Introduction The sentiment has been repeated so often that it is in danger of becoming meaningless: the terrorist attacks of 9/11 changed America forever. Apart from repetition, however, the consensus that the America of today is not as it was on the morning of September 11, 2001, typically begins from the perspective that this wholesale change occurred only as a result of the heinous actions of the hijackers themselves. Closer scrutiny reveals that many of the reasons why America 2007 doesn’t resemble the America of September 10, 2001, have much to do with the reaction of the US government to those actions taken by the hijackers. One day society may look back upon the legacy of 9/11 and see that it changed America not as a result of the actual attacks, but as a result of how the attacks were used to manipulate policy based upon the politics of fear. The USA Patriot Act The administration of Pres. George W. Bush quickly seized the unique opportunity presented by the terrorist attacks to institute a widespread policy based entirely upon the politics of fear. The assault upon even basic civil rights of American citizens was prioritized and mandated in the form of one of the most ironically named pieces of legislation in American history: the USA Patriot Act. The Patriot Act was drafted and signed into law within a matter of weeks after the attacks of September 11, 2001. This piece of legislation was designed with the intent to facilitate the government’s ability to assemble information related to potential acts of terrorism. The Patriot Act also includes provisions for expanding the authority to monitor communications with US citizens. The USA Patriot Act passed virtually unopposed in the Senate. Only one United States Senator voted against it: Sen. Russell Feingold (Collins). It was only to be expected in light of the overarching politics of fear engendered by the Bush administration that throughout America many people quickly questioned why Sen. Feingold went on record against a bill that seemed to be designed solely to deepen the protection of the US from further acts of terrorism. Senator Feingold answered that the language of the bill was so vague and imprecise that while it contained provisions that would doubtlessly make America safer, there were also elements to the USA Patriot Act that had the potential to restrict the very same liberties that the protective aspects of the bill were designed to protect from being destroyed by those who wished to bring down America (Nichols 2005). The restrictive provisions that urged Sen. Feingold to go on record as the only member of the US Senate to vote against the USA Patriot Act were those that would under normal circumstances turn almost anyone into a card-carrying member of the ACLU. Unfortunately, the currents of fear that led to the easy passage of the Patriot Act were anything but normal. For instance, laws would be altered or modified to allow considerable expansion of the already existing laws regarding both telephone and internet surveillance. In addition, Senator Feingold expressed concern about the loosening of laws against wiretapping American citizens. Not only would American citizens lose protection against phone and internet surveillance, but it would no