The Patriot Act: A Response to my friend Magister Sass

A few days ago, my friend, Magister James D. Sass, asked a general question to those who read his bulletins and blogs about the Patriot Act, and how it's impacted their civil liberties. Below is my response to that question:

For those that know my actual profession, you know that The Patriot Act directly impacts my life everyday...

It gives me job security... heh heh.

I admit, that in the midst of all of the hoopla of the Patriot Act, I jumped on the ol' "civil rights infringement" bandwagon with little more knowledge than those who got their news from "The Daily Show" would've had. This was a grievous error on my part... but I chalk it up to some residual youthful exuberance that I have since shaken.

After following discussions generated by your question, and reviewing some of the information provided by those discussions, it does seem to appear that the Patriot Act, by itself as it's written, poses no threat to the civil liberties of Americans... yet.

The reoccurring theme throughout the Patriot Act is "terrorism." Reading the verbiage of the act itself, as well as objectives summaries of it, show that all of the so-called "civil rights violations" that everyone complains about can only occur if the person allegedly having their rights violated is currently engaging in terrorist activity.

But... what is terrorist activity?


From Wikipedia:

The United States has defined terrorism under the Federal Criminal Code. Chapter 113B of Part I of Title 18 of the United States Code defines terrorism and lists the crimes associated with terrorism[9]. In Section 2331 of Chapter 113b, terrorism is defined as:

…activities that involve violent… or life-threatening acts… that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State and… appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and… (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States… [or]… (C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States…"

This is a pretty clear and concise definition, and in this country, at the present moment, we can all rest easy knowing that "terrorism" is not a subjective term.

But we all know that laws are written and re-written. Legal definitions can and have changed. And the mood of a country's people and its leaders changes more often than most people change their underwear. There's nothing to say that the legal, "objective" definition of "terrorism" can change at any time. And with the addition and subtraction of a few words from that legal definition of terrorism, the Patriot Act changes from this relatively harmless piece of legislation, to a tool of a fascist state.

Is this likely to happen... no.

But the fact that it could makes the Patriot Act something to keep an eye on.