Are there any domestic terrorists out there?

No? Why should the government believe you?

Indeed, the USA Patriot Act’s definition of “domestic terrorism” judges citizens not just on their actions, but for what the government divines to be their motives, should such “appear to be intended… to influence the policy of a government through intimidation…”

Broadly construed, some say, that definition could be used to suppress otherwise lawful demonstrations. Remember, you’re being judged on what you might be thinking.

Based on last week’s city council meeting, many islanders are alarmed. The council was successfully lobbied to opine against various provisions in the Patriot Act and executive orders that would “weaken or destroy our civil liberties.”

Now, we have in this space opposed the council’s occasional inclination to express resolve on such far-flung matters, generally because these resolutions presuppose community consensus on divisive issues. So Wednesday, folks went to great lengths to argue that the cause of civil liberties transcends political orientation; that view carried the day. (Fine, although we can’t help thinking that if the John Ashcroft American Freedom Brigade had asked for council support of a resolution favoring the Patriot Act, they would have been shown the door with a polite, “It’s not our place to take a stand on such matters…”)

Allow us to say that this newspaper too objects to the USA Patriot Act. We believe it’s a slippery slope toward the shrouding of government activities, the abuse of court authority, the invasion of personal privacy, the blunting of free expression and the silencing of political dissent. Its very name is an affront to thinking minds – as if bestowing upon any legislation a cloying, jingoistic moniker can by itself confer moral legitimacy. (Whoever names these things, quit insulting us and go back to using “The Smith-Jones Act” or whatever.)

For our city council to declare its support of the freedoms codified in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is fair on its face. We find ourselves troubled, though, by provisions that attempt to steer the actions of city employees vis a vis the Patriot Act. The resolution “directs” employees to “choose their legal option to withhold cooperation in federal investigations, interrogations or arrest procedures… that are in violation of individuals’ civil rights…”

The council’s declaration carries no weight of law. Yet what of a city employee who actually supports the Patriot Act, or understands it differently? What if Bainbridge Police – sworn to uphold the laws of the land – are called upon to participate in a problematic investigation that touches Bainbridge shores?

We all are guided by a personal sense of moral right. How then can city officials – or any of us, for that matter – fairly divine others’ motives, as they carry out their professional duties while tested against the a priori assumption that the Patriot Act is a moral wrong?

As citizens and individuals, we may respect the act or we may loathe it; how we choose to respond to its mandates remains a matter of conscience – a sphere into which no local government edict, however well intentioned, should presume to intrude.

Dissent is indeed patriotic, but it cannot be coerced. There is no freedom, no privacy more innate than that of conscience; it is that which we should guard most jealously of all.