Civil Disobedience and Dissent

Good citizen or domestic terrorist?

By Elizabeth Wright

[Reprinted from Issues & Views October 6, 2003]

One of the fall-outs from a law that is passed in the U.S. Congress is the possibility of copycat or similar laws being proposed in state and municipal legislatures. In the case of the USA Patriot Act, it became apparent that zealous legislators in various states could hardly wait to set about writing their own local versions of this federal law that seriously compromises protections guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.

In Nevada, for example, concerned citizens had to face down lawmakers who saw a chance to create their own anti-terrorist legislation, or mini-Patriot Act, that could have impeded public dissent and political protest. Some Nevadans feared that law enforcement agencies might misinterpret civil actions and see terrorists lurking wherever citizens gathered to express their disagreement with government policies. While the word "terrorist" was loosely bandied about, there was no clear definition of just what constituted "terrorism" and just who should be deemed a "terrorist." And that's what bothered Janine Hansen.

As president of the Nevada chapter of Eagle Forum, Hansen has been a citizen lobbyist for years, not only in pro-life activities, but as a strong advocate for property rights. She has engaged in many actions to oppose federal confiscation of land. Joined with others who share her concern, Hansen has protested the government's seizing and selling of property, including livestock. In one such instance last February, Las Vegas Sun journalist Erin Neff reported on a demonstration at a public auction, where a rancher's cattle, that had been seized by the government, were being sold. Hansen and other protesters shouted to potential buyers and passersby, "Don't buy stolen cattle!" Some visitors to the auction walked away.

In reflecting on this protest demonstration and on stipulations within the Patriot Act, as well as those in a new "anti-terrorist" law introduced in the Nevada Assembly, Neff wrote: "Clearly [Hansen's] actions helped 'disrupt, affect or influence the conduct or policy of a government entity by intimidation or coercion.' That could make her a terrorist under an amendment to Assembly Bill 99 introduced by Assemblyman David Brown." It also could make her a terrorist under the Patriot Act.

Neff continued to speculate on other types of assertive actions against government rule, such as the bold Jarbidge Shovel Brigade, in which even Nevada's own Assemblyman John Carpenter participated. For his efforts, writes Neff, some federal officials branded him a "terrorist." The Brigade is composed of vigilant citizens who come together to challenge the heavy hand of government, as represented by agencies that include the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. Such federal agencies are often under the direct influence of powerful environmental groups that press their agendas for limited to zero use of land.

The Brigade was launched in 2000, when people from all over the country, with shovels in hand, descended on Jarbidge, Nevada, in order to re-open a county road that was purposely closed in 1998, when the U.S. Forest Service dumped tons of rocks and debris on it to prevent vehicle access to the region. This "roadless initiative" was to deter the entry of outdoors types who might "disturb" the habitat of the bull trout fish. As reported in the Elko Daily Free Press, the clearing of the road, which took days to accomplish, was carried out under the watchful eye of at least five law enforcement agencies.

Members of the Brigade, originally organized well before 9/11 and the subsequent "anti-terrorist" laws, have cooperated with citizens in other parts of the country. They have lent their assistance to anti-government protests and demonstrations, where government agencies have closed access roads or shut off a region's water supply. In each case, these activists have engaged in a form of civil disobedience against established law. In light of the Patriot Act, will such defiant activity be looked upon as disruptive conduct that is designed to "intimidate or coerce a government entity?"

Janine Hansen wanted an answer to this question and was determined to get lawmakers in Nevada to give a clear and unambiguous definition of "terrorism." Interviewed on the Free Congress Foundation's radio program, News on Demand, on September 26, she offered her overview and assessment of what law-abiding Americans should consider in light of the Patriot Act and other anti-terrorism laws. Expressing concern over the circumstances surrounding the passage of the Patriot Act, Hansen contrasted the manner in which similar legislation in Nevada was given due consideration before being passed:

Now, that didn’t happen on the federal level. It [Patriot Act] was introduced and passed within 24 hours. So, there weren't any Congressional hearings; there wasn't any due consideration of how this might jeopardize our constitutional rights.
So, what did happen in Congress? We have a piece of legislation, which seriously jeopardizes our Fourth Amendment rights in that our right to privacy is almost completely eliminated. They can monitor without a warrant, your email, tap your phone, look at your mail. They can come in and invade your home or office and then get a warrant afterwards. They don't even have to get one in advance. This is a severe erosion of our Fourth Amendment rights, which always protected us from warrantless searches by the government.
In addition, due process is jeopardized for certain citizens and now there has even been this violation of due process in the right to trial by jury. This has even been perpetrated against American citizens, not just illegal immigrants.
We are not protected. It does not make us safer than we were before. It makes us in jeopardy of losing the most basic and essential, God-given constitutionally protected rights.

