Stormin Mormon wrote:
Though, that is rapidly changing. I havn't read the texts of Patriot
act I and II, but what I've heard of them. Scares me.

You heard, in the main, hysteria.

The "Patriot Act" (PA) was not really a single law - it consisted of many
amendments to existing laws.

1. For example, prior to the PA, if the FBI wanted to wire-tap a goblin, it
must apply to a judge in the federal district where the 'phone was located.
In these days of cell and disposable phones, computers, etc. - and 52
federal districts - this became an impossible task as the squint moved about
the country. The PA now allows for a warrant to tap a PERSON rather than a
particular telephone.

2. On the morning of 9/11, federal agents fanned out over Boston to the
major hotels. They wanted to inspect the morning's check-out records. Their
working theory was that by comparing these check-out records to passenger
manifests, they might discover some link that would enable them to forestall
any other hijackings. In every case, the hotels declined to cooperate,
citing 'guest privacy' concerns. The PA extended to ALL ordinary business
transactions the force of an "administrative subpoena." Previously these
administrative subpoenas were available only to banks, financial
institutions, car rental agencies, and storage facilities. In other words,
the PA only enlarged the universe of existing law.

3. The PA specifically sanctioned eavesdropping on communications involving
a known or suspected foreign terrorist. Listening in on enemy communications
began during our Second War of Independence when both the Union and
Confederate forces tapped the telegraph lines of their opposite number.
During WWII, the British broke the Enigma code, we neutralized the Japanese
Purple Code. The PA merely sanctioned a long-standing practice. (There are
those who felt this provision was unnecessary as intercepting enemy
communications is assumed under the President's Article II powers as CinC.)

And so on with most of the other provisions.

In sum, the PA was a hodge-podge of amendments tending to modernize already
existing law. The PA itself generally broke no new ground and there were no
new concepts involved. Every amendment had, at its base, already been tested
for constitutionality. In the decade since its passage, almost none of its
provisions have been struck down on constitutional grounds.

And, like other large legislative measures, did not spring full-blown from
Athena's head. These amendments had been collecting in somebody's bottom
drawer waiting for the right 'crisis' to leap up and save the day. (You
don't think a 2,000 page health care bill was thrown together in a week, do
you?)