India's Evolving Anti-Terror Landscape: Unpacking the 'Patriot Act Modi' Analogy

Oct 22, 2025 by thesweetdesigns.com 54 views

India’s Evolving Anti-Terror Landscape: Unpacking the ‘Patriot Act Modi’ Analogy

The phrase “Patriot Act Modi” has, in recent years, emerged as a potent shorthand in political discourse, encapsulating concerns and debates surrounding India’s increasingly stringent anti-terrorism laws under the leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. This parallel draws directly from the United States’ post-⁹⁄₁₁ legislative response, the USA PATRIOT Act, which dramatically expanded governmental surveillance and enforcement powers. In India, the discussion primarily revolves around the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and its subsequent amendments, particularly those introduced by the Modi government. India, a nation long grappling with various forms of extremism and terrorism, from cross-border incursions to domestic insurgencies, has consistently sought to fortify its legal arsenal against these threats. However, the Modi government’s approach has ignited significant debate, with proponents arguing for essential measures to safeguard national security and critics raising alarms over potential infringements on civil liberties, due process, and democratic dissent. This article aims to deconstruct the “Patriot Act Modi” analogy, exploring the historical context of India’s anti-terror legislation, the key amendments made under the current administration, and the intricate balance between state power and individual rights in the world’s largest democracy. By examining the rationale, the impact, and the criticisms associated with these laws, we can gain a clearer understanding of India’s complex and evolving counter-terrorism framework. The discourse around the “Patriot Act Modi” is not merely academic; it has profound implications for the nature of governance, the rule of law, and the fundamental freedoms enjoyed by millions of Indians.

Historical Context of India’s Anti-Terror Legislation: A Precursor to UAPA’s Evolution

India’s fight against terrorism is a long and arduous one, predating the current administration and establishing a complex legal legacy. The nation has, over decades, enacted various pieces of legislation designed to combat internal and external security threats, often in response to significant acts of terror or periods of intense militancy. Understanding this historical context is crucial to appreciating the evolution of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the discussions around the “Patriot Act Modi” analogy. Prior to UAPA gaining prominence, India experimented with more stringent, albeit temporary, anti-terror laws. The Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA), enacted in 1985 and renewed several times before lapsing in 1995, was a landmark, and highly controversial, piece of legislation. TADA granted expansive powers to law enforcement, including provisions for preventive detention, reversal of the presumption of innocence, and the admissibility of confessions made before police officers. While it was credited by some with helping curb terrorism in Punjab and other regions, it was also widely criticized for its sweeping provisions and alleged misuse, leading to widespread human rights abuses and the arbitrary detention of thousands, many of whom were eventually acquitted. The controversies surrounding TADA highlighted the perennial tension between security imperatives and civil liberties, a tension that continues to define the “Patriot Act Modi” discourse today.

Following the lapse of TADA, and particularly in the wake of the 2001 Indian Parliament attack and the global shift in anti-terror strategies post-⁹⁄₁₁, India enacted the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) in 2002. POTA, much like TADA, introduced draconian measures aimed at dismantling terrorist networks, including enhanced surveillance powers, restrictions on bail, and a broadened definition of “terrorist act.” However, its implementation quickly mirrored the criticisms faced by TADA. Accusations of political misuse, targeting of minority communities, and infringement of fundamental rights led to its repeal in 2004 by the newly formed United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government. The repeal of POTA underscored a national reckoning with the balance of power, suggesting a preference for strengthening existing laws rather than creating entirely new, highly specialized, and often temporary anti-terror statutes. It was in this environment that the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), originally passed in 1967, began to be significantly amended and transformed. Initially designed to deal with unlawful associations, primarily those advocating secession, UAPA was gradually broadened and strengthened to incorporate provisions from repealed acts like POTA, particularly after the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks. These amendments in 2004, 2008, and 2012 expanded its scope to include various forms of terrorism, proscribed terrorist organizations, and enhanced investigation and prosecution powers, setting the stage for the further expansions that would become central to the “Patriot Act Modi” debate. Thus, India’s journey through TADA, POTA, and the initial strengthening of UAPA illustrates a continuous struggle to define the appropriate legal boundaries for counter-terrorism, a struggle that reached a new intensity with the amendments introduced by the Modi government.

