Un-PATRIOT-ic Frustrated with federal inertia, a growing number of grassroots Maine groups are taking their civil liberties into their own hands BY ALEX IRVINE

If for no other reason, the USA PATRIOT Act should be struck from the laws of this country because it is the single worst political acronym ever to darken the Congressional Record: "USA PATRIOT" stands for "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism" — a clinical example of Orwellian doublespeak that is also a deplorable act of violence against the English language. But aesthetic judgments aside, a growing number of individuals and groups in Maine are taking it upon themselves to publicize and agitate against what they see in the act as erosion of civil liberties.

Among the groups involved are Peace Action Maine, the People’s Free Space, Maine Coalition for Peace and Justice, the Maine Civil Liberties Union, various local Bill of Rights Defense Committees (BORDCs), and Baseball Fans for Peace. These groups crosspollinate with each other, co-sponsoring events and subscribing to each other’s numerous and proliferating email lists, which include resist207, MEagainstWAR, Freedom in ME, MEGAN, and others distributed by the MCLU and Peace Action Maine. The BORDCs began in Northampton, Massachusetts, and are popping up all over the country; Maine currently hosts committees in Bangor, Belfast, and Portland, with others at various stages of formation.

Much of this activity has a distinctly Green tint. As Tim Sullivan, Maine Green Communications Coordinator and co-founder with Janet Caldwell of the Maine Coalition for Peace and Justice, says, "The Maine Green Independent Party doesn’t necessarily have an anti-PATRIOT Act organization, but most of these organizations have a Green or two, or quite a few, in them."

Neither the Greens nor any of the local groups "oppose the entire PATRIOT Act," Sullivan says, but they do see a serious need to pass "pro-civil liberties" (the terminology preferred to "anti-PATRIOT Act") resolutions and work to pressure legislators to act on their constituents’ concerns.

MCLU Executive Director Louise Roback calls anti-PATRIOT Act work the MCLU’s "bread and butter," noting that the Act has focused the civil liberties debate and energized opposition. She’s taken an active role in public advocacy, speaking at forums across the state such as the Sacopee Valley Forum’s meeting, where she and other representatives of progressive groups held a public discussion with US Attorney for Maine Paula Silsby.

These local meetings are becoming the primary strategy for Maine-based groups to get the word out. Peace Action Maine’s Greg Field says that many local groups are "focused on doing lots of informational forums" that pave the way for the introduction of resolutions. Brunswick, Bangor, and other locations across the state have recently been sites of such meetings, and Portland is getting in on the action, too. On February 26, Baseball Fans for Peace, along with the MCLU, Common Cause, and the Immigrant Legal Advocacy Project, will hold a public forum and round-table discussions at SPACE Gallery called "Is the Constitution Crumbling?"

Field says groups need to be "out there in the streets, making our voices heard," but also conducting workshops and meeting with legislators to translate that public discontent into action.

Which they seem to be doing. After a November civil-liberties forum held in Waterville, the Waterville City Council passed an anti-PATRIOT Act resolution "without much debate at all," in Louise Roback’s words. Sullivan agrees, recalling that there was "very little negative debate at all."

Waterville’s resolution cites specific portions of the USA PATRIOT Act that are of concern to citizens. Among them are passages that allow secret searches, permit police actions that don’t require judicial supervision, and prescribe a concentration of power in the executive branch of the government. The resolution "affirms the civil rights granted to all its residents — US citizens and citizens of other nations alike — in accordance with the Bill of Rights and Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution" and "encourages the Waterville Police Department to continue its policy" of guaranteeing the rights of citizens as spelled out in the Constitution.

The resolution also "requests that Maine’s Congressional Delegation monitor the implementation of the USA PATRIOT Act and the associated orders and rules of the Executive Branch and actively work for the repeal of those portions of the Act and those orders and rules that violate the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution."

Resolutions like Waterville’s don’t have much in the way of legal teeth, as Roback and others noted, but they do send a message about what the citizens of this country are and are not willing to accept in the way of government interference. So who is listening?

Senators Snowe and Collins both voted for the PATRIOT Act in 2001, as did then-representatives Tom Allen and John Baldacci. Baldacci is now governor, but none of the three other members of the Maine delegation has publicly attached him- or herself to the proposed Security and Freedom Ensured (SAFE) Act, which would ensure judicial oversight over several of the PATRIOT Act’s more Big-Brother-ish provisions such as sneak-and-peek searches and library-records subpoenas.

Baldacci’s replacement, Mike Michaud, however, has staked out a position that has much in common with the Waterville resolution. Responding to a question from the Phoenix about his position on the SAFE Act, Michaud sent the following statement:

"I believe all Americans recognize the need for increased security. But our war on terrorism must not destroy the freedoms and liberties that make this country great. The "SAFE Act" is a bipartisan effort to provide clarity to the USA PATRIOT Act. I joined an overwhelming and bipartisan majority of my colleagues in passing a similar provision as an amendment to the Commerce-Justice-State Appropriations bill. The vote was 309-118. Despite this vast bipartisan support, the amendment was removed from the final version of the bill. However, I will continue to work with my colleagues in a bipartisan manner to ensure that our citizens are safe and their freedoms are protected. I look forward to future efforts to improve the USA PATRIOT Act to ensure that both of these goals are met."

