Maggie McDonald

Ms. Beren
AP Gov
28 November 2016
Patriot Act
1 How does the Patriot Act define "domestic terrorism"? Do you think participants in
public protests could ever be accused of "domestic terrorism" under this definition? Why
or why not?

The Patriot Act defines domestic terrorism as activities within the United states
that . . . involve acts dangerous to human life that . . . 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. . . .
If the government disagrees with a protests, they could easily claim that it
was an attempt at domestic terrorism with this definition. It is broad to be able to apply to
many things, but that also makes it easily abusable.

2 The Justice Department has proposed that the government should be able to ask a
court to revoke the citizenship of any American who provides "material support" to
terrorists. Do you support the proposal? Why or why not?

I do not agree because the definition of terrorist and material support are too broad. If
a terrorist is anyone who participates in domestic terrorism, they may simply be
protestors who the government disagrees with, so anyone donating to aid this group could
have citizenship revoked.

3 Below are two famous quotations. What do they mean? Which, if any, do you agree with?
Explain.
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither
liberty nor safety.Benjamin Franklin (1706 - 1790)

If you are willing to give up liberties for your own protection, you do not deserve those liberties.
Liberties are not meant to be in place only in times of peace; they are meant for everyone at all
times, and not to be sacrificed because of war.

There is danger that, if the [Supreme Court] does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little
practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact.Justice
Robert H. Jackson dissenting in Terminiello v. City of Chicago (1949)
If the Supreme Court makes uniform decisions based on the Bill of Rights without regard to
application, the Bill of Rights becomes more damaging than helpful.

There is a reason we have the liberties that we do, and while we do need the government to have
more control during times of crisis, completely giving up our freedoms is not helpful. I also
agree that while we do have rights from the Bill of Rights, there are cases where these freedoms
are abused and become criminal, like in the case of Terminiello, which resulted in a riot.