The Modi Government’s Stance and the 2019 UAPA Amendments: Redefining Counter-Terrorism

The advent of the Modi government in 2014, and especially its re-election in 2019, marked a decisive shift towards a more robust and, arguably, uncompromising approach to national security. The phrase “Patriot Act Modi” finds its strongest resonance in the amendments introduced to the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in 2019, which significantly expanded the state’s powers in combating terrorism. These amendments were presented by the government as essential tools to modernize India’s anti-terror framework and enable more effective pre-emptive action against a complex and evolving threat landscape. At the heart of the 2019 amendments was a critical change: the power to designate individuals as terrorists. Prior to this, UAPA primarily allowed for the designation of organizations as terrorist entities. The Modi government argued that this limitation hindered efforts to counter individuals who might form new groups after their previous organizations were banned, or those who acted independently but espoused terrorist ideologies. By allowing the Central Government to declare an individual as a “terrorist” based on their involvement in or promotion of terrorism, the amendment aimed to deter and disrupt lone-wolf actors and ideological propagators more effectively. This provision immediately drew comparisons to similar measures in Western counter-terrorism laws, including aspects of the US Patriot Act which facilitated tracking and action against individuals suspected of terror links.

Furthermore, the 2019 amendments enhanced the investigative powers of the National Investigation Agency (NIA), India’s premier counter-terrorism agency. Specifically, they empowered NIA officers of the rank of Inspector and above to investigate cases, whereas previously only officers of the rank of Deputy Superintendent or Assistant Commissioner of Police could do so. This change was presented as a practical measure to expedite investigations and address the significant backlog of cases, allowing for a broader pool of officers to tackle complex terror-related crimes. The amendments also expanded the scope for seizure or attachment of property involved in terrorism. While previous provisions required prior approval from state Director General of Police, the new amendment allows the Director General of NIA to grant such approval, effectively streamlining the process and centralizing more power within the federal agency. This centralization, according to the Modi government, ensures quicker action against terror funding and assets, thereby weakening the logistical and financial backbone of terrorist operations. These legislative changes, enacted with a clear majority in Parliament, reflect a strategic priority of the Modi government to project a strong image on national security, prioritizing decisive action over what it perceives as procedural bottlenecks. The legislative intent, as articulated by the government, was to provide a robust legal architecture capable of matching the sophistication of modern terrorist networks. However, it is precisely these broadened powers — the individual designation of terrorists, the expanded NIA jurisdiction, and streamlined asset forfeiture – that have fueled the “Patriot Act Modi” narrative, sparking intense debate over whether these measures are a necessary evil or an alarming overreach of state authority. Critics argue that such powers, while ostensibly targeting terrorists, could be misused to suppress dissent, target political opponents, or disproportionately affect certain communities, echoing concerns raised about the US Patriot Act.

Comparing with the US Patriot Act: Parallels and Divergences in Counter-Terrorism

The analogy of “Patriot Act Modi” is not merely rhetorical; it invites a direct comparison between India’s amended Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the USA PATRIOT Act, enacted in response to the September 11, 2001 attacks. While both legislations were born out of a perceived urgent need to combat terrorism, they operate within distinct legal and democratic frameworks, presenting both striking parallels and significant divergences. One of the most notable parallels lies in the expansion of state surveillance and investigative powers. The US Patriot Act granted law enforcement agencies, particularly the FBI, unprecedented authority to conduct electronic surveillance (e.g., “roving wiretaps”), access business records (e.g., Section 215 of the Act for “any tangible thing”), and monitor internet activity with less judicial oversight. Similarly, the 2019 UAPA amendments, by broadening the definition of “terrorist act” and empowering the National Investigation Agency (NIA) with greater autonomy in investigations and property seizures, have been perceived as increasing the state’s capacity for surveillance and control over individuals deemed security threats. The ability to designate individuals as terrorists under UAPA, much like the broader scope for targeting individuals under the Patriot Act’s various provisions, represents a shift towards proactive disruption rather than solely reactive prosecution. Both laws aim to dismantle terrorist networks by going beyond organizational bans to target the individuals who constitute them, irrespective of their formal affiliation.