The offices of Snowe, Collins, and Allen did not respond to similar requests for comment, but ACLU national-security lobbyist (and former Maine legislator) Charlie Mitchell has spoken with staffers from all of their offices. He believes that Allen "will probably sign onto" the SAFE Act later this week. He’s meeting Snowe’s staff soon, and had been in regular contact with Collins; of both senators, Mitchell says he is "somewhat optimistic" that he can get them behind the legislation. Either would be important because of their moderate-Republican status; thus far the sponsors of the SAFE Act are either Democrats or much more conservative voices from the other side of the aisle like the right-wing Idaho senatorial duo of Larry Craig and John Crapo.

On a state level, Democratic Representative Deborah J. Hutton of Bowdoinham is introducing "A Resolution Regarding the Protection of Civil Liberties and Security of the United States," scheduled to be heard in the Legislative Council on February 10. Contacted on February 8, Hutton sounded confident that the resolution would pass out of the Legislative Council and on to the Criminal Justice Committee. "We’ve pretty much got both sides making sure they’re going to vote for it," and she thinks the prospects are good in the entire legislature because legislators have had "quite a few experiences" with the "absurdity of some of the provisions" of the PATRIOT Act. One such provision would be the more iron-fisted immigration enforcement policies that provoked the recent sweeps in Portland; another is last week’s round of federal subpoenas aimed at monitoring the actions of antiwar activists across the country.

"We need a public forum" in the Criminal Justice Committee, Hutton says, "so that people can have their say about this act, how it’s affected them and how they fear it might affect them." This committee is likely to provide a comfortable way station for the resolution, chaired as it is by Ethan Strimling, who introduced a similar resolution into the Maine Senate shortly after Hutton’s House resolution and is therefore a mandatory co-sponsor.

Strimling too believes that a hearing is necessary to air out public sentiment, especially on immigration issues. "We can’t tolerate that kind of behavior," he says, referring to the Border Patrol sweep in Portland last month, "and we’ve got to react. I think this stuff is playing on peoples’ minds." Hutton and Strimling are both hoping for a floor vote in mid-March, after a committee work session.

While PATRIOT Act wrangling goes on in state and federal legislative bodies, numerous local citizens’ groups are following in Waterville’s footsteps in an attempt to put cities and towns on record opposing the Act.

"We have a resolution written and ready to present to the Bangor City Council" wrote Gerald Oleson of the Greater Bangor Area Bill of Rights Defense Committee in an email. "We have a ‘friendly’ councilor who is going to present the resolution to the council this month. The resolution will be referred to the Government Affairs Committee which will hold hearings."

The Greater Bangor Area and Midcoast BORDCs have had mixed success engaging Maine’s congressional delegation. They’ve asked for a meeting with Olympia Snowe, and the Bangor group has met with Michaud and found him supportive. In addition, they’re trying to establish contact with a number of conservative groups including the Maine Gun Owners Association, the Sportmen’s Alliance of Maine, and As Maine Goes — thus far without success. Conservative groups across the country are every bit as nervous about certain PATRIOT Act provisions as progressives are, but long-standing mistrust between the two perspectives has hampered joint efforts.

"Though we have an uphill fight in Bangor," Oleson wrote, "we are hopeful that the council accepts our resolution by the end of March. If the resolution is rejected we may start a petition/referendum drive. We are also making plans to present anti-USAPA resolutions in the surrounding towns including Old Town, Orono, Hampden, Eddington, etc."

Other groups have met with less success. Tim Sullivan notes that the Midcoast BORDC, the first in Maine, brought a resolution to the Belfast City Council, but after a workshop the resolution "kind of fizzled." Midcoast BORDC’s Jane Sanford writes via email that the group is still planning a resolution for Belfast, but that it "is going nowhere at present."

Most of the action on a local level appears to be taking place up north, but there is a Bill or Rights Defense Committee in Portland, too, and they have introduced a resolution into the Legislative Committee of the Portland City Council. Portland activist Kris Clark started talking to city councilors last fall, and drafted a resolution that the Legislative Committee heard during their meeting of February 9.

"There’s a fair amount of support on the council for it," Clark said that morning, and like Representative Hutton he believes that the recent immigration sweeps have put the issue front and center in the public consciousness. Still, he’s worried that tax reform and property revaluation will push his proposal far enough down on the agenda that it won’t be heard. "They’re in the middle of a lot of big issues right now, and I’m sure [the resolution] is not the highest on their list."

Assistant City Manger Larry Mead attended the Legislative Committee meeting. His take is that the Council is "sympathetic to the concepts behind the resolution, but concerned about some of the details." Portland Police Chief Mike Chitwood, Meade says, felt the same way; nobody wanted to put the city in a position of passing a resolution that advocated not adhering to the law.

"Staff will be working with Kris Clark to craft something" that addresses these concerns "over the next couple of weeks," Mead said. He seemed to expect, given what he called "Portland’s status as a leader" on political issues, that the full council would consider a resolution fairly soon.

If the Portland resolution and the Hutton/Strimling state resolution come to a vote in mid-March, as seems likely, the timing will be interesting. March 20 has been designated a "Global Day of Action against War and Occupation" by national and international progressive groups, which will hold large-scale protests against Bush foreign and domestic policies in major cities around the world. In Maine, a March for Truth is planned for Augusta on that day, and it’s a safe bet that all of the groups who have put their time and energy into city-council resolutions and listserv advocacy will be out there demonstrating — not just against the Iraq occupation, but all the rest of the anti-American measures the Bush White House has taken in the name of freedom.

Alex Irvine can be reached at airvine@phx.com