Communications in Humanities Research ISSN: 2753-7072
Home> Volumes> Volume CHR Vol.59> Article
Research Article

Rejecting Securitisation: Organised Civil Resistance Against the USA Patriot Act

Shengkai ZhangSchool of Social Science, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK*

* Corresponding author: [email protected]

Abstract

The legislation and implementation of the US Patriot Act have opened up a field of political discussion with securitisation at its centre. Although the expansion of authoritative power under the securitisation discourse seems irresistible as the decisions of the political elites in federal bureaucrat was announced, there is still room for civilian action practices in the political process under the theoretical framework dominated by the discourse. This article discusses the anti-securitization discourse established by civilian political resistance groups represented by the ACLU, as well as their political practices of overturning the Patriot Act. By evaluating the significance of the impact of popular movements on the local and federal legislative and judicial branches, the paper attempts to discuss the effectiveness of popular resistance to securitisation. The article aims to construct the interactive process of authoritative and popular political subjects, and further evaluate the effect of actual political resistance in a securitisation event.

Keywords: Political Theory; Securitisation; the US Patriot Act; Civil Rights; Political Resistance
Published: May 15, 2025
DOI: 10.54254/2753-7064/2024.22750
Volume: CHR Vol.59
pp. 115-120
Download PDF

References

  1. Bush, G.W. (2001). Signing of the Patriot Act Anti-terrorism Legislation. Washington, D.C: United States. White House.
  2. Buzan, B. and Wæver, O. (2003). Regions and powers : the structure of international security. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  3. Zozula, C. (2011). Erosion of Political and Civil Rights: Looking Back to Changes Since 9/11/01: The Patriot Act. In Human Rights in Our Own Backyard. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, Inc, pp. 127–137.
  4. Rackow, S.H. (2002). How the USA Patriot Act Will Permit Governmental Infringement upon the Privacy of Americans in the Name of ‘Intelligence’ Investigations. University of Pennsylvania law review, 150(5), pp.1651–1696.
  5. Baker, N.V. (2003). National Security versus Civil Liberties. Presidential studies quarterly, 33(3), pp.547–567.
  6. Léonard, C. and Kaunert, S. (2011). Reconceptualizing the audience in securitization theory. In: Balzacq, Thierry (ed.) (2011): Securitization Theory: How Security Problems Emerge and Dissolve. PRIO New Security Studies. London: Routledge. pp. 57-76.
  7. McGuire, S.K. (2013). Legislating Against the Threat: The U.S. and Canadian Policy Elite Response to the Terrorist Threat. Journal of strategic security, 6(3), pp.227–255.
  8. Tocqueville, Alexis de. (1835) 2000. Democracy in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  9. American Civil Liberties Union. (2009). Keeping America Safe AND Free | ACLU. [online] Available at: https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/keeping-america-safe-and-free.
  10. American Civil Liberties Union. (2004). CIVIL LIBERTIES AND HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS OF GOVERNMENT’S POST-9/11 POLICIES. [online] Available at: https://www.aclu.org/documents/civil-liberties-and-human-rights-implications-governments-post-911-policies.
  11. American Civil Liberties Union. (2003). ACLU Fact Sheet on PATRIOT Act II. [online] Available at: https://www.aclu.org/documents/aclu-fact-sheet-patriot-act-ii
  12. Pew Research Center. (2006). Americans Taking Abramoff, Alito and Domestic Spying in Stride. [online] Available at: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2006/01/11/americans-taking-abramoff-alito-and-domestic-spying.
  13. Banks, C.P. and Tauber, S. (2014). U.S. District Court Decision-Making in USA PATRIOT Act Cases after September 11. The Justice system journal, 35(2), pp.139–161.
  14. Lutz, J.M. and Ulmschneider, G.W. (2019). Civil Liberties, National Security and U.S. Courts in Times of Terrorism. Perspectives on terrorism (Lowell), 13(6), pp.43-57.
  15. Shapiro, S.R. (2005). The Role of the Courts in the War Against Terrorism: A Preliminary Assessment. The Fletcher forum of world affairs, 29(1), pp.103–118.
  16. American Civil Liberties Union. (2002). Community Resolution from Northampton, MA. [online] Available at: https://www.aclu.org/documents/community-resolution-northampton-ma
  17. Vasi, I.B. and Strang, D. (2009). Civil Liberty in America: the diffusion of municipal bill of rights resolutions after the passage of the USA PATRIOT act. The American journal of sociology, 114(6), pp.1716–1764.
  18. Cole, D. (2004). What’s a Progressive to Do? Strategies for Social Reform in a Hostile Political Climate. In P. Berkowitz (ed): Varieties of Progressivism in America. Stanford, Calif.: Hoover Institution Press. pp. 107-45
  19. Herman, S.N. (2006). The USA PATRIOT Act and the submajoritarian fourth amendment. Harvard civil rights-civil liberties law review, 41(1), pp.67–132.
  20. Mell, P. (2002). Big brother at the door: Balancing national security with privacy under the USA patriot act. Denver University law review, 80(2), pp.375–427.
  21. Farrier, J. (2007). The Patriot Act’s Institutional Story: More Evidence of Congressional Ambivalence. PS, political science & politics, 40(1), pp.93–97.
  22. Gairard-Bernard, A. (2011). La réponse sécuritaire de l’administration Bush : l’USA PATRIOT Act et les libertés individuelles. E-rea : Revue d’etudes anglophones, 9(9.1).