However, crucial divergences exist. The US Patriot Act, while controversial, was subject to review mechanisms and, over time, some of its more contentious provisions, such as those related to bulk data collection, were either allowed to expire or were significantly reformed by subsequent legislation like the USA Freedom Act. This indicates a degree of institutional self-correction within the American legislative framework. In India, while UAPA amendments can be challenged in courts, the scope for legislative review of such powers has been less pronounced. The definition of “terrorist act” under UAPA is also considerably broad, often encompassing acts that could be interpreted as civil disobedience or political dissent, leading to concerns about its potential for misuse against activists, journalists, and human rights defenders. The legal safeguards and due process mechanisms also differ. In the U.S., while the Patriot Act streamlined certain processes, it still largely operated within the framework of established constitutional rights, albeit with interpretations that some found to be stretched. In India, UAPA’s provisions, such as the extended period for pre-charge detention (up to 180 days without a charge sheet) and the stringent bail conditions, place a heavy burden on the accused, often making bail extremely difficult to obtain. This aspect of UAPA is often cited by critics as significantly eroding due process, a concern that perhaps surpasses the criticisms leveled against the Patriot Act in its most aggressive phases.

The context of implementation also varies. The Patriot Act was a direct, emergency response to a singular, devastating attack on US soil, leading to a profound national consensus, at least initially, on the need for robust action. In India, while terrorism is an ongoing threat, the UAPA amendments are part of a broader, more continuous evolution of anti-terror laws, often enacted in a politically charged environment. The democratic traditions and judicial review processes also play a role. While both nations have independent judiciaries, the history of anti-terror laws in India, with precedents like TADA and POTA, shows a pattern of legislation that has been widely criticized for its overreach and impact on human rights. The “Patriot Act Modi” comparison thus serves as a powerful reminder of the universal challenge faced by democracies: how to effectively counter threats to national security without dismantling the very civil liberties and rule of law they seek to protect. While both acts represent a legislative response to the exigencies of modern terrorism, the specific provisions, the degree of judicial oversight, and the historical context of their enactment and implementation reveal significant differences in their approach and potential implications for civil liberties.

Arguments for the Enhanced Powers: Safeguarding National Security in a Volatile Region

Proponents of the Modi government’s enhanced anti-terrorism laws, particularly the 2019 amendments to the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), steadfastly argue that these measures are not merely desirable but absolutely essential for safeguarding India’s national security in an increasingly complex and volatile global landscape. The core argument supporting the “Patriot Act Modi” approach hinges on the undeniable and pervasive threat of terrorism that India faces, both from cross-border elements and internal extremist groups. For a nation situated in a region frequently destabilized by proxy wars, radical ideologies, and state-sponsored terror, a robust legal framework is deemed indispensable. The government consistently emphasizes that the traditional criminal justice system, designed for conventional crimes, is often inadequate to deal with the unique challenges posed by sophisticated, globally networked terrorist organizations. These groups operate with significant financial backing, advanced communication tools, and a deliberate strategy to exploit legal loopholes. Therefore, more stringent laws, offering enhanced investigative and enforcement powers, are presented as a necessary evolution to match the sophistication of the threat.

One of the primary justifications for the 2019 UAPA amendments, which allow for the designation of individuals as terrorists, is the perceived need for pre-emptive action. The government argued that simply banning organizations was insufficient, as individuals associated with proscribed groups could easily re-emerge under new banners or operate as lone wolves, propagating radical ideologies and orchestrating attacks. By designating individuals, the law aims to create a powerful deterrent and enable early intervention, preventing potential attacks before they materialize. This shift from organizational proscription to individual targeting is seen as a critical tactical advantage in the fight against terrorism, allowing law enforcement to isolate, monitor, and prosecute key actors more effectively. Furthermore, the amendments streamline processes for asset forfeiture and enhance the investigative capabilities of the National Investigation Agency (NIA). Proponents contend that these changes are crucial for disrupting terror financing and expediting investigations. Terrorist networks rely heavily on illicit funding, and the ability to quickly seize assets and choke off financial lifelines is paramount. Similarly, empowering a broader range of NIA officers to investigate complex terror cases, rather than limiting it to higher ranks, is seen as a practical measure to improve efficiency and accelerate justice. The argument is that the increased bureaucratic hurdles previously slowed down vital investigations, allowing terrorists to evade justice or continue their activities.

