"Candidly, I see no basis for your support of the USA Patriot Act. You don't need to endeavor to rationalize my views for me either. In short, not only are you mistaken, but I find your accusations insulting. Starting with the destruction of trees required to print it, then on to its purpose and short title, I find every word of the USA Patriot Act thereafter both odious and threatening. As I say, you are free to feel comforted by its efficacy - I do not." 
You've clearly not read the harmless Patriot Act to have such wild-eyed opinions about it.
You've cited not a word of its actual legal code that could be construed as threatening to yourself, either.
Nor can you.
I've read it. It provides some useful tools to law enforcement and Homeland Security, especially in regard to monitoring bank fund transfers to and from terrorist-sympathizing nations, but it tramples on not one right of U.S. citizens, and contrary to your earlier wrong-headed assertation, law enforcement and Homeland Security still must obtain court orders to perform seaches, even the so-called "secret" ones.
You have read the act and find it to be a useful tool.
I have read the act and believe it to be unconstitutional and a threat to my liberty, especially if it were being enforced by Clinton, Reno and Freeh.
We disagree, its that simple. You have had people disagree with you before, haven't you ?? Do you find ad hominem attacks a persuasive debate tool with your opponents ??
Counterpoint is welcomed. Do not categorize my opinions with your own adjectival embellishments. I state my positions clearly, and you are free to disagree, without additional, colorful characterizations.
No need to toss citations back and forth, its unlikely either of us will vary our opinion with respect to the USA Patriot Act.