Saturday, April 19, 2003
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

CONCERNS EXPRESSED: Senate passes anti-terrorism bill

Civil rights objections led to some wording changes

CARSON CITY -- The country's founding fathers would have been arrested and imprisoned for life if a Nevada anti-terrorism bill had been in effect 227 years ago, Sen. Joe Neal said Friday.

In the Declaration of Independence, the founders of the United States said citizens have the right to overthrow their government, Neal said in a lengthy floor speech in opposition to Senate Bill 38.

Despite his comments that the legislation is an unnecessary duplication of the federal Patriot Act and an infringement on a person's constitutional rights, the Senate voted 17-3 to approve the measure.

The vote sent the measure to the Assembly, where a similar terrorism bill was passed unanimously Wednesday.

"This is one of those feel-good measures that will go into our statutes and allow wholesale abuse of the constitutional rights of our citizens by trying to enforce this particular act," said Neal, D-North Las Vegas. "It's bad law, and it's also bad public policy."

But Senate Judiciary Chairman Mark Amodei, R-Carson City, said some of the concerns expressed by Neal are unfounded because the act relates directly to violent acts or acts dangerous to human life.

The act does not encompass people who write letters to the editor or who speak up at a city council meeting, he said.

Sponsored by Senate Majority Leader Bill Raggio, R-Reno, the bill would double the criminal penalty now in Nevada law for someone who commits an act of terrorism. The penalty for attempted murder, for example, now in Nevada law, would be doubled if the crime occurred as part of a terror act.

Some of the more controversial elements of the bill, such as an expanded definition of terrorism that was challenged by a number of groups and individuals, including the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, were changed to reflect constitutional concerns, although not everyone is satisfied.

The definition of terrorism in the bill now is nearly identical to that in the federal act.

As originally proposed, an act of terrorism was defined in detail, including any effort to "disrupt, affect or influence the conduct or policy of a government entity by intimidation."

At a hearing on the bill Feb. 20, Nevada Eagle Forum President Janine Hansen said her various public protests against the U.S. Bureau of Land Management and other agencies would be considered terrorism under the provision.

The new definition, proposed by Sen. Terry Care, D-Las Vegas, removed that language and basically defines a terrorist act as a violent act designed to intimidate or coerce.

But Gary Peck, executive director of the ACLU of Nevada, said the definition of terrorism used in Assembly Bill 250 is better wording.

The Assembly bill defines terrorists as those who cause great bodily harm or death to the general population or cause substantial destruction, contamination or impairment to buildings, utilities, communication systems and the environment.

"We are disappointed that the (Senate) bill passed with so little opposition," Peck said. "One can only hope that, when it goes into conference committee with AB 250, common sense and respect for the Constitution prevails and the Assembly's language is adopted."

Peck said the Assembly bill was put together in a more deliberative fashion, and he called the Senate measure "sloppy and unfocused."

"It isn't going to make anyone safer or more secure," he said.

Neal, who spoke for almost 40 minutes against the Senate bill, asked why the Legislature never bothered to enact terrorist legislation after incidents prior to Sept. 11, 2001, such as the acts committed during the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s.

He suggested that minority groups ultimately will be the focus of any effort to enforce the terrorism bill.

Neal was joined in opposition to the bill by Sens. Bob Coffin and Maggie Carlton, both D-Las Vegas.

Neal said afterward he was not surprised at the lopsided vote, given the current political turmoil and the popularity of President Bush.

Neal's lengthy comments provoked a response from Sen. Dennis Nolan, R-Las Vegas, who questioned the purpose of his comments about racism.

Nolan said Neal made an inappropriate comment to him while he was having a conversation with a legislative staff member, a black woman, a week ago.

Nolan said Neal walked up and asked the woman why she was talking with Nolan because Nolan "didn't like black people."

"I was so offended, it was an ugly and rude comment, and I expect an apology," Nolan said on the Senate floor.

That comment prompted Coffin to ask that those speaking on the bill focus on the measure and not stray from the subject matter.

Neal said after the Senate floor session that his comment to Nolan was made only in jest.