Moreover, the government often frames these measures as aligning with global best practices in counter-terrorism. Many developed nations, including the US (with its Patriot Act), the UK, and Australia, have enacted similar legislative measures to bolster their national security apparatus in the face of evolving threats. India, as a responsible global actor, is seen as simply adapting its legal framework to meet these contemporary challenges. The Modi government often highlights the success stories of agencies like the NIA in dismantling terror modules and bringing perpetrators to justice, attributing these successes, in part, to the efficacy of UAPA. They stress that these laws are applied judiciously and with due regard for evidence, designed solely to target those who pose a clear and present danger to the nation. The narrative is clear: in an era of asymmetric warfare and persistent terror threats, a strong state with strong laws, akin to the “Patriot Act Modi” analogy, is not an act of oppression but a fundamental duty to protect its citizens and preserve its territorial integrity. Without such powers, they argue, the state would be crippled in its ability to respond effectively to those who seek to destabilize the nation through violence and fear.

Arguments Against and Concerns: Erosion of Civil Liberties and Due Process

While proponents underscore the imperative of national security, critics of India’s enhanced anti-terrorism laws, particularly the UAPA amendments under the Modi government, raise profound concerns about the erosion of civil liberties, due process, and the potential for misuse that underpin the “Patriot Act Modi” narrative. A central fear is that these broad powers, while ostensibly aimed at terrorists, could be weaponized against political dissenters, human rights activists, journalists, and minority communities, effectively stifling democratic debate and silencing opposition. The core of these concerns lies in the draconian nature of certain UAPA provisions, which significantly tilt the scales of justice against the accused. The ability to designate individuals as terrorists without a prior conviction, a key amendment under the Modi government, is particularly contentious. Critics argue that this provision is ripe for misuse, allowing the government to stigmatize and target individuals based on mere suspicion or perceived association, rather than concrete evidence of terrorist acts. Such a designation, they contend, can lead to social ostracization, financial ruin, and irreparable damage to an individual’s reputation, even if they are later acquitted. This essentially creates a “terrorist” label at the executive level, bypassing the rigorous judicial process required for criminal conviction.

Further compounding these concerns are the stringent bail provisions under UAPA. Section 43D(5) mandates that bail cannot be granted if the court, on a perusal of the case diary or the report, is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against such person is prima facie true. This provision effectively shifts the burden of proof, making it exceptionally difficult for accused individuals to secure bail, often leading to prolonged pre-trial detention that can extend up to 180 days without a charge sheet, and even longer with court permission. Critics argue that this undermines the principle of “innocent until proven guilty” and amounts to punishment without conviction, a clear violation of fundamental due process rights. Many individuals arrested under UAPA spend years in jail before their cases even come to trial, with a low conviction rate often cited as evidence of potential overreach and indiscriminate application of the law. This echoes historical concerns about laws like TADA and POTA, which also faced widespread accusations of arbitrary arrests and detentions.

The vague and expansive definition of “unlawful activity” and “terrorist act” within UAPA is another significant area of concern. These definitions, critics argue, are broad enough to encompass acts of legitimate protest, advocacy, or even expression of dissenting opinions, thereby creating a chilling effect on free speech and association. Activists working on sensitive issues, particularly those related to marginalized communities or government policies, fear being branded as “anti-national” or “terrorist” simply for exercising their constitutional rights. This perceived ambiguity, combined with the immense powers granted to agencies like the NIA, creates an environment where state discretion can trump individual freedoms. Human rights organizations and legal experts frequently highlight cases where UAPA has been invoked against students, journalists, and social activists, raising serious questions about the law’s true intent and application beyond genuine terror threats. The international community, too, has expressed reservations, with UN human rights experts calling for the repeal or amendment of UAPA, citing its non-compliance with international human rights norms. The “Patriot Act Modi” comparison, in this context, serves as a warning that while security is paramount, unchecked state power, even in the name of fighting terrorism, can lead to the erosion of the democratic fabric itself, potentially creating more grievances than it solves.

