One of the biggest problems that I have with the act, is the part that doesn't allow for lawsuits against those who would abuse it. Am I the only one who remembers Watergate? I doubt that it will protect us well from outside terrorists, but it will surely protect officials from the people of this country. I would prefer for them to have a little more fear of the governed.

Well, actually, Kathy, I did advocate repealing the Patriot Act.

As for whether trying to preempt an attack violates the Constitution, SuperD is asking the wrong question. The question is whether the means employed are unconstitutional. The fallacy of the pro-Patriot Act crowd is the false assumption that we cannot protect ourselves unless we sacrifice the constitutional liberties of the American citizenry. There is nothing to support that assumption. It is essentially the same false assumption and argument used to justify torture, namely that only by torture can we get the information.

For those who buy the false assumptions, there is no contrary convincing argument. For those who are willing to question the false assumptions, the Patriot Act is also in question..

My point stands. We are funding the “war” against us through oil revenue and black market drugs. Going after people donating to a humanitarian-sounding charity is silly when we're shoveling mountains of cash toward unfriendly regimes.

Let's face it; charitable funding of organizations is trivial compared to the massive funding that comes from oil revenue and drug revenue.

Yup that same Big Pharma that is funding ads in support of Obamacare after he held secret backroom talks with them and cut a deal that was not on C-Span and in the open as Obama had promised.

No one has suggested eliminating the Patriot Act.

Are you really arguing that trying to preempt an attack violates the constitution?

Not in this post, I'm not. Whether I would in another post is hypothetical at this point.

Also, with the changes aren't you telling terrorist what they have to do to avoid detection?

My answer would be no, but you are free to make the alternate argument, with the appropriate supporting cites.

Are you really arguing that trying to preempt an attack violates the constitution?

Also, with the changes aren't you telling terrorist what they have to do to avoid detection?

And I must add my agreement to Leonidas that Obama's support for continuing these provisions is very disappointing.

Kathy, please let me know when/if you find out where to donate to support the passage of the Justice Act. I want to add that information to my blog.