"Art Babbott, a Flagstaff city councilman, sponsored a resolution to protect civil liberties in terrorism investigations. Mr. Babbott's colleague Joe Haughey worried that the measure might invite terrorism."
Interesting to note that Mr. Haughey does not appear in the picture.
It is also interesting to note the subtle slant of the article, working hard at planting "seeds of doubt" in citizens reading it about these measures "inviting terrorism". I have taken the liberty of highlighting the "seeds" I found, most with commentary added by me in italics and brackets. Did I miss any?
Cities Urge Restraint in Fight Against Terror
December 23, 2002
By MICHAEL JANOFSKY
FLAGSTAFF, Ariz., Dec. 20 - Nearly two dozen cities around
the country have passed resolutions urging federal
authorities to respect the civil rights of local citizens
when fighting terrorism. Efforts to pass similar measures
are under way in more than 60 other places.
While the resolutions are largely symbolic, many of them
provide some legal justification for local authorities to
resist cooperating in the federal war on terrorism when
they deem civil liberties and Constitutional rights are
being compromised.
[So, being "symbolic", they have no real meaning and therefore we shouldn't be wasting our time pursuing them. The "some legal justification" comment is a poke at those who "resist cooperating".]
Most of the resolutions have passed in liberal bastions
like Boulder, Colo.; Santa Fe, N.M.; Cambridge, Mass.; and
Berkeley, Calif., where opposition to government policy is
a tradition. But less ideological places have also acted,
with more localities considering it, from big cities like
Chicago and Tampa, Fla., to smaller ones like Fairbanks,
Alaska, and Grants Pass, Ore.
Many communities are getting help from the American Civil
Liberties Union and the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, a
grass-roots group in Florence, Mass.
"People are very, very willing and committed to do
everything reasonably possible about terrorist threats,"
said Elliot Mincberg, legal director of People for the
American Way, a nonprofit group that works for
constitutional protections. "But there is a growing concern
about the executive branch is handling this, a unilateral
assertion of power that, in many instances, intrudes on
people's privacy and is carried out in a very secretive
manner."
Art Babbott, the City Council member who sponsored the
resolution in Flagstaff that passed last week after intense
debate, said: "We've been singing the same song in this
country for more than 200 years. It's a very good song, and
I want to keep singing it. I'm very leery of changing the
lyrics."
Supporters of the resolutions say the measures have grown
out of a belief that the Patriot Act of 2001, the Homeland
Security Act passed this year and a series of executive
orders have given the federal government too much muscle in
its war against terrorism at the expense of average
Americans, especially Muslims. The 2001 act expands
government powers in such matters as electronic
surveillance, search warrants and detention.
The Homeland Security Act created a cabinet department for
national defense.
[No actual seeds in the above several paragraphs, but note how neutrally they present the "other" side.]
In most places, the resolutions carry no legal weight,
merely affirming the civil rights as federal authorities
intensify antiterrorist efforts in the aftermath of the
Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
[Again, the seed that we would be wasting our time on these, since they "carry no weight"]
But resolutions passed by some towns like Amherst, Mass.,
have a sharper tone, going so far as to direct city
personnel not to help federal or state officials in
activities that could be considered in violation of civil
rights or liberties.
The Amherst measure, for example, says, "to the extent
legally possible, no town employee shall officially assist
or voluntarily cooperate with investigations,
interrogations or arrest procedures" that may be judged to
violate civil rights or liberties.
The Flagstaff measure, which passed with a City Council
vote of 4 to 3, includes a part written so ambiguously that
members on each side of the issue said it could give the
police department and other city departments a legal basis
to delay or even withhold cooperation with higher
authorities investigating a terrorist threat or suspicious
person. To the four council members who support the
measure, that is a good thing.
The three who opposed it predicted that it could have
dangerous consequences.
[Fear seed - implementing this could "put us in jeapardy"]
Nancy Talanian, co-director of the Florence group, said
conflicts between local and federal authorities had not
emerged. However, in Amherst, faculty members at the
University of Massachusetts recently protested the Federal
Bureau of Investigation's questioning of Musaddak J.