Hansen tells of what happened to her activist brother, the good citizen, who challenged the IRS in court:

I've always been very concerned by heavy-handed big government and we've seen that in Nevada, particularly with the Bureau of Land Management. And because of that I've been very concerned about them overstepping their bounds for a long time. This is not a new idea. However, one of the things that very much concerned me after 9/11 was the fact that my brother, Daniel Hansen, who had been very active in promoting liberty and good government in the state, was having an ongoing battle with the IRS in the courts. And, one day, after 9/11, I was called by his office and they said that the IRS had shown up at his office with flak jackets and guns, about 20 officers, and they were there confiscating about 20 boxes of personal and business and political files that he had.
I went over and videotaped from outside what was going on, so I was a personal witness to seeing the agents going in and out. They had on jackets that said CIBIRS, which means Criminal Investigative Bureau of the IRS. And there wasn't any reason for this. There had been no due process. There was no court order for them to do this. We researched with our attorney the warrant that they had issued, and it was an illegal warrant.
That night I was watching television, and on national television, I saw agents with the same uniform on, CIBIRS, and they were saying that they were conducting "domestic terrorist" raids all over the country. I was astonished to think that my brother Dan, who had always been a patriotic American involved in improving government had been targeted and labeled as a "domestic terrorist" under the Patriot Act. So, I became very alarmed and began looking into just what it was at that particular time. And that was my initial response to the Patriot Act.

Hansen was asked if she found that most people know little about these new laws and adopt an "If you aren't doing anything wrong, it's not going to bother you" attitude. She agreed with this characterization and responded:

You remember what President Bush said after 9/11: If you're not with us, you're against us. Now, I have spent most of my life opposing big government. I have spent most of my life working to maintain liberty. And so, I was offended at that remark, because Thomas Jefferson said, dissent is the highest form of patriotism.
And one of the things we pride ourselves on in America is being able to oppose the government. And many of us have been in a position where you might be in the mainstream party, like Democrats or Republicans, that at one point in time or another you are opposing the government. And that characterization is one that would destroy free speech. This was my concern. I had been out demonstrating a significant number of times against the Bureau of Land Management, as they, without due process, without a warrant, confiscated cattle from ranchers here in Nevada. And, in fact, we were able to stop an auction and cause other significant problems for them with regard to that. So, I was out opposing the government and their action against law-abiding citizens.
I was very aware of some of the issues involved in the Patriot Act, and what happened to my brother proved to me that even law-abiding, honest citizens can be targeted by the government if you are trying to expose, and you are opposed to what they are doing.

Hansen then described what happened in the Nevada legislature:

During our Legislature, there were about four different bills regarding so-called anti-terrorist legislation, and they contained exactly the same definition of "terrorism" that was in the Patriot Act. And this included such things as if you are trying to influence or coerce the government. Well, every day of my life I'm involved in trying to influence the government. And you could certainly say that by our opposition to these illegal government sales of cattle and our demonstrations, we were trying to coerce the government and prevent them from doing this.
And, so by the very definition used in this federal Patriot Act, and which was being promoted for our anti-terrorist legislation here in the state of Nevada, I became a terrorist. In fact, there was a big article in the largest paper in Nevada, which said, "Janine, the terrorist." And then identified me as one of those people after my testimony at the legislature, that I could certainly be considered, under the Patriot Act, as a terrorist.

Hansen was asked her views on the so-called sunset provisions in the Patriot Act, whereby certain sections of the law are to be phased out and eventually eliminated.

Well, I don't know how long you've been in government, but I've been involved as a citizen-lobbyist for over 30 years. And I see that a "sunset" provision is almost never implemented. It's my experience that when the sunset comes, they find a reason to extend those provisions.
Now, consider this scenario. If we were to experience another terrorist attack, just previous in the time frame to when the sunset provision was supposed to be taking place, what do you think would happen? Just as expediently as they passed the Patriot Act with no hearings, with no due consideration, with no thought about how it was going to affect our constitutional rights -- what do you think would happen?
There would be an outcry that we absolutely have to have the Patriot Act, and if you don't pass it, you're unpatriotic. The same thing they did before. And so it would probably be extended, if that were the scenario.
So, I don't have a lot of faith in sunset provisions. And, in addition to that, the whole thing doesn't sunset, only portions of it sunsets. And I don't know that the definition changes in that sunset. I haven't researched that, but I would suspect that the definition of a terrorist, which is one of my greatest concerns, does not change with the sunset.

