "important points," but that he is uncertain whether the town should be taking up the resolution. "For us to be making decisions about national security issues is not something for a town board to be considering," Capodanno said.

Feuer disagreed. "You can say it's a federal issue, but everything is local," he said. "And the only way to change this debate is to do it on a local level."