Replies

(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(b)I have never known a bad law to be repealed.

The fact that terrorists did not attack until 2002 cannot be used to argue that the patriot act was not needed, but I agree that my arguements were not true justification for the law.

I found it reprehensible that various govt agencies did not share data on watch lists for entry into this country. I also believe a tightening of security requires tighter laws than are required in peacetime.

I find your arguement that the war will never be over to be a complete capitulation. (The Alabamians I know do not think that way.)

As to a government becoming more restrictive and taking away our freedom, they started that with seat belts and helmet laws, and we should have held the line there, but I can afford to wait until the thousand or so terrorists here in this country are in Guantanamo before I call off the dogs.

We are probably in agreement about fighting terrorism, but differ in the degree to which we should fight it. A quote you might agree with is, If we pass these laws restricting us, then the terrorists have won."

The truth is that in times of struggle, personal freedoms have always suffered, and been returned to the status quo afterward. It is not new, and the government has a right not to be destroyed by the very freedoms and attitudes we love in this country.

Finally, the patriot act does still allow for a review of the probable cause by the government before they "plunder personal records" but if they are searching the bank records of arab charities withoug notification of those charities, I can live with it. Sorry, your approach will result in more terror and tie the hands of the very people you will blame first when it happens.