Legislation that would renew the provisions of the USA Patriot Act is introduced in Congress. The act empowering federal law enforcement authorities is set to expire at the end of 2005.

What do you think, should it be re-newed? Or should freedom and privacy be restored to the American public?

The parts that are good and unintrusive on civil liberties need to be put into law as needed. A large, sweeping, ambiguous bill is too dangerous. George Bush said in a speech a few weeks ago that the Patriot Act has led to 200 convictions. Upon a closer look, the Washington Post (might have been Times I forget) revealed that only 13 of the 200 convictions were on terrorism charges, with the others for lesser and more minor charges.

Even if it's 13 terrorist charges, that's still a big accomplishment. Every terrorist charge is a big accomplishment.

At least one of the 200 convictions was against an Arab man who was convicted of fishing without a license. Thank god we caught him! America is Safer! GOD BLESS THE PATRIOT ACT, and GOD BLESS AMERICA!

No it's not. Especially not by the modern definition of terrorist, which seems to be anyone who disagrees with our administration, or tries to stand-up for their rights, in addition to REAL terrorists.

Maybe you guys should read this article below written by Dick Morris (a democrat with brains).

Bush’s partner has been, of course, the New York City Police Department. Commissioner Ray Kelly has responded to the threats with unbelievable energy and promptness. We owe so very much to the men and women in blue for our safety. Many of the following facts come from interviews with department officials.

In March of last year, federal intelligence officials reported to the NYPD that they had noticed significant “chatter” by al Qaeda terrorists about the Brooklyn Bridge. (Apparently, the name doesn’t easily translate into Arabic.) Under the terms of the Patriot Act, which the left criticizes, federal intelligence operatives were obliged to share their findings with the NYPD – precisely the kind of information sharing so little in evidence before 9/11. As a result, the department, under Ray Kelly’s able leadership, flooded the bridge with police.

Federal intelligence officials then intercepted a communication to al Qaeda from an operative in New York that the operation against the landmark bridge was impossible because “the weather is too hot.”

Bush’s military and intelligence officials got a captive, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, a top bin Laden deputy, to identify the terrorist assigned to blow up the bridge. Acting on the evidence they elicited from interrogations specifically allowed by the policies of the Bush administration, the NYPD closed in and arrested the terrorist, Iyman Faris, before he could act.

Faris’ plans for the destruction of the bridge were chillingly detailed and coincided precisely with the findings of engineers employed by the NYPD to determine how one might go about destroying the 120- year-old landmark.

If the left had its way, we never would have arrested Mohammed or questioned him without his attorney or held him for any length of time. The information-sharing required by the Patriot Act would not have happened, and the bridge might today be a haunting memory along with the estimated 10,000 people who would have perished in the attack.

The Patriot Act has been a powerful means of defending America from terrorists and should be renewed.

This is not fiction. This did happen...

What is your point? We need the Patriot Act and the sacrifice of our rights in order to get agencies to share info? That's idiotic. Sounds like we need training, not the sacrifice of rights...

Oh yeah. Arrested him...questioned him without legal counsel....held him for as long as they wanted. Yes, these are the rights we now have thanks to the trusty Patriot Act. So, we violated this man's rights...rights that everyone else in this country have regardless of...oh wait, did you say terrorist? You said the t-word. Throw him in a cell and lets get to the "questioning."

You've posted this piece before Ridin. We've replied. Again and again, you seem to assume that anyone who is against the Patriot Act is "ok with terrorists attacking our country." That is so completely wrong. It's like the people who assume that you don't support the troops because you don't support the war. Am I glad that the Brooklyn Bridge was not blown up? YES!! Am I glad there is a sweeping "counter terrorism" act that violates our rights? NO.
Nothing, nothing can serve as an exception to the rights we are guaranteed.

Seems like what Dick Morris wrote had no meaning at all. Maybe we can vote for "Yes, but it needs to be toned down." Maybe some of you should read that over again.

I voted yes. We may be violating his rights but we could also be saving many innocent countless lives in the process. They are doing their job, trying to counter-act terrorism and you act like they are scum. Another 911 would be devastating, at least this is taking a chance at controlling terrorism. If the Patriot act means questioning a hundred so called terrorist I am for it, if it even saves ‘just one’ American life.