Thursday, May 01, 2003
Copyright © Las Vegas Mercury

Editor's Note: Speak clearly into the wiretap

I'm endlessly fascinated by those cities and counties that boldly defy the federal government, creating nuclear-free zones, opposing the war in Iraq, refusing to comply with the Patriot Act. Maybe my curiosity is related to the fact that Nevada cities almost never do anything so provocative.

To date, 92 cities and counties (plus one state: Hawaii) have passed resolutions condemning the Patriot Act, according to the Bill of Rights Defense Committee website. Yes, the usual suspects are on the list: Madison, Wis., Berkeley, Calif., Cambridge, Mass., Flagstaff, Ariz., Ithaca, N.Y. But there are some semi-surprising cities on the list as well, places that seem too large or diverse to come to agreement on such a controversial statement: Minneapolis, Minn., Denver, Colo., Detroit, Mich., Missoula, Mont.

Needless to say, the list, which is broken down by state, does not even include a heading for Nevada.

Arcata, Calif.--that small (16,000 population) but well-known bastion of liberal activism--has actually passed an ordinance outlawing compliance with the Patriot Act. In Arcata, it is a municipal offense for any city management employee to assist or cooperate with federal agents who make unconstitutional requests. The fine for breaking the law is $57.

While Nevada cities are devoting staff time and taxpayer dollars to complying with the various requirements of the Patriot Act and other onerous facets of "homeland security," these communities are taking a step back and questioning the merits of the Bush administration's mandates. They are siding with the Constitution over the whims of fanatical Attorney General John Ashcroft.

If you think about it, Nevada communities should be better represented in terms of bucking the federal government. Time and again, Nevadans have been abused, neglected and harassed by the feds, from nuclear testing and nuclear waste to gambling probes and IRS audits. Rather than assuming the position when the feds send out orders, we should be skeptically questioning their motives.

To be fair, Southern Nevada cities have passed resolutions opposing the federal plan to dump high-level nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain. Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman has vowed to lie down on the highway to prevent the waste-laden trucks from rolling through. But Nevada's opposition is, first and foremost, based on financial concerns (the impact on tourism of an accident or the dump's proximity to Las Vegas). What's more, you'd be hardpressed to come up with a second example of a local government in Nevada taking a strong, controversial stand--conservative or liberal--on anything.

You might counter that these resolutions don't amount to much--that they are primarily symbolic gestures. Fair enough. You also might suggest that Nevada cities simply aren't wasting their time with such nonsense. No, they're wasting their time on other sorts of nonsense, such as awarding Citizen of the Month plaques to corporations, lobbying for fat pay raises and making sure developers get whatever they want.

Honestly, I don't think resolutions of this nature are a waste of time. They are the boldest way for a community to speak out on the issues of the day, and that's important--and not only to send a message to the offending party. Frank public discussion of important issues is part and parcel of democracy, and these communities are the best examples we have of the democratic process in action.

What's more, civil disobedience is absolutely necessary when it comes to the Patriot Act, which tramples the First and Fourth amendments, makes a mockery of privacy rights and shows little regard for the principles of "probable cause," "due process" and "innocent until proven guilty." This Justice Department power grab seeks to make the Constitution secondary to the cause of fighting terrorism.

The city councils in places like Flagstaff and Arcata aren't taking these controversial stands because they received a big campaign contribution from a special interest. These aren't decisions driven by financial gain. Rather, they reflect their opinions as shaped by research and public debate.

Nevada's local governments would benefit mightily from a more open, democratic process that tackles big, important issues--local, national and international. For the most part, public meetings in Las Vegas are sparsely attended, with only a few gadflies regularly in attendance. This, in part, is the fault of a preoccupied, disconnected populace. But it's also a product of an aloof political elite that takes little interest in the views of the average person--and often makes it difficult for people to get involved.

In one of his more ironic statements after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, President Bush urged Americans to simply go about their business, because to do otherwise would mean the terrorists had won. But Bush did not follow his own advice; instead, he embarked on a barrage of initiatives to nudge the nation ever closer to the police state we all so fear. Apparently Nevada--that alleged last refuge for lovers of freedom--isn't concerned.

--GEOFF SCHUMACHER