Alhabeeb, an Iraqi-born associate professor of economics,
over his views of the Bush administration's plans for war
against Iraq.
But no conflicts over the new laws should arise, said Mark
Corallo, a spokesman for the Justice Department, insisting
that they are constitutional.
["Trust us. Even though it is nowhere NEAR explicitly stated in the laws we've passed, we're telling you we won't abuse your civil liberties! You don't need to be passing any other laws to protect your rights! RIGHT!]
"We are still living under the Constitution," Mr. Corallo
said, asserting that protection of civil liberties is built
into all antiterrorism legislation. [Really? Where?]
"We would have it no other way. Everything we do,
particularly in the realm of surveillance, we do with the
authority and supervision of courts."
[Now that's reassuring to know, considering the recent track record of our courts and the government's response to them.]
The resolutions already adopted, including another passed
last week, in Oakland, Calif., are alike in many ways,
reflecting a common fear of government aggression in such
areas as wiretaps, search warrants and immigration policy.
The resolution passed by the board of commissioners of
Alachua County, Fla., among others, warns that "civil
liberties are precious and may now be threatened" by the
government's new powers.
The Boulder City Council resolution "affirms that any
efforts to end terrorism not be waged at the expense of
essential civil rights and liberties of the people of
Boulder, the United States and the World."
The aldermen of Carrboro, N.C., took a slightly stronger
position, with a resolution that requires any visiting
federal agents to "work in accordance with the policies and
procedures of the Carrboro Police Department and in
cooperation with the department."
Efforts in some cities to pass resolutions with stronger
language were thwarted by legal advisers who argued that
requiring federal authorities to comply with municipal
standards would create problems. An early version of the
measure passed in Santa Cruz, Calif., sounded much the same
as Amherst's but was softened at the urging of the city
attorney.
"We didn't want to put our police officers in an untenable
position," said Mayor Emily Reilly of Santa Cruz.
[Yeah, we wouldn't want to do that, now would we? Some terrorist might do some real damage while the police officers were stuck in an "untenable position", hands tied by that pesky resolution.]
The same kind of tug of war occurred in Flagstaff, where
Mr. Babbott, the resolution sponsor, argued for the kind of
language in the Carrboro measure. It was eliminated from
the final version after objections from Flagstaff's mayor,
Joseph C. Donaldson, and a complaint from the police chief,
J. T. McCann, who said the language "thrusts the department
into an unenforceable partisan role that is adverse not
only to our mission but our long-term partnerships" with
other law enforcement agencies.
The final version omitted any reference to the police
department but remained strong enough that Mr. Babbott said
it would cause local police officers "to think very hard"
about any federal requests for assistance that might tread
upon citizens' civil liberties.
Mayor Donaldson interpreted the resolution the same way but
said any hesitation could hurt the campaign to root out
terrorism.
[Fear seed again.]
"This creates an environment for misunderstanding and
procrastination," he said, adding that the resolution would
ultimately have no influence on any visiting federal
agents. "When the president came here before the election,
his security people didn't pick up a book to read city
policies and procedures," he said. "That's just not going
to happen."
[Again that seed that we are wasting our time pushing for these resolutions - the feds will ignore them anyway.]
Meanwhile, council members on both sides of the issue said
they had been barraged with criticism through e-mail
messages, telephone calls and encounters on the street.
Joe Haughey, a councilman who opposed the resolution, said
opponents have told him the resolution "serves as an
invitation" for terrorists to come to Flagstaff. Kara
Kelty, a councilwoman who voted in favor of the measure,
said one telephone caller who opposed her view called her
"a bimbo" for supporting it.
[So where were the comments critizing the opponents of the bill for NOT supporting it? Almost makes you think there were none, despite the "both sides receiving criticism" comment that preceded the examples, eh?]
But, she said, she felt she voted the right way.
"I'm proud of my community," she said. "Civil liberties, the
Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are dear
to us. I didn't want to do anything to alter that."
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/23/national/23PATR.html?ex=1041956780&ei=1&en=5293627eb22ced3e
<A HREF="">www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="">Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
