Well, for starters, here is this little item: Patriot Act reviewed in closed door session.

This article lays out many of the alarming aspects of the Act, and why the author considers them detrimental to our civil liberties.

I have a very long list of others I could post, but a simple keyword search will garner you the same results.

Oh, and Padilla is one detainee that comes to mind. There are many others who have 'disappeared'- granted, these are not very nice people, but that does not excuse our flouting of international law.

Is the use of the word "public" the kicker? If so, does[should] that also apply to school records? Public schools are open to children living within district boundaries and supported by public funds, much as public libraries are open to residents living within district boundaries and supported by public funds. Should parents have a reasonable expectation of privacy with regards to their children's school records? [Bonus question: what about their public school library records?]

Also, if I recall correctly, the "library records thing" also applied to bookstores, which can be privately owned establishments. Should they be exempt, or are they public in the sense that the public is welcome within the establishment? In which case, is there a differentiation between a bookstore which is open to the public and a community hospital which is open to the public?

And I'm not just trying to be pedantic. If there's going to be a set of interactions and records that are protected/private, and a set that aren't, I'd like a clear understanding of which is which.

Although frankly I think that particular provision is a load of horse pucky. If national security is truly threatened by books checked out of the public libraries, librarians across the country deserve enormous pay increases as front line warriors in the Fight Against Terror. I have no problem with traditional warrants, reviewed by the judicial system. I *do* have a problem with secret warrants forever hidden from view. It allows less scrupulous law enforcement officials to take advantage of the system, target the least experienced librarian, and prevent him or her from seeking counsel from an administrator on the legal limits of the search. And it would be lovely if I could give you some statistics or particulars on that, but anything I know is stuff I shouldn't legally have been told anyhow.

I'm also concerned about a curtailment of scholarly activity. I did once have a citation for this, and I'll try to dredge it up, but I read an article about a faculty member doing legitimate research on public water systems. But because of the Patriot Act, he was afraid of being targeted as a terrorist based on the types of materials (mostly maps) that he checked out of the library. So he stopped checking them out. Not that he stopped borrowing them, he just didn't check them out first -- just walked out with them.

Not a particularly secure system.

And frankly I think it's mostly misdirection. Don't worry about that deficit/social security/homelessness/hunger/education/elder care/etc...

That is a good question. I suppose I don't know where the line is. However, I suppose i would be one to suggest that if the government funds something that is optional for use, as in a public library, privacy should not be expected. Something that is mandated, as in going to school, would be more protected. I will firmly admit that I don't know where the line is as far as what is fair game. However, I am sure this is not:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...400746_pf.html

"The FBI on Tuesday asked the U.S. Congress for sweeping new powers to seize business or private records, ranging from medical information to book purchases, to investigate terrorism without first securing approval from a judge."

That is something I cannot support.

Everything the government can do has the potential to be abused. The Patriot Act (original) is no different.

As far as misdirection.....In don't know. Social Security reform is at the forefront of what Bush wants to accomplish this term. We've been waging the "war on poverty" forever, transferring trillions of dollars from the haves to the have nots, and yet there is still poverty and there always will be. Etc, etc, etc.

Well at least I know you're not totally insane. :p

But on a serious note -- that proposal is about as un-American as it gets. I think I'm going to be ill.

Don't tell. I have a reputation to maintain.

Your secret is safe with me.