On Thursday, the City Council is expected to consider a resolution that expresses grave reservations about the USA Patriot Act and proposes several modest laws to ensure that the civil liberties of San Antonians are protected.

It's not a Democratic or Republican issue. It's not left, not right, neither liberal nor conservative.

It's the first time I've found myself siding with the gun lobby. Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, said earlier this year, "The government feels that we, the people, need to be transparent. It should be the other way around."

You rock, Larry!

Enacted just 45 days after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, the 342-page Patriot Act passed both houses of Congress almost unanimously, with little debate. The final printed copy was distributed only hours before the vote.

Legislate in haste, repent at leisure.

To date, four states and 348 cities and counties, including Austin and Dallas, have passed resolutions criticizing the act. The latest are Des Moines, Iowa; Tumwater, Wash.; Pasadena and Placer County, Calif.; Lawrence Township, N.J.; Whitefish, Mont.; and Lexington-Fayette County, Ky. Hardly a hotbed of radicalism. Even New York City, which bore the brunt of the 9-11 attacks, passed a resolution in February.

The San Antonio City Council resolution is largely symbolic, mostly reminding city officials and employees that they have taken an oath to defend the Constitution and uphold the rights of residents.

Only two paragraphs specify procedural changes.

First, the library director would be required "to adopt privacy and record retention policies designed to protect the constitutional rights and liberties of library patrons."

This is a direct hit at Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which gives law enforcement the power to examine your library, financial and medical records without giving a specific reason to a judge.

Librarians are not being asked to defy the law but rather to destroy patron records as soon as they are no longer needed.

Second, the city manager would be required to "collect and report to the City Council all instances of 'sneak and peek' search warrants or electronic surveillance carried out in San Antonio." This provision addresses Section 213, which allows authorities to conduct secret searches of homes and businesses without giving notice that a warrant was issued.

Police aren't being told to obstruct federal warrants. The city manager is just being asked to keep citizens informed.

One line in the resolution sounds radical but merely reflects current practices. It says, "The San Antonio Police Department is to refrain from participating in the enforcement of federal immigration laws."

Section 412, which has been challenged in the U.S. Supreme Court, permits immigrants and other noncitizens to be jailed indefinitely on the U.S. attorney general's say-so.

Local law enforcement generally opposes being on the front line in enforcing federal immigration laws. They are not trained for it, not funded for it, and it hampers their ability to carry out their primary mission.

The drafters of the Constitution were not naïve. They had just emerged from a long and divisive war; smoke still lingered on the battlefields. George Washington, elected to preserve and protect this fledgling republic, had been its commander in battle.

He knew that there wasn't a choice between liberty and safety. The American promise was that we could have both. That hasn't changed since Sept. 11, 2001.

Susan Ives can be reached at suives@texas.net.