Thanks to Hansen and a coalition of groups in Nevada, terms and expressions cited in the state's anti-terrorist legislation (AB 250) were clarified:

Mostly because of my efforts and the efforts of the organizations which I represent, like Eagle Forum, we were able to get the definition of terrorism changed in the state of Nevada, and that definition now protects civil disobedience and dissent from the government, and specifically defines that as not a terrorist act. And that was one of my biggest concerns with the Patriot Act -- the definition.
Also, in Nevada, because of the due consideration, we had several months to consider these. We had considerable testimony taking place. Because of that, we were able to get that specific legislation changed until it was acceptable.

Hansen is a believer in coalitions and in cooperating even with groups to whom she is politically opposed:

In Nevada, we've put together an interesting coalition. We have the Libertarian Party, the Green Party, we also have the Republican Liberty Caucus, the Republican Assembly, the Independent American Party, which is the third largest party in the state. I'm the executive director for the Independent American Party. Eagle Forum, which I'm the president of, and the Nevada Committee for Full Statehood, which works on property rights, and seeks for a return of control over our land.
And there are many other organizations, which have come together from across the full political spectrum, to work on maintaining and preserving our constitutional rights.
I think it's been a wonderful opportunity because people from the right and from the left, people in the middle, people from all kinds of political points of view, have been able to come together and find out that we don't have horns, we don't have tails. We are just ordinary citizens who believe in the Constitution and our God-given rights. And we've become friends. We have a good relationship with the people in the ACLU. They called us when Attorney General Ashcroft came to Las Vegas. We participated as well as some 30 groups in the press conference that they held down there. And we have been united in this issue and it's been a wonderful experience for us.
And, although, during the legislature, I worked on some issues with the ACLU and opposed them on others, it was on a friendly basis and it did not become personal. And so I think it's a wonderful opportunity for people like myself, with traditional American values, who believe in the right to life, who believe in the right to keep and bear arms, to cross the barrier that has kept us from working at times with people such as the American Civil Liberties Union or the Green Party or the Libertarian Party. And we are able to unite with them on things with which we agree.
It also strengthens your ability to oppose these things, because when legislators see someone like me and then someone on the opposite end of the political spectrum, like the ACLU, working together, they realize that this is an important issue, that this has got some meat to it, and that they need to seriously consider it. They're going to have to consider the fact that we have come together in a coalition, and they see that those from both sides of the political spectrum have reason to be concerned about the Patriot Act.
One thing it does, it shows the legislators, who may have a particular idea about who you are and what you believe, and the media too, that your interests and your concerns go far beyond just the traditional pigeonhole they want to stick you in. And so you make friends with the press, you make friends with legislators with whom you have not traditionally been involved. And so it breaks down many barriers and walls, and has tremendous benefits for your relationships with other groups, with the media, and with legislators and others, in broadening their idea of who and what you are and what you believe in.

The Nevada Campaign to Defeat the Patriot Act, a coalition of groups, proposes this Resolution as a model for communities in Nevada and elsewhere to follow in their efforts to counteract stipulations of the Patriot Act and similar anti-terrorist legislation. A section of the Resolution reads:

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, in accordance with Nevada state, county, or city policy, an agency or instrumentality of the (County/City) may not without probable cause:
. . . Record, file, or share intelligence information concerning a person or organization, including library lending and research records, book and video store sales and rental records, medical records, financial records, student records, and other personal data, even if authorized under the USA PATRIOT Act . . .
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that an agency or instrumentality of the (County/City) may not:
. . . Collect or maintain information about the political, religious, or social views, associations, or activities of any individual, group, association, organization, corporation, business, or partnership, unless the information directly relates to an investigation of criminal activities based on probable cause, not mere suspicion of criminal conduct . . .

The Coalition for Constitutional Liberties -- an affiliate of the Free Congress Foundation, represents a broad spectrum of public policy and advocacy groups organized to
. . . Endeavor to network with other organizations for the preservation of our constitutional liberties against attacks by government and other individuals;
. . . Call for legislative oversight of law enforcement and regulatory agencies who act outside of their authorized bounds, and infringe on the liberties of private citizens.