Impact and Implementation: Real-World Scrutiny of UAPA under the Modi Government

The practical impact and implementation of the enhanced Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) under the Modi government provides crucial real-world scrutiny to the theoretical debates surrounding the “Patriot Act Modi” analogy. While the government asserts the law’s necessity in countering terrorism, data and ground realities often present a more complex picture, highlighting both its intended purpose and its unintended, or perhaps intended, consequences. Analysis of official statistics reveals a significant increase in the number of cases registered under UAPA following the 2019 amendments, with a notably low conviction rate. For instance, data from the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) often shows thousands of arrests under UAPA annually, but only a small percentage of these cases lead to convictions. This stark disparity is a major point of contention for critics, who argue that it points to the indiscriminate use of the law, suggesting that many individuals are arrested without sufficient evidence, only to languish in jail for extended periods due to the stringent bail provisions. This effectively means that arrest itself becomes a form of punishment, irrespective of the eventual legal outcome.

The invocation of UAPA has extended beyond conventional terror suspects, frequently targeting individuals involved in social and political movements. For instance, the “Patriot Act Modi” concerns were amplified by cases related to the Bhima Koregaon arrests, where prominent activists, lawyers, and academics were arrested under UAPA, accused of Maoist links and conspiracy to incite violence. These arrests drew widespread condemnation, with civil society groups alleging that the charges were politically motivated and based on dubious evidence, including allegedly planted digital evidence, as later suggested by independent forensic reports. Such cases fuel the narrative that UAPA is being used to suppress dissent and criminalize political opposition, rather than solely combating genuine terrorist threats. The lengthy pre-trial detentions, often lasting years, become a significant aspect of the “punishment,” even without a conviction. The difficulty in securing bail means that individuals, once arrested under UAPA, face an arduous and financially draining legal battle, often leading to their continued incarceration for the duration of the trial, which can stretch for years in the overburdened Indian judicial system. This particular aspect of the law has been a consistent source of criticism from national and international human rights organizations, which highlight its impact on the principle of individual liberty.

The Modi government’s consistent defense of UAPA emphasizes its critical role in intelligence gathering and prevention of terror attacks. They cite instances where NIA investigations, empowered by UAPA, have successfully dismantled terror modules and thwarted plots. However, these successes, while important for national security, are juxtaposed against the backdrop of concerns regarding due process and transparency. The opaque nature of some investigations, the broad powers of search and seizure, and the extended periods of detention without charge contribute to a perception of an unbalanced legal system where state power can potentially overwhelm individual rights. The lack of a robust independent oversight mechanism for UAPA cases, beyond the judiciary, further exacerbates these concerns. While the judiciary has, on occasion, granted bail in UAPA cases or criticized the slow pace of trials, the overall impact of the law has been to empower the executive significantly. The “Patriot Act Modi” discussion, therefore, is not just about legislative text, but about how these laws are applied on the ground, the lives they affect, and the chilling effect they may have on fundamental freedoms in a vibrant democracy like India.

Public and International Reaction: A Divided Opinion on India’s Security Laws

The implementation of India’s stringent anti-terrorism laws, particularly the UAPA amendments under the Modi government, has elicited a divided and often passionate reaction both domestically and internationally. This polarized response is central to understanding the complexities embedded within the “Patriot Act Modi” analogy. Within India, the public discourse is sharply split along political and ideological lines. Supporters of the Modi government generally view these laws as necessary and legitimate tools to protect national sovereignty and citizen safety. They often point to India’s long history of battling terrorism and the continuous threat from various extremist groups as justification for robust state action. For many, the focus remains on the security imperative, and they trust that the government will use these powers responsibly and judiciously. This segment of the population often dismisses criticisms as politically motivated or as attempts to weaken the state’s resolve against terrorism. The narrative frequently emphasizes that “tough laws” are required for “tough times,” and that those who fear UAPA are either directly involved in unlawful activities or are sympathetic to such causes.

