**do you all really trust the govt with (!Link Url="http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/13657386.htm" Name="this info"!)? Fight Google, fight.** A significant and positive development. The one thing that all of should know about government by now is that it can't be trusted. An unaccountable government with powers to to have secret access to business records, library records, and phone conversations of Americans is a dangerous, dangerous thing. Not just because of the potential harm this administration could do with these powers, but the harm that the administrations of those in the future coud do with them. One example to clarify my point: under the Patriot Act, the government can approach any business and demand that they turn over all information that they have about an American, without informing that American. With the radical rise of technology and database driven Websites, it's somewhat scary to me that the govt. could go to Google, Yahoo, or yes, RateItAll, and demand every piece of clickstream and behavioral data that they possess about you - and you would never even know about it. In the case of Yahoo or Google, every search you've ever made, every Web site you've ever visited, every ad you've ever clicked on - scary stuff. With the Patriot Act, a company's privacy policy is no protection when the big bad govt. comes knocking. And who's to say that the government hasn't been paid off by some enemy of yours to get this info? Do I really need to break out the examples, at all levels of government and from both sides of the aisle, of corruption and abuse of power? Do you really trust a government that is driven by the almighty lobby dollar to act responsibly with these powers? Fortunately, enough Senators stood up for us today to deny these extensions.

I won't exactly be crying in my Dr. Pepper about the Patriot Act's extensions being voted down. I find this act and the power it gives the government to spy on its citizens appalling and unAmerican. Of course we want to be safe after 9/11. Self-preservation is one of our basest instincts. But there's taking extra precaution to be secure, and there's overcompensation. Allowing the government to search natural-born American citizens' library records and their house without warrant or warning is overcompensation, as is wiretapping people's telephones. You say "but law-abiding Americans have nothing to fear!" there is no limit to the utter stupidity and naivete of that remark. If extended governmental powers isn't something to worry about, I don't know what is. I'd also like to comment on a few of the opinions expressed on this page. Eschew said "Ah, how quickly they forget", as if to say that because the world changed after 9/11, we should just forget the civil liberties and freedoms that we have enjoyed for more than 200 years simply to feel safe. He also claimed that the PATRIOT Act "didn't go far enough" to stop domestic terrorism. Well, what should we do next? Establish martial law? Detain any American that disagrees with Bush's policies? What our friend Eschew doesn't realize is that when the terrorists see that they have so scared us that we are willing to go "as far as it takes" to stop them, which includes going against the principles that were the cornerstone of our country, then the terrorists have won. Their main goal of TERROR has been accomplished because they have scared us into curtailing our own values! Hello? Does anyone hear ME? As for Lance, I can say that I am quite impressed that he has the ability to intuit the motives and secret thoughts of ALL the liberals in our country. He wants documented proof of any and all PATRIOT Act abuses. Well, as far as we know, there aren't any. But this act sets up a dangerous precedent! Don't forget: power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The fact that the government even has these powers to wield over its citizens is scary enough. Even scarier is the possibility for governmental abuses of power. He further claims that the Bill of Rights wasn't designed to give terrorists special rights. That's true, but the Bill of Rights also wasn't designed to be conveniently abridged -- even during times of war! And I am absolutely positive that none of the Founding Fathers ever meant for the President to have absolute power to decide which laws he does and does not follow. In that case, Dubya becomes a king - not a President. But that's another debate.

One small blip on the radar screen of political arguements. People think it goes too far, and other that it doesn't go far enough. That's how it is in politics: the "I'm right and you're not" syndrome pervades, and as a result, nothing gets done. Find a reasonable compromise, stop the BS mudslinging, and let's get back to work on making America better.

I'm glad to see the Patriot Act go. I want to the U.S. to fight the war on terror. And I have no problem with our killing lots of misbehaving Middle Easterners to do it. I just want to make sure that when our troops get back, they return to a country they recognize. When I taught college courses several years ago, I noticed (with a sense of alarm) that the solutions many of my students would craft to all manner of sociopolitical problems involved the sacrifice of basic civil liberties. The conclusion I drew was people just don't think about it. They don't value the Federal Constitution the way I do. And I find it difficult to believe that we cannot ensure our national ssfety if we provide counsel to American citizens who have been detained and held indefinitely or are required to obtain a warrant from a judge for a wiretap. All partisan politics aside folks, we're the Americans, remember? Disrespect for individual rights and oppression by the government is supposed to be characteristic of who we choose to fight.

Should be entitled "Senate initially decides that maybe the drafters of the Bill of Rights were right to include the 4th Amendment." I know, 9/11 changed everything. We need a police state to feel safe.

Ah, how quickly they forget. The number of victims from the 9/11/01 attack/disaster turned out to be less than 3,000. But, I remember estimates early on that 50,000 lives could easily have been lost that day. I remember doing the math myself. Two huge buildings, filled with employees, staff, tourists. Plus the subway station below. The 9/11 Commission stated, unequivocally, that the Patriot Act DID NOT GO FAR ENOUGH TO PREVENT ANOTHER SIMILAR ATTACK!! Hello? Can anybody hear me? But, now it's a political football, to politicians of both parties. That's a shame. I think this: the Patriot Act should not be allowed to lapse. Nor should it be substantially watered down, until the threat of islamofascist terror acts has noticeably and verifiably been curtailed. Are we there yet? Are our technological defensive tactics consistently superior to the offensive capabilities of the people who with such ease and unconscionable guile slaughtered three thousand innocent people one day? Trapped in our own buildings. With our own aircraft? This really should be pretty easy.

It is painfully obvious that liberals (and some deontological libertarians) have no respect for democracy and view the constitution as a suicide pact instead of a working system for government to address issues that threaten the foundation of the laws they claim to be protecting. I would like someone to give me all these documentated case of Patriot Act abuses? Since when did it become the high fetish of the liberal establishment to sacrifice the lives of Americans for the license of terrorists with shameless filibuster tactics? The Bill Of Rights was never created to give absolute cover for nefarious acts that create a clear and present danger to the lives and liberties of law abiding Americans. The principles and filtration processes of self-government should be allowed to address these issues without the subversion of strong arm tactics that do nothing but threaten the lives of Americans in the name of protecting "liberty" but does nothing of the sort.

There have been instances where gov't has bent the rules to spy- but the credibility of the Bush administration is shaky at best. . .when honesty, integrity, and intelligence are in serious question, then the law should be followed. . .the slope is far too slippery.