Patriot Act ignites City Council debate

It was standing room only at City Council's weekly session yesterday morning, as Councilman Angel Ortiz was slated to introduce a resolution against the USA PATRIOT Act, calling it a violation of civil rights. Ortiz, however, did not introduce his resolution. Dissuaded by colleagues who urged him to take the matter to committee before calling for a vote, Ortiz ultimately backed off regardless of the large turnout. The Patriot Act, passed by the U.S. legislature on Oct. 26, 2001, in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, allows limited government surveillance of Internet and telephone use, quick and unimpeded access to private records and expanded ability to conduct secret searches. Despite the fact that no vote took place yesterday in City Council, there was plenty of discussion on the subject, initiated by Ortiz and picked up by Councilmen Brian O'Neill and David Cohen. "The law that Congress passed a month after the [Sept. 11] attacks was passed in haste, with no debate," Ortiz said. "It was called the Patriot Act and it seems that anyone that dares to criticize or dissent about what the Patriot Act does becomes unpatriotic. And that to me is not only un-American -- it's really an attack on who we are as a people." Ortiz's words were punctuated with spurts of applause from the crowd. In the front row, a man sporting a Willie Nelson coif held a banner demanding to "Protect the Bill of Rights!" Groups of college students standing in the back nodded and cheered as well. The noise in the audience was countered by a marked silence among City Council members, with the exception of O'Neill, who was clearly displeased, and Cohen, who was vociferously supportive of Ortiz. O'Neill reminded the audience of the historical necessity of limiting civil liberties during wartime and, stressing that he and his colleagues do not receive security briefings, noted that City Council ought not "to be second-guessing Congress with a lot less information than they have." O'Neill's other major point was the detrimental effect that anti-war sentiments can have on the morale of the armed forces. He emphasized the importance of "supporting the men and women who, regardless of whether the decisions are right or wrong, are protecting us and sacrificing their lives to do it." Clearly opposed to Ortiz's phantom resolution, O'Neill concluded, "I'm sure there's many of us that if this resolution were introduced today would be dissenting," he said. Cohen, who in his late 80s is the oldest member of City Council and an advocate of civil rights, was next to speak. He grimly recalled the years of the McCarthy era and the House Un-American Activities Committee headed by Martin Dies, whose name he equated with a "swear word." "I think it's important that this debate take place, now and continuously," Cohen said. "And I'm not prepared to say that the people in Congress have all the wisdom about democracy," he continued, throwing a hook at O'Neill. "No Martin Dies, no more Joe McCarthy -- even if the name now is John Ashcroft," he said. Ortiz and O'Neill continued the discussion with some further back-and-forth, each accusing the other of misrepresenting his words. Ortiz was miffed that O'Neill "implied" he was unsupportive of the military, a claim he strongly rebuked, stressing that if our military must be in harm's way, it should be there "for the right reasons." He even went so far as to provide Vietnam as a counter-example, saying that the men who fought there died "for a lie." Fifth-year Wharton and College student Jesse Tendler was among those who packed the chambers to support Ortiz. "I'm glad to see Ortiz is thinking about what's going on," he said. "This war and the interests of this administration are not in the interest of the people." Habeebah Ali, a member of a local activist group called Unite for Peace that organized the audience support for Ortiz, was especially vocal in her approval of Ortiz. "We must protect our civil and constitutional rights... this is an election year, and we will do what we have to do to either persuade Council to prevent the Patriot Act becoming the law of the land in Philadelphia, or we will do what we need to get new Council people in," she said. "The Patriot Act is unconstitutional and inhumane... I don't think that my brother Forton was wounded in Vietnam -- three times -- for this sort of thing to go on."

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.