[Izzy]

If it's pissin' off libs, it can't be all bad...

[Idorsearogele]

If it's pissin' off libs, it can't be all bad...

The murder of innocent people also pisses off libs. You're in favor of that?

Let me add another twist. Obama favors its extension, and I know the high regard you hold him, so doesn't that bother you at some level?

[Izzy]

The murder of innocent people pisses off libs. You're in favor of that?

Well, that would require me to believe your premise that the murder of innocent people pisses of libs.

I've seen no evidence of that...

[Yyaqyped]

If it's pissin' off libs, it can't be all bad...

Silly little throw-away lines, just because you are ignorant of the oversight destroyed by the PA.

Investigation was not hurt under the FISA laws, and requests for search was very seldom turned down, or even hardly ever asked for more details.

Much of that oversight is now gone under the PA.

[Idorsearogele]

Its the lack of oversight that is the problem, not so much the provisions.

I have no problem when authorities get a search warrant and they tap your phone or search business records.
I have a problem when authorities tap your phone or search business records with no intention of ever getting a search warrant.

[Izzy]

Silly little throw-away lines, just because you are ignorant of the oversight destroyed by the PA.

Investigation was not hurt under the FISA laws, and requests for search was very seldom turned down, or even hardly ever asked for more details.

Much of that oversight is now gone under the PA.

And it pisses off libs, which means there's a silver lining in there somewhere...

[Ivanaishere]

Do you recall if any of the mods addressed the warrantless searches?

Going by what he (O'Sullivan Bere) posted earlier, that seems to be so! I'm surprised. I would like to hear more from him regarding that if he knows more. When it comes to legal matters, I have enormous respect for OSB's expertise.

My take on the Act originally was that there were only a few provisions in it that were objectionable and needed correcting, most obviously, as you say, warrantless searches and wiretaps. It would not therefore be right to simply not renew the entire thing. I haven't followed the history closely, and if those objectionable features have been modified to remove the threat to civil liberties, then I have no problem with it.

That's "if," of course.

[Savviioor]

If it's pissin' off libs, it can't be all bad...

By the same token, if the cons like it, it must be horrible.

[Hamucevasiop]

Get back on topic.

[wentscat]

Its the lack of oversight that is the problem, not so much the provisions.

I have no problem when authorities get a search warrant and they tap your phone or search business records.
I have a problem when authorities tap your phone or search business records with no intention of ever getting a search warrant.

Congress has oversight. They simply choose not to do it. Remember when they made a stink over the warrantless wiretaping and waterboarding, yet they had been fully briefed?

[yurawerj]

Well see, this is how it would work. You get rid of the P.A. THEN when something bad happens, like another big attack, folks will get blamed, and demonized for repealing the act. It's a damn if you do, damn if you don't deal.

These are unusual times for the US with this threat of terror. I sure don't want to tie the hands of the folks who keep an eye on this shit. Plus, the questionable parts of the Act have been addressed, or so is my perception.

Oh I agree with you on how people will complain either way. I just personally see these policies as forwarding a false sense of security for the sake of invading privacy.

[CelexaNY]

Several of the provisions of the law radically cut back on both the need for judicial approval and reporting requirements involved in domestic surveillance. I'm too busy to get into it right now, but Slate ran a really good series on the Patriot Act several years ago:

A Guide to the Patriot Act, Part 1 - By Dahlia Lithwick and Julia Turner - Slate Magazine

It's probably a bit dated by now. I haven't been keeping up with the changes. Hopefully OSB can point us to the latest.

Going by what he (O'Sullivan Bere) posted earlier, that seems to be so! I'm surprised. I would like to hear more from him regarding that if he knows more. When it comes to legal matters, I have enormous respect for OSB's expertise.

My take on the Act originally was that there were only a few provisions in it that were objectionable and needed correcting, most obviously, as you say, warrantless searches and wiretaps. It would not therefore be right to simply not renew the entire thing. I haven't followed the history closely, and if those objectionable features have been modified to remove the threat to civil liberties, then I have no problem with it.

That's "if," of course.

It's a really huge act with a whole series of amendments and other laws that can interrelate to it also exist. It would be really hard to outline and discuss the history of the amendments point-by-point on a site like this given the largess of the subject matter, reasons, etc. However, some of the wiretap changes are expressed here:

USA PATRIOT Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

to get an idea for discussion purposes going.

Yes, the Slate article linked above is very dated (2003) and no longer accurately represents the current legal framework for debate purposes. That's not to say that criticisms and concerns still don't exist because they do, but the facts of the previous versions of the law that Slate was considering at the time is too dated for proper reliance for evaluating the current form of the act.

[Blacksheepaalredy]

Are you confident they never will?

Do you even doubt that they will?