Conversely, a significant segment of the Indian public, including civil society organizations, human rights activists, legal scholars, and opposition parties, express profound alarm and opposition. They contend that the UAPA, particularly with its expanded scope and individual designation clause, is a severe threat to fundamental democratic freedoms. Their concerns are not merely theoretical; they are fueled by the numerous cases where activists, journalists, academics, and even students have been arrested under UAPA for activities that critics argue fall squarely within the realm of legitimate dissent or free speech. The lengthy detentions without trial, the stringent bail conditions, and the low conviction rates are frequently cited as evidence of the law’s potential for misuse and abuse. This section of society sees the “Patriot Act Modi” as a symbol of a shrinking democratic space, where the state’s power to define and prosecute “unlawful activities” is expanding without adequate checks and balances. They argue that a truly secure nation is one where citizens’ rights are upheld, not curtailed, in the name of security.

Internationally, the reaction has also been mixed, though often leaning towards concern. Various United Nations human rights bodies, including UN Special Rapporteurs, have repeatedly called on India to review or repeal UAPA, citing its non-compliance with international human rights standards. They have expressed concerns about the law’s vague definitions of terrorism, its impact on freedom of expression and association, and the lack of due process guarantees. For instance, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) has voiced apprehensions about the arbitrary detention of human rights defenders under UAPA. Similarly, several international human rights organizations, such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have consistently highlighted cases of alleged abuses under UAPA and urged the Indian government to bring the law in line with international human rights law. While some countries might offer tacit support to India’s counter-terrorism efforts given the global nature of the threat, the specific provisions and implementation of UAPA have drawn scrutiny and criticism from democratic allies concerned about civil liberties. The international reaction underscores a fundamental tension: while states have a legitimate right to protect their citizens from terrorism, these measures must not come at the cost of sacrificing fundamental human rights and the rule of law. The “Patriot Act Modi” conversation thus becomes a microcosm of a larger global debate on balancing security imperatives with democratic principles, reflecting a global community grappling with how to address evolving threats without undermining the very values they aim to safeguard.

Conclusion: Balancing Security and Liberty in India’s Democratic Fabric

The ongoing discourse surrounding the “Patriot Act Modi” analogy illuminates a critical and enduring challenge for India: how to effectively combat terrorism and ensure national security while simultaneously upholding the foundational principles of democracy, civil liberties, and due process. The Modi government’s amendments to the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in 2019 undeniably represent a significant strengthening of the state’s counter-terrorism apparatus, drawing parallels with the post-⁹⁄₁₁ legislative responses seen in the United States and other Western democracies. Proponents assert that these measures are an absolute necessity, providing the state with the agility and foresight required to neutralize evolving and complex terror threats. They argue that a nation continuously targeted by extremist ideologies and cross-border aggression cannot afford to be hampered by legal loopholes or procedural delays. For them, the enhanced UAPA is a vital shield, protecting the lives of millions and preserving the integrity of the Indian state.

However, the “Patriot Act Modi” narrative also underscores profound anxieties regarding the potential for overreach and the erosion of fundamental rights. Critics contend that the broad definitions within UAPA, coupled with stringent bail conditions and the power to designate individuals as terrorists without prior conviction, create a legal environment ripe for misuse. They point to numerous instances where the law has been invoked against activists, journalists, and political dissenters, raising serious questions about the targeting of legitimate democratic participation. The low conviction rates, juxtaposed against lengthy pre-trial detentions, further fuel concerns that the process itself has become a punishment, undermining the very essence of justice and fair trial. The history of India’s anti-terror laws, from TADA to POTA, serves as a cautionary tale, reminding society of the delicate balance required between security imperatives and the protection of individual freedoms.

Ultimately, the debate around the “Patriot Act Modi” is not about whether India should combat terrorism, but how it should do so. It forces a crucial examination of the checks and balances necessary to prevent arbitrary state power, even when exercised with good intentions. For India, a vibrant and diverse democracy, ensuring that its security laws are precise, proportionate, and consistently applied with transparency and accountability is paramount. Striking the right balance requires continuous public dialogue, robust parliamentary oversight, independent judicial review, and an unwavering commitment to the constitutional rights of all citizens. Only through such sustained effort can India build a counter-terrorism framework that is both effective in safeguarding the nation and steadfast in upholding the democratic values it seeks to protect. The challenge, therefore, is not merely to fight terror, but to do so in a manner that strengthens, rather than diminishes, the very democratic fabric of the nation.