It's time for the unpatriot act to go away.

Damned right!

Absolutely right on. It needs to sunset. Unfortunately, probably 80 or more Senators will continue to vote to extend it.

There's a Republican I think I can vote for for president.

The man is following in his father's footsteps.

The PATRIOT Act is a sham and a hoax.

The patriot Act is nothing more than one step closer to a police state.

They need to repeal it and the first attack on this country gets a nuclear response.

Unfortunately, I think you're on the mark there...

"We now have a President who wants to know where you contributed before you work for the government."

Tea Bagger's (what Obama himself calls us) need not apply.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110524/ap_on_re_us/us_patriot_act_6

other than Mikey's difficulty in opening a Canadian trading account, let's have a list of the horrible police state effects of the PA?


TSA has nothing to do with the PA, so airport stories don't count.


Come on, oppressed ones, let's hear your tales of Jack-booted PA thugs. Who has had even the slightest encounter with it?

Better yet, let's have a few examples of where it's actually done some good. Oh, that's right, we'll never be told that, secret handshakes and all.

With all of the recent assaults on the Fourth Amendment, I think we can see how strengthening the hand of the state in making it easier to bypass the Fourth Amendment is detrimental.

I take that to mean you have no examples. Your logic is sort of like saying we don't need all those FAA safety regs, because after all the planes are landing safely, and how do you know they wouldn't even without the regs.

Remember Mike, Steve is a lawyer. The more laws the more work for lawyers. I can understand business.

It sure would help the discussion if there were specific examples of Pa abuses to make an informed decision. As to the times that it's helped in the thwarting of terrorist acts, haven't there been a few examples?

the PA has not generated any business for me....nor for any lawyers. still waiting for somebody to successfully sue and say they were damaged by it.....the statute gives you your attorneys fees.

Maybe instead of us looking for specifics, we should view this act as just another means of the government chipping away at out rights. On the surface, maybe it doesn't seem to infringe on us too much but isn't what we're seeing just a continuation of the way government has found to marginalize what rights we have left?



And has government ever shown restraint when given more power?

How about all telephone providers except AT&T rolling over upon Gov't requests for phone records? AT&T told them to get a court order, gov't didn't and dropped their "request".

It's what you 'don't know about' more than what you do know about what the gov't wants and is getting w/o court orders.

I ain't a fan of the PA. You got a problem with court orders and due process, Steve NO?

A fair question and you are correct about the ever-growing size and power of a centralized government. That said when our safety is involved and such an important decision needs to be considered, I'd like to see some evidence pro and con. For example, during WWII, it was illegal (subject to fine and imprisonment) not to have blackout curtains. That law went away after the war ended. Anyhow I would like to see just ONE instance where American citizens rights were violated as a result of the PA.

Dirt bag Jose Padilla is an American citizen, he was declared an enemy combatant and held for 3-1/2 years in a military prison without being charged with a crime.

Jorge, you're mixing "laws" here. You have a problem with due process and court orders?

Hitler did it "for their own good" as history recalls.

Good point. Didn't know the PA was used for Padilla, Thanks

The questions remain on due process and court orders.

Glad to see you're so trusting of our gov't and its intentions.

IMO the PA hasn't been widely "abused", but it sure has the potential to be.

Count me in with those who are leery of giving the government more power to do whatever it pleases.

I have a problem with emotion and absolutes and Hitler is a bit of a stretch. I also have an issue with an impending, catastrophic attack on our country not being prevented in time and I'm not worried about a 9/11 style attack either. I am very concerned about an NBC type attack that we are just not prepared for and that loss if life could exceed 9/11 tenfold. In fact had we had the PA, a strong argument can be made 9/11 could have been prevented. jorge

Having beem on the "dark side" for thirty years and believing in my fellow Americans, I go with innocent until proven guilty approach. Your sarcasm is noted...

Yeah, right, that can't 'possibly' happen here, can it? As if Hitler was ever the only one and is the last.

