NewsMine — security — legislation — dissent — Viewing Item

Montana lawmakers pass strong patriot act criticism { April 2 2005 } Original Source Link: (May no longer be active)    http://www.billingsgazette.com/index.php?id=1&display=rednews/2005/04/02/build/state/68-pat-act.inc http://www.billingsgazette.com/index.php?id=1&display=rednews/2005/04/02/build/state/68-pat-act.inc April 2, 2005 Last modified April 2, 2005 - 1:07 am House condemns Patriot Act By JENNIFER McKEE Gazette State Bureau HELENA - Montana lawmakers overwhelmingly passed what its sponsor called the nation's most strongly worded criticism of the federal Patriot Act on Friday, uniting politicians of all stripes. The resolution, which already galloped through the Senate and passed the House 88-12 Friday, must survive a final vote before it officially passes. Senate Joint Resolution 19, sponsored by Sen. Jim Elliott, D-Trout Creek, says that while the 2005 Legislature supports the federal government's fight against terrorism, the so-called Patriot Act of 2001 granted authorities sweeping powers that violate citizens' rights enshrined in both the U.S. and Montanan constitutions. The resolution, which does not carry the weight of a law but expresses the Legislature's opinion, encourages Montana law enforcement agencies not to participate in investigations authorized under the Patriot Act that violate Montanans' constitutional rights. It requests all libraries in the state to post a sign warning citizens that under the Patriot Act, federal agents may force librarians to turn over a record of books a person has checked out and never inform that citizen of the request. The resolution asks Montana's attorney general to review any state intelligence information and destroy it if is not tied directly to suspected criminals. It also asks the attorney general to find out how many Montanans have been arrested under the Patriot Act and how many people have been subject to so-called "sneak and peaks," or government searches of a person's property without the person's knowledge. Elliott, a Democrat and rancher from northwestern Montana, sponsored the resolution, but it garnered support from Republicans on the far right of the political spectrum. "Sometimes we just take liberty for granted in the country," said Rep. Roger Koopman, R-Bozeman, who keeps a plant called "the Liberty Tree" on his legislative desk. Koopman said his Liberty Tree was "blooming for this bill." "Frankly, what it says to me is that civil liberties are a bipartisan issue in Montana," said Rep. Rick Maejde, R-Trout Creek, who led the House debate for the resolution. Elliott said he was "very, very pleased" the resolution had such support. "Montana isn't the first state that passed a resolution, but this resolution is the strongest statement against the constitutional violations of the Patriot Act of any state and almost every city or county," he said. Twelve representatives - all Republicans - voted against the measure, including Rep. Bob Lake, R-Hamilton. "I don't like resolutions because they do absolutely nothing," he said in an interview after the vote. He also said the resolution was too vague. Is it a sacrifice of personal liberty to not be able to take a gun on an airplane? he asked. Is that the kind of thing this resolution objects to? "So, they're going to get this thing back in D.C. and say, 'O.K., Montana doesn't like what we're doing. So what?,' " he said. "It has no meaning to it." Copyright © The Billings Gazette, a division of Lee Enterprises.

pipebomb-kid senator-byrd 2 more cities might rebel patriot act 20 cities deny patriot act { December 19 2002 } Albany condemns patriot act Austin city critism of usa patriot act { September 26 2003 } Belafonte calls homeland security nazi gestapo { January 21 2006 } Bloomington city council asked to challenge patriot act { February 12 2004 } Bob barr and friends strike back at patriot act Bob barr dick armey join aclu Chicago asks congress to rethink patriot act { October 1 2003 } Cities reject anti terror measure Cities resistance gestapo { December 23 2002 } Congress prohibits email surveillance Constitutional court overturns indonesias terror law Council chides patriot act { October 2 2003 } Court comes alive { August 27 2002 } Court misinterpreted { August 24 2002 } Democracies die { August 27 2002 } Eugene apposes patriot act { November 25 2002 } Federal judge strikes down part of patriot act { January 26 2004 } Feds drop request for connecticut library records Feingold threatens to filibuster patriot act renewal Gore says to repeal 1984 style patriot act House votes to curb patriot act searches { June 16 2005 } Judge opposes vagueness in antiterror laws { January 30 2004 } Left and right unite against the patriot act { March 23 2005 } Librarian sues justice department over patriot act { August 26 2005 } Librarians front attack on the patriot act Local officials defy patriot act { April 21 2003 } Losangeles takes stand against patriot act { January 22 2004 } Millennium bomber judge decries attacks on constitution { July 28 2005 } Montana lawmakers pass strong patriot act criticism { April 2 2005 } Newy rok judge overturns secret searches law { September 29 2004 } Ny coucil passes anti patriot act measure { February 5 2004 } Oregon refused Patriot act lawsuit supressed by patriot act { April 29 2004 } Patriot act powers infringe Patriot act threat democracy { December 22 2002 } Philadelphia condemns patriot act Roll call vote on patriot act filibuster Rosa parks of generation refuses show id { November 29 2005 } Santa cruz council trying impeach bush { September 7 2003 } Sarasota florida pressures opposing law Secret court rebuffs { August 23 2002 } Senate rejects bush on patriot act Senator arlen spector questions patriot act police powers { January 6 2005 } Senators attempt roll back parts patriot act Senators to hold up patriot act reauthorization { October 2005 } Supreme court wary of bush unconstitutional tribunals { March 29 2006 } Files Listed: 48

Correction/submissions

CIA FOIA Archive

National Security Archives

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information, go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purpose of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.