allingeneral wrote:I haven't read the Patriot Act, so I'm not sure of its exact content, except for what's been reported by the media. Based on my limited understanding of the law, I think that I'm ok with it as long as the term "Terrorist" is properly defined in order that appropriate people are targeted. All this crap about "Homegrown terrorists" and trying to lump anyone and everyone into that group (a la Janet Napolitano) is what concerns me.
Well, I have read it, all 750+ pages of it. It was a mistake in 2001 and it's a mistake today. It steps all over the Bill of Rights in the name of "security" and was merely another piece of knee-jerk, feel-good, "see, folks, we DID something!" legislation. Kind of like the gun-restriction laws like the AWB of 1994 or those currently being proposed now, after Tucson.
allingeneral wrote:
Don't get me wrong, I understand that there are a lot of "Homegrown terrorists" in the US. However, the classification of Jim-Bob as a terrorist because he owns guns and has private property in the mountains just doesn't fly with me.
No, the classification of Jim-Bob as a terrorist happens when he starts burning crosses in people's yards, beating up Sikhs for being "towel-heads" (they're neither Muslim or Arab, BTW), etc. Unfortunately, yes, these sorts of things still happen.
allingeneral wrote:
The term "Terrorist" has taken on too broad of a definition. Perhaps we should change the term to "Jihadist", leave normal people alone, and go after "Homegrown Jihadists".
"Jihadist" being a Muslim-specific term, that leaves out the Klansman, Aryan Nations, Neo-Nazis, and similar folks. Hmmm.....