It is amazing that the Surpreme court lets any of this stand. Our justices need to study the Constitution more carefully.
'Expansion of the definition of terrorism whereby individuals engaged in civil disobedience could risk losing their citizenship, and their organization could be subject to wiretapping and asset seizure;'
*What exactly does that mean? What kind of disobedience would kick one out of the country?
Because we've appointed four generations (or more) of elitist liberals to our courts, there are many who want to rein in their power. Instead we need to appoint better judges. So where are the statesmen among our recent appointees? That's a different question, but we continue to fall short of the standards our founding fathers set, including the list of people so-called conservatives have appointed.
The problem I have with the Patriot Act II is that it makes permanent what PA1 required at a time of war. Compounded with the fact that our leaders are unwilling to conduct the war at a pace anything like WWII, it could indeed last for generations. What would the founding fathers say? Imagine Thomas Jefferson's reaction to the PA2 raft?
And there are even darker worries. How would a Hillary Clinton or a John Kerry be prevented from misusing a Patriot Act? Will those of us with vocal opposition to legislation we find unconstitutional, such as gun control, come under scrutiny when the political pendulum swings back to the left?
We should do what we can within and in obedience to the constitution first in order to defend ourselves. That would include protecting our borders and dealing with illegal immigration. That would include getting serious about finishing the war instead of letting it crawl on indefinitely. That would include defending our defense technology from states like China. That would include dismantling terrorist groups in America, and those that sympathize with them like CAIR, AIM, and ELF. That would include deporting admitted enemies of our constitution.