No 'sarchasm' was ever intended. Strong aruments are just that, strong arguments.

What questions? Do you even have a clue what the PA says about court orders and due process?

as far as trusting government...the same argument could be advanced against any criminal law.

bumper sticker slogans are not arguments.

And we owe it to the neocons!

However, this kind of totalitarian measure might have come from the democrats.

The fact that only one senator, Russ Feingold, a Democrat voted against the bill, is rather frightening; all the others voted for it.

Today, apart from the few conservatives of libertarian or tea-party tendencies there is really not much to hope from Washington politicians.

Explain it to all of us, please.

Here you go Steve, there's a few links that detail FBI abuses of the PA, specifically the telecommunications part, along with an ACLU summary on why it is a detriment to our Fourth Amendment rights, and how it could be further abused.

In light of the SCOTUS recent decision on "suspicious noises" being ample probable cause to enter a residence without a warrant, and the Indiana SC ruling that citizens have no right to deny police the ability to enter their home for any reason, furtherance of a law specifically designed to edge around the Fourth would seem to me to be wrong. Just because no one has been directly affected by the law that we KNOW about, is no reason to endorse it.

Here are the links:

www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/03/fbi-tried-to-co/

www.mainjustice.com/2010/04/14/sensenbrenner-feels-betrayed-by-fbis-violations/

www.aclu.org/national-security/surveillance-under-usa-patriot-act

I realize that the ACLU isn't one of the shining stars for most conservative leaning people because of their lack of support for the Second Amendment, but as far as I'm concerned, they are dead on right concerning the PA. Your mileage obviously varies.

The Patriot Act is just another way for Government Control and to create a Police State . The Patriot Act needs to go now.

still waiting for the first person with personal knowledge of any effects....or any successful lawsuit actually proving anybody anywhere was infringed in any identifiable way by someone complying with the PA.


the fact that somebody abused it and got caught and it's a news story tends to disprove, rather than prove your point.

your argument is like saying the fact that some towns are speed traps means you can't have speed limits anywhere.

The Patriot act means less work for lawyers because the law is clear and eliminates lawsuits. But anyway Steve doesn't practice that type of law so it has no effecto on him other than keeping him safer like the rest of us.

I can give you one positive effect of the Patriot act. The terrorists have never been able to repeat their 9/11 or do anything of that magniture again.

We are at war with the terrorists and during wartime the security of the country is paramount. It has been that way during just about every war that we have fought and this one is not different.

The patriot act allows us to fight the terrorists. Without it we would not have a chance to defeat them. That has allowed us to inflict numerous defeats on them and kill a lot of them including Obama bin Laden.

Tell me what you dislike about this law and be specific.

The ACLU is part of the progressive fascist movement. They are dedicated to the destruction of our country and the building of a socialist fascist state.

Sure, and that's why they're trying to keep the the USA Patriot Act from being renewed.

If what you say is true, why would they fight something that so very clearly gives the state that you describe such an advantage?

Bologna.

What I don't like about this law is the infringement on the Fourth Amendment. I don't know what is so difficult to understand about that. You say you worry about a fascist state? Why give the fascist state the ability to bypass one of our fundamental liberties?

How long is this "war" going to last? Is it a permanent state of war, or will there be an end? Will it be when ALL the Muslims are dead? Give me an exit date? Hard to give an exit date on a war against a tactic.

The problem is the expansion of the definition of what a terrorist is. According to this administration, anyone who served in the military, is a gun owner, doesn't like the government, and voted for anyone but a Democrat is a possible terrorist. Using those definitions, anyone here could be subject to the PA. Just because no one that we know personally has not been, doesn't mean that it won't happen.

Those who would give up liberty in the name of security, deserve neither, and will likely get tyranny instead.

How would one know Steve? The telecom companies and the banks are enjoined under penalty of fines and imprisonment from giving you the information that the FBI is looking at your records.

The fact that someone-read FBI-abused it and nothing was done about it after the fact is disturbing to say the least.