In the spirit of Thomas Paine, many people across the United States are now rising up to analyze and protest what the current government is doing to our civil rights in the name of national security and the "war on terrorism."

The attacks of September 11, 2001, were horrendous and seemed to cry out for a decisive response. Under pressure to prevent any future attacks, Congress enacted in less than two months the USA PATRIOT Act ("Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism"). Without debate or hearings and with few members even having read the 342-page document, this sweeping new surveillance and detention legislation was passed by an almost unanimous bipartisan vote (H: 357-66, S: 98-1). Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, declared that in a time of such peril some civil liberties must be restricted. But he assured the nation that this bill was necessary and would make it easier for law enforcement to apprehend and rid society of the threat of terrorists.

When people (and even some members of Congress) realized what had actually been authorized, however, serious questions began to surface: Was it needed? Are we safer? Does it shred the Constitution and violate the freedoms extended to all citizens and non-citizens by the Bill of Rights?

Over the last year, a national grassroots movement has emerged in opposition to the Patriot Act. Both liberal and conservative groups are speaking out against the potential and already occurring abuses of this so-called anti-terrorism legislation. Actions have included petition drives, town hall meetings, rallies, marches, and incidents of civil disobedience. Perhaps the most amazing citizen uprising has been at local government.

As of late April 2003, over 90 cities, towns and counties throughout the country (with many more pending) and two state houses (Hawaii, New Mexico) have passed resolutions to repeal parts or all of the Patriot Act legislation. Further, some of the resolutions stipulate that local law enforcement or other city/town/county agencies should not aid federal authorities in Patriot Act investigations that might jeopardize an individual's civil rights under the Constitution. With the help of the American Civil Liberties Union and the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, this resolution movement started in the liberal strongholds of Berkeley CA, Boulder CO, and Amherst MA, but it has spread to conservative areas also, such as Fairbanks AK, Flagstaff AZ and Carrboro, NC, as more and more people have realized that anyone can be at risk. The local officials of Arcata CA have passed an ordinance that actually prohibits compliance with the Patriot Act.

Some of the strongest reactions against the Patriot Act have come from librarians. The American Library Association and many state groups have denounced it and asked Congress to repeal the act. Meanwhile, local libraries have adopted policies of posting warning signs or distributing handouts to their patrons about the risk of FBI record checks. Some library staffs shred and purge documents daily that include information about reference requests and Internet usage. They recommend George Orwell's 1984, which depicts a world in which an all-powerful government, "Big Brother," punishes citizens for thought crimes. (Paine's Rights of Man, might be another mind-opener.) In spite of the obvious unpopularity of this draconian legislation, Senator Hatch has proposed that Congress adopt an anti-sunset measure; so, instead of dissolving with the final hour of December 31, 2005, as now required, the Patriot Act would continue indefinitely -- or until terrorism is finally defeated!

And a sequel is in the pipeline. Sometime over the last year, a document called the "Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003" was drafted in secret by the US Department of Justice under Attorney General John Ashcroft. Although its existence was denied at first, an insider leaked it to the media, and now it is widely referred to as PATRIOT II. It expands the definition of "terrorist" and criminalizes association and dissent, even to revoking the citizenship of native or naturalized Americans, with the denial of due process and appeal. A group of real patriots has created the Paul Revere Project to help stop Patriot II before it gets introduced.

Thomas Paine used the word "patriot" to describe the rebel resisting imperial rule. He knew, as we must, that an unpopular policy of war and imperial conquest, such as the US government is now embarked upon, can be implemented only through the suppression of domestic political opposition. That's what Patriot I and Patriot II are about -- a police state kind of social control that was on the wish list of the Executive Branch long before 9-11. But there's nothing "patriotic" about trashing the Bill of Rights or about censorship and the persecution of writers and activists. So, in the spirit of Thomas Paine, we must protect our rights; we must resist!