You keep saying "our electronic activities"; well not mine.
Yes, and then you asked me if I ought to be investigated. Have you ever read 1984 Mr. "Wuli?" You appear to believe that America the Beautiful is incapable of turning into a Nanny State. I have news for you: it's already starting to happen.
By asking me such questions, you're implying that you'd never resist if the government became tyranical. A powerful Socialist or Communist could take office and circumvent the Constitution in any way imaginable, and you would never take any secret steps to organize political dissent, let alone prepare for armed resistance. What ever the government could manage to collect on you personally could never endanger you, your livelihood, or the security of your family. You'd have a spotless record of quiet compliance. In fact, assuming that you would never do such things, you would not even fear the possibility that someone could accumulate information about you that was false or mistaken.
Perhaps you'd defend your inaction by saying that you were "following orders."
You've revealed yourself as a statist. A powerful, authoritarian government with permission to snoop and archive information about its citizens doesn't bother you in the least. It appears to give you comfort.
To arrive at that pleasant and naive point of view, you've forgotten the lessons of our own history. The British empire had these kinds of powers over its subjects, and used them effectively to entrap citizens and relieve them of their wealth, liberty, and their very lives. This is why we have the fourth amendment, protecting us from "unreasonable searches and seizures." This is why we have the sixth amendment promising us the "right to a speedy and public trial." It is also why we have the second amendment. The entire point of our representative system is extensive and independent checks on the power of government.
Yet you don't mind stripping back these checks so that you can presume to have a few extra feelings of security.
And yes, why would you object to adding "the use or development of chemical weapons,...
You've taken the liberty of distorting what I said. I only object to limited aspects of the Patriot Act. If you truly believe that any legislation is acceptable if most of it is, then you have further revealed yourself as a fool. I do not object to foreign surveillance, or surveillance of interactions between Americans and foreigners. The Patriot Act as written goes much further than that, however. If you could stick to the point in a rational argument, we might have something to discuss. However, you've revealed that you can't by accusing me of restraining such obviously necessary means to defend Americans as those.
You have none if your dead.
Besides being grammatically incorrect, you're just touting someone else's arguments. I think Rush Limbaugh made them recently, in fact. I often agree with him; this time I don't. But that's what you do: parrot the party's points. I think your simplistic attacks on my position speak for themselves. If the Patriot Act as written is best supported by people like you, it's further evidence that it's dangerous to our liberties.
Have a nice day. There really isn't much more to say between us, so do enjoy it on your own.
"Before I retort to your scurrilous cant,"
My post simply took the text of the provisions that would have expired and, laying out what they meant, asked you to say what you objected to about them. That was the sum and substance of my questions, questions which made no implication whatsoever about how I would work against any form of dictatorship. You make all kinds of "scurrilous" suppositions based on your own imaginings and nothing more.
Unlike you I acknowledge that the fact that the "loopholes", as you call them, exist makes everyone more vigilant about their not being abused. That fact alone, between the Congress, the Courts and the rest of us will provide something of a sentry on them. In the meantime, also unlike you, I am certain that keeping the existing provisions in force while congress continues to rangle about the "loopholes" is preferrable for dealing with the real issues of security against the potentiality of other problems.
You seem to ignore the fact that given the existence of a foreign army living among the civilian population, you can either keep the government out of knowing anything going on in the "civilian" activities of people, and wait until that army lobs another bomb, or you can provide windows for the government into that activity, with some checks on possible abuses; but any "civilian" activity that can be used in any way by the terrorist army, hiding as if they are "civilians" among us, cannot be off limits or your "freedoms" are nothing but a shield for their perfidy.
I do not seek a totalitarian government, nor am I not vigilent against one, nor am I statist; but I do disagree with you on how intrusive are the provisions of the Patriot Act, given the enemy we are up against and where that enemy is working - here among us.
Unlike you I do not tout anyone else's arguments and I do not give a damn whether or noot i doot vry I nd crss evr t; and people for whom such is of extreme importance live on their own intellectual arrogance.
Instead of retorting with snide remarks you could have tried to demonstrate precise answers to my questions, which came from the substance of the provisions that will lapse and simply asked what your objections were to each of those provisions. I must therefore assume that you cannot demonstrate why they are unreasonable at this time and under our current circumstances.