By Tyler Pruett

tyler@southerntorch.com

The highly publicized terror attacks and mass shootings over the last several years has Americans feeling increasingly on edge. While the September 11, 2001 attacks provoked many emotions including fear, the terrorist targeted the Pentagon and the World Trade Center, seemingly a world away from the small offices and schools of middle America. In the 14 years that’s passed since that tragic day, we’ve seen terrorism evolve to small plots on “soft targets,” or places that are lacking the security we devote to our infrastructure and landmarks. Plots on soft targets can be carried out by one or two individuals, and require very little coordination. We’ve also seen these acts carried out by deranged persons who have no allegiance to terrorism; only evil. Sep. 11 took 19 hijackers to carry out, along with hundreds of others in financing, planning, and training. Preparing for an attack on this scale would have been impossible without thousands of phone calls and emails between the conspirators. Intercepting electronic communications between terrorists has been our most effective tactic in preventing further attacks, but the new threats require no such planning or mass communication. After it was revealed two years ago that the government was collecting telephone data, lawmakers took action this summer to further limit our ability to monitor terrorist activity. This along with political correctness led to investigators missing all the clear warning signs displayed by the recent San Bernardino terrorists. While these factors caused a negligent underreaction by federal officials, we’ve seen many overreactions to less-than-credible threats as well.

While the threat of mass violence is something everyone should take seriously, we cannot let that override common sense. It seems that for every one credible threat, there are hundreds of people who are charged or imprisoned for simply stating a threat, even when investigators assess there is no validity to it. Most of the non-credible threats are from children or teenagers seeking attention, or not understanding the implications of their actions. The majority of these threats play out on social media. Social media gives us an outlet that within seconds we can share our thoughts with a large audience. The obvious downside is that these can be impossible to retract. While an adult may understand these implications, these may not be so obvious to an impulsive, emotional teenager. Several such cases have occurred in Alabama in the last year. In September, a 15 year old Hueytown boy was arrested after making threats to the Birmingham airport on a video sharing app. The teen was charged with making a terror threat although it was discovered that the weapons displayed were actually airsoft guns and their was no credible threat. In January of this year, police in Oxford charged a 16 year old with making a terrorist threat against a school, though it was discovered the threat wasn’t credible and no specific school was threatened. While urgency is understandable when reacting to a possible threat that might harm dozens of people, the “threat” was made in November 2014; two months before the decision was made to file charges.

My point certainly isn’t that these non-credible threats be overlooked or go unpunished, but that the offenders are merely emotional, impulsive, and probably in need of some help instead of being labeled a terrorist. It seems in direct violation of our first amendment rights that Americans can be imprisoned and have their lives ruined for uttering words they shouldn’t have. While it takes so little for an adolescent to get terror related charges, the terrorist couple that perpetrated the latest attack were given no such treatment while actively displaying jihadist ties on social media. Malik, the wife who immigrated from Pakistan on a “fiancee” visa, was even welcomed into our country when immigration officials simply could have checked her online presence. After the former contractor Edward Snowden revealed NSA surveillance programs, officials at the federal level are cautious in regards to surveillance in fear of violating privacy laws. This leaves local enforcement agencies to deal with threats in their jurisdiction, many of whom are not equipped to deal with the issues that cause this behavior. In June, the USA Freedom Act was passed, severely limiting surveillance programs. The telephone data being collected was not thoughts or private conversations, but phone numbers contacted so that individuals communicating with known terrorists can be identified. Snowden was a high school dropout who probably got picked last in every sport, then betrayed his country to China and Russia while portraying himself as a “whistleblower.” With these programs crippled, law enforcement is focusing more on our words than ever before.

Although our guard remains vigilant against attempts to erode our rights to privacy, to bare arms, and freedom of religion, our right to free speech is being slowly limited. While these threats merit attention, young lives should not be ruined because someone uttered (or typed) the wrong words. Threats should be rigorously investigated, but not labeled “terrorism” if no credible threat or link to terror is found. Punishment and intervention should happen, but not to this extreme extent. And while government surveillance programs were questionable, crippling them has left us less safe, and with less freedom to say stupid things we usually don’t mean. This is disproportionately affecting younger Americans, who are more active on social media and have less of an understanding of the implications. If Islamic extremists cause us to lose our fundamental rights as Americans due to overreaction and hysteria, they effectively destroy America from the inside out.