Replies

You could use some support peter,

(Strengthen the Patriot Act)

I agree with this because:

(1) We have been attack free using these tools, and our agencies are cooperating with each other whereas they did not before.
(2) I don't believe the good judge can cite a case where a "joe average" citizen has has his rights trampled on.
(3) We can argue that in the hands of another administration rights can be trampled on, but we are not supporting handing this over to another administration, and finally
(4) When the threat is really over is the time to back off, not now when we are only just engaged.

It's not alway's about who's been hurt recently, sometimes it's about the possibility that the next President & his cabinet/Law Enforcement may hurt us later. I don't think that the people posting on this particular thread are against giving our Govt. the tools to use against terrorism as much as we don't want to give our Govt. the tools to harass us with no good reason.

(1) We have been attack free using these tools, and our agencies are cooperating with each other whereas they did not before.

We were attack free (from terrorist) for over 200 years without these "tools".

(2) I don't believe the good judge can cite a case where a "joe average" citizen has has his rights trampled on.
(a)Just because a case can't be cited does not mean it has not happened.
(b)This argument assumes that in spite of historical evidence to the contrary human nature does not apply to those who lead us.
(c)Your also assuming that your rights would only have been violated if you are arrested. The natural assumption from this is that it is OK for government to plunder through your personal records, house, telephone, or anything else it wants, as long as they don't take action on what they find. I contend (along with the founders) that the mere act of looking without a search warrant violates my rights.

(3) We can argue that in the hands of another administration rights can be trampled on, but we are not supporting handing this over to another administration, and finally
I was unaware of the "Patriot Act" provision that stated it expired when President Bush left office. That would also be a very dangerous merger of the Executive and Judicial departments.

(4) When the threat is really over is the time to back off, not now when we are only just engaged.
(a)The "threat" will never be over. People in power do not voluntarily give up that power. The "threat" will continue to justify the continuation of them having the power. Much like the elephant repellent we use here in Alabama (it must work - I have never seen an elephant here); your argument #1 can be used to justify keeping the power.
(b)I have never known a bad law to be repealed.