Anti-Patriot Act Resolutions
Introduction
After the terrorist attacks on 9/11, the response of the US government to these coercive activities was swift as well as rather broad in scope. By and large, the public, the media, and U.S. political leaders went along with (a) fast-track counter-terrorist response. Forty-five days after the attacks, Congress passed the Patriot Act (the Uniting and Strengthening America Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism). From most accounts, the legislation presented a major reversal in American state repressive power. Simultaneously, it relaxed restrictions on wiretaps, searches of personal records (for example, medical, library, and financial), and seizures of financial resources; it created a new crime – “domestic terrorism” – with which a wide variety of dissidents could be charged (any actors that threatened the U.S. government with intimidation and coercion); it effectively suspended the writ of habeas corpus in a variety of circumstances; it allowed the CIA and the FBI to employ a wide range of overt as well as covert powers against both foreign and domestic targets with little to no oversight; it facilitated the seemingly limitless accumulation and sharing of information across diverse government organizations; and, it created an environment within which coercive agents felt they could operate freely without fear of repercussion. In a relatively brief period, the federal government had reestablished and extended powers that Americans had not seen for decades – powers that were swept away by Attorney General Edward Levi following the series of break-ins, impromptu disclosures, scandals, hearings, apologies, and forced retirements stretching from local police departments around the country to the office of the President during the late 1960s and through the 1970s (Davenport).
With distance from the attacks of 9/11 and no additional terrorist behavior on US soil, however, overtime things changed in the US. By the time Patriot Act II was being discussed, the reaction of the media and citizenry was quite different. Immediately upon the disclosure of the draft, different individuals and organizations, including many conservatives (such as Bill O’Reilly and William Safire as well think tanks such as the Libertarian Cato Institute), openly criticized the government’s efforts.
By 2007, there were approximately 450-500 documents that have emerged throughout the United States that publicly and officially have challenged the Patriot Act. These community actions generally emerge from local and state authorities (e.g., city or county councils) but include diverse societal institutions as well (e.g., labor, religious and educational organizations). Our focus is on the more official local and state efforts where there is popular discussion and some effort to mobilize opinion. Some of these documents provide criticisms of numerous topic areas whereas others are constrained to a few. Some of these documents discuss numerous government actors as being problematic as well as diverse actions whereas others only address a select number of each.
From 2010-11, a research team directed by Prof. Christian Davenport downloaded, coded and placed all relevant material into a database. This was done after Professors Ion Vasi and David Strang refused to share their data, which was exclusively interested in identifying whether or not an ordinance/resolution had been undertaken at a specific time and in a specific location. Our effort differed in numerous respects from this effort. Similar to Vasi and Strang, we coded the year that the resolution was passed as well as at what jurisdiction the ordinance/resolution was created (i.e., neighborhood, city, town or borough). Moving beyond earlier work, we also identified which specific documents were being objected to in addition to the US Patriot Act (i.e., Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003, Various Executive Orders and/or Justice Department Directives, Homeland Security Act and HR 2417 Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004); we note the specific objection (e.g., surveillance, detention, investigations, recording/filing, immigration, profiling, gag orders, creating vague laws, military tribunals, torture, limiting access to Freedom of Information Act documents, etc.) and the reasons for the objections (e.g., violations of amendments, other documents like the UN charter, adding too much power to the executive and not providing enough oversight/scrutiny); we also coded what specific suggestions were put forward to remedy any problems that exist: e.g., amending/repealing the Patriot Act, amending/repealing other documents, opposing future acts, better monitoring the Patriot Act and specific local level solutions).
Enjoy
[Christian Davenport]
Professor of Political Science - University of Michigan
Faculty Associate - Center for Political Studies, Institute for Social Research
Research Professor & Global Fellow - Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO)
Director - Radical Information Project (RIP)
Director - Stop Our States (SOS)
Co-Founder - New Jack Academics with Professor Darren Davis
Co-Founder - .EDU: opening minds & changing worlds with style with Professor Jillian Schwedler & Rodney Williams
Co-Founder/Director - Conflict Consortium (CC) with Professor Will Moore
With distance from the attacks of 9/11 and no additional terrorist behavior on US soil, however, overtime things changed in the US. By the time Patriot Act II was being discussed, the reaction of the media and citizenry was quite different. Immediately upon the disclosure of the draft, different individuals and organizations, including many conservatives (such as Bill O’Reilly and William Safire as well think tanks such as the Libertarian Cato Institute), openly criticized the government’s efforts.
By 2007, there were approximately 450-500 documents that have emerged throughout the United States that publicly and officially have challenged the Patriot Act. These community actions generally emerge from local and state authorities (e.g., city or county councils) but include diverse societal institutions as well (e.g., labor, religious and educational organizations). Our focus is on the more official local and state efforts where there is popular discussion and some effort to mobilize opinion. Some of these documents provide criticisms of numerous topic areas whereas others are constrained to a few. Some of these documents discuss numerous government actors as being problematic as well as diverse actions whereas others only address a select number of each.
From 2010-11, a research team directed by Prof. Christian Davenport downloaded, coded and placed all relevant material into a database. This was done after Professors Ion Vasi and David Strang refused to share their data, which was exclusively interested in identifying whether or not an ordinance/resolution had been undertaken at a specific time and in a specific location. Our effort differed in numerous respects from this effort. Similar to Vasi and Strang, we coded the year that the resolution was passed as well as at what jurisdiction the ordinance/resolution was created (i.e., neighborhood, city, town or borough). Moving beyond earlier work, we also identified which specific documents were being objected to in addition to the US Patriot Act (i.e., Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003, Various Executive Orders and/or Justice Department Directives, Homeland Security Act and HR 2417 Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004); we note the specific objection (e.g., surveillance, detention, investigations, recording/filing, immigration, profiling, gag orders, creating vague laws, military tribunals, torture, limiting access to Freedom of Information Act documents, etc.) and the reasons for the objections (e.g., violations of amendments, other documents like the UN charter, adding too much power to the executive and not providing enough oversight/scrutiny); we also coded what specific suggestions were put forward to remedy any problems that exist: e.g., amending/repealing the Patriot Act, amending/repealing other documents, opposing future acts, better monitoring the Patriot Act and specific local level solutions).
Enjoy
[Christian Davenport]
Professor of Political Science - University of Michigan
Faculty Associate - Center for Political Studies, Institute for Social Research
Research Professor & Global Fellow - Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO)
Director - Radical Information Project (RIP)
Director - Stop Our States (SOS)
Co-Founder - New Jack Academics with Professor Darren Davis
Co-Founder - .EDU: opening minds & changing worlds with style with Professor Jillian Schwedler & Rodney Williams
Co-Founder/Director - Conflict Consortium (CC) with Professor Will Moore
Sample Resolution - Brighton, NY
| pages_from_resolutions.pdf |
Abbreviated List of Resolutions
| list_of_resolutions_passed_111007.pdf |
Detailed List of Resolutions
| list_of_resolutions_passed_111007.pdf |
Codebook
| p.a._resolution_coding_rules.pdf |
Data
| patriot_act_resolution_coding__f_.xlsx |
