Thursday, August 14, 2003
Copyright © Las Vegas Mercury

Nevada united

Activists in north and south foment a civil rights defensive

By Heidi Walters

Monday night, a cross-state conversation between activists in the north part of the state and activists in the south resulted in a plan: to campaign together against the provisions in the U.S.A. PATRIOT Act that threaten civil liberties.

This is no small decision. Two coalitions have formed in Nevada since Congress hastily passed the anti-terrorism act, "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism," on Oct. 24, 2001, in reaction to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. In the north, the Nevada Coalition to Defeat the PATRIOT Act gathered 30-plus groups and drafted a resolution. In the south, the Coalition to Prevent the Erosion of Human Rights formed and also suggested a resolution. There were differences, such as over how to treat immigrant rights. And, there seemed to be a few more right-wing groups in the northern coalition, says Liz Moore with the southern coalition. Moore also is the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada's Southern Nevada coordinator.

"In the north, many of the groups are along the lines of the American Independent Party and the Eagle Forum, and they stand for exactly the opposite of everything PLAN believes in," Moore says. "PLAN wasn't interested in being aligned with those far-right groups."

In the end, they agreed to call their coming-together a "campaign," and they managed to consolidate the resolutions into one--including a provision protecting immigrant rights.

The plan now, says Moore, is to gather more group endorsements and present the resolution to local governments and eventually the state. And who knows? Perhaps Nevada will join the growing snowball of opposition that so far has swept up 146 communities nationwide, including three states (Hawaii, Alaska and Vermont), all of whom have passed resolutions upholding civil liberties.

But why oh why? What's all this hate for the PATRIOT Act? Such a nice name...

Well, for one thing, the ominous act that nobody in Congress read before signing it into law at 3:30 in the morning amid a rightful hysteria of fear "is a significant step" toward a totalitarian government, says Laura Mijanovich, Northern Nevada Coordinator for the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada and a founding member of Nevada Hispanic Services. She should know: more than 20 years ago she emigrated as a young woman from Argentina, during that country's "dirty war" in which 30,000 people were "disappeared" between 1976 and 1983.

"We had all of these civil rights that were guaranteed under a constitution that was strikingly similar to the United States'," Mijanovich, who married an American, says. "And there were assaults on those rights. It was just terrible. If you were the `terrorist,' you were gone. And not just you, but your family also. And even the people in your address book. The military juntas were just terrible, terrible. They were liquidating people right and left."

Mijanovich does not suggest that such a thing would happen in this country. But still, she offers caution: "You cannot take measures to eradicate a problem when the measures are worse than the malady you're trying to control," she says.

The national ACLU, a leader in the nationwide campaign to repeal the PATRIOT Act, finds provisions in the act so reprehensible that on July 30 it and several American Muslim, Islamic and Arab groups filed the first lawsuit questioning the constitutionality of the act. The defendants: Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller.

The lawsuit challenges a section of the act that expands the ability of the FBI to secretly nose through the personal records and effects of U.S. citizens and residents. The ACLU says the provision violates the Fourth Amendment by allowing secret search and seizures without proving probable cause; violates the First Amendment by allowing the FBI to look into what individuals are reading, who they're chatting with and what they're saying on the Internet--all of which has a chilling effect on people's activities; and also violates the First Amendment by prohibiting librarians, booksellers or anyone else asked to cooperate in a search from telling anyone about it. The groups say the act is disproportionately aimed at residents of certain ethnic, religious and minority communities.

Locally, the PATRIOT Act hasn't made huge waves yet. Dan Walters, director of the Las Vegas-Clark County Library District, says while, under the act, he's not allowed to actually say whether or not a specific individual's records have been searched, "in general we've had no requests at all from law enforcement agencies." Walters says, however, that he finds the act "disturbing."

"I'm always anxious about efforts or actions taken by Congress to curb individual privacy," he says. "I'm more in favor of law enforcement demonstrating probable cause, rather than this national anxiety over security." But Walters says if the FBI issues a search warrant, he'll comply--to do otherwise would place him in contempt of court.

Gary Peck, executive director of the ACLU of Nevada, says he's heard a number of complaints from people who feel their rights have been abused under the PATRIOT Act and the Homeland Security Act.

"But the complaints are from people who oftentimes are fearful of going public because they believe they would become targets of hate on the part of the community and of the government," Peck says.

Peck lauds the new statewide grassroots campaign to fight for civil liberties. And, he calls the ACLU lawsuit "a watershed moment in the campaign to roll back the PATRIOT Act."