Site search
sponsored by
Home
News
ENLARGE
Constitution
During a meeting to discuss the Patriot Act, Rep. Peter DeFazio looks over a bookmark of the Bill of Rights while Joe Stewart looks on. At left is a copy of the U.S. Constitution. The Tuesday meeting took place on the 112th anniversary of the ratification of the Bill of Rights.
|
ENLARGE
|
Petition sheets
Silvia Norton passes out petition sheets to attendees of a protest of the Patriot Act at the Douglas County Courthouse Monday afternoon.
|
The USA Patriot Act was conceived under the cover of darkness and it's remained there ever since, Rep. Peter DeFazio told a crowd of people who attended a rally Monday at the Douglas County Courthouse.
One month after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, representatives from the office of Attorney General John Ashcroft and staff members of the House Judiciary Committee gathered in the middle of the night to expand the government's use of surveillance and detention powers, DeFazio said. The law written that night was needed, they said, in the war against terrorism.
The following morning, DeFazio asked for a copy of the bill, which was slated to be voted on a couple of hours later. He was told it wasn't available. It was only after he threatened to delay the vote that he was given a copy of the 342-page bill. The copy he was handed was still warm. It had just come off the copying machine.
Despite DeFazio's protests and the fact he had one of the few copies of the bill, the Patriot Act was approved that day. DeFazio, a Springfield Democrat, was one of just 66 representatives and one senator to vote against it.
"I hadn't had time to read the act, nor did any other member of Congress," he said. "Many of my colleagues now view this as a vote they wish they could take back."
The rally Monday took place on the 112th anniversary of the ratification of the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution. It also marked the kick-off to a petition drive asking the county Board of Commissioners to work for the repeal of the Patriot Act and any executive orders that violate rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
One month after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, representatives from the office of Attorney General John Ashcroft and staff members of the House Judiciary Committee gathered in the middle of the night to expand the government's use of surveillance and detention powers, DeFazio said. The law written that night was needed, they said, in the war against terrorism.
The following morning, DeFazio asked for a copy of the bill, which was slated to be voted on a couple of hours later. He was told it wasn't available. It was only after he threatened to delay the vote that he was given a copy of the 342-page bill. The copy he was handed was still warm. It had just come off the copying machine.
Despite DeFazio's protests and the fact he had one of the few copies of the bill, the Patriot Act was approved that day. DeFazio, a Springfield Democrat, was one of just 66 representatives and one senator to vote against it.
"I hadn't had time to read the act, nor did any other member of Congress," he said. "Many of my colleagues now view this as a vote they wish they could take back."
The rally Monday took place on the 112th anniversary of the ratification of the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution. It also marked the kick-off to a petition drive asking the county Board of Commissioners to work for the repeal of the Patriot Act and any executive orders that violate rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
The law, officially named the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act, gives the government broad powers for searches, wiretaps, electronic and computer eavesdropping, along with wide access to financial and other information held by individuals and businesses.
More than 210 cities and counties throughout the country, along with three states -- Hawaii, Alaska and Vermont -- have passed resolutions opposing the Patriot Act.
Betsy Cunningham, an official of Concerned Citizens, a local group working to repeal the Patriot Act, told the audience of about 50 people that she and Joe Stewart, another member of the group, are philosophically very different from one another. On this issue, however, they both agree the Patriot Act and what it stands for is a bad thing.
"We believe we are protecting the Bill of Rights," the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, Cunningham said.
Not everything contained within the Patriot Act is objectionable, Cunningham said. For instance, it says that people of Muslim descent should not be targeted simply because of their heritage.
"We believe that the few things that are OK are so outweighed by the bad things," she said.
Stewart, a longtime advocate for adherence to the Constitution, said the function of government should be to ensure that people's rights are protected.
"This is not being done," he said.
State Sen. Bill Fisher said he is not opposed to the entire Patriot Act, but he criticized the way it was passed without due consideration.
"When you get married five months after you've gotten divorced and are on the rebound, you probably don't have too much chance for success. The Patriot Act was passed while we were on the rebound," Fisher said.
* You can reach reporter John Sowell at 957-4209 or by e-mail at jsowell@newsreview.info.
More than 210 cities and counties throughout the country, along with three states -- Hawaii, Alaska and Vermont -- have passed resolutions opposing the Patriot Act.
Betsy Cunningham, an official of Concerned Citizens, a local group working to repeal the Patriot Act, told the audience of about 50 people that she and Joe Stewart, another member of the group, are philosophically very different from one another. On this issue, however, they both agree the Patriot Act and what it stands for is a bad thing.
"We believe we are protecting the Bill of Rights," the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, Cunningham said.
Not everything contained within the Patriot Act is objectionable, Cunningham said. For instance, it says that people of Muslim descent should not be targeted simply because of their heritage.
"We believe that the few things that are OK are so outweighed by the bad things," she said.
Stewart, a longtime advocate for adherence to the Constitution, said the function of government should be to ensure that people's rights are protected.
"This is not being done," he said.
State Sen. Bill Fisher said he is not opposed to the entire Patriot Act, but he criticized the way it was passed without due consideration.
"When you get married five months after you've gotten divorced and are on the rebound, you probably don't have too much chance for success. The Patriot Act was passed while we were on the rebound," Fisher said.
* You can reach reporter John Sowell at 957-4209 or by e-mail at jsowell@newsreview.info.
