You ask an excellent question.........and most politely. I appreciate that.
In short, unnecessary. No one is really looking to amend the Constitution. No one is looking to suspend the Constitution. This is war, pure and simple, and there are things that must be done in war to ensure victory and to protect one's people. I'm eagle-eyed when it comes to attacks on my rights and on the Constitution........believe me. I don't sense some long-term, nefarious interests or goals here. We have to kick terrorist ass, wherever it is. If that means some inconvenience as we do it (people can crow all they want; that's what most are really crowing about..), so be it. As to the security of our Constitution as the supreme law of the land? I don't see that threatened. I also don't give a damn, purely in this context, who succeeds G.W. in the White House. The Constitution WILL prevail. If we have to give our law enforcement agencies..........local, State, and Federal............additional leeway to chase down the Bad Guys in such a "war" to ensure the continuation of our way of life, then I consider that a small price to pay.
AND, my friend, as I pointed out above..........never, EVER forget who those same folks work for. I sure as hell won't.
First, I don't see this law as an intentional, nefarious conspiracy by any stretch. I do fear however that it is representative of the typical slippery slope. You state that this is war and some rights need to be suspended during wartime, which I recognize. One problem however is that we did not declare war and we are continuously reminded that pursuing the terrorists will take years. Combine this with the fact that the sunset clause that is supposed to protect us from a permanent loss of freedom is no assurance that the current legislation won't be easily renewed as a rider to a midnight congressional pay raise bill, or that a simple loophole pointed out by others will likely void the sunset clause altogether. Regardless of intent or the need to pursue terrorists, I fear that this particular piece of legislation is permanent and that fear is not unreasonable when one understands the nature of government.
My biggest concern with respect to much of this legislation is that the President and Congress continue to ignore the real tools used by enemies of this nation to attack us in our own neighborhoods - lax immigration law enforcement. We seem to have all kinds of laws that the FBI can now use against ordinary citizens (like entering our homes without ever telling us), yet we continue to let "students" with expired visas roam the country free as a bird. We force the overburdened and overregulated small business owner to add up all the transactions in cash that you and I make and fill out reports if they total more than $10,000, yet we release known illegal immigrants from nations known to support terrorists from prison, rather than shipping them back to their own countries or keeping them locked up during this time of "war."
Personally, I recognize that some measures in the bill were necessary and good. They did ask for the right to hold illegal immigrants for a longer period of time than previously allowed, which makes sense. What frustrates me however is that I can't figure out why it is ok to watch me in a manner previously not allowed, while those same illegal immigrants aren't held indefinitely or deported alogether. Yes, there are tools in the Patriot Act that will assist law enforcement in tracking terrorists. Unfortunately, I believe they slipped a lot of other stuff in there under the guise of anti-terrorism that they have always wanted but could not get because the things they wanted were unconstitutional as a cynical and opportunistic ploy. It happned when the Murrah building was bombed and it just happened again. A few more bombings and we won't be that much different than Stalinist Russia. Hyperbole? Perhaps. But 10 years ago, nobody would believe the measures they have recently slipped through.
To be sure, I blame Clinton for this, not Bush. I can even get conspiratorial and not discount the idea that Clinton was purposely setting us up for this for his own benefit. Nevertheless, the effect is real.
If you or somebody else could demonstrate for me how these measures will stop terrorism and that they won't be used for a single political purpose ever, I would feel better about it. Unfortunately, it is not possible to prove a future event. The Framers understood the nature of government and put protections in the Constitution for this very reason, with the understanding that the impediments to government might make things difficult, but that those difficulties were more desirable than the alternative.