The Federal Government claims the law allows the government to keep under surveillance known and potential terrorist. Okay, that makes sense, but a clear and defined definition of who terrorist is fails to be revealed.
If readers will recall, Homeland Security director Janet Napolitano composed a list of types of people likely to be domestic terrorist. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/16/napolitano-stands-rightwing-extremism/
On that list she strongly identified any one patriotic to the Constitution of the United States, Bill of Rights, Declaration of independence, and the Holy Bible (Christians and Jews), veterans and other patriotic American. Of a lesser focus, those of other religious identifications clearly using anti-American rhetoric.
It is clear the Federal Government believes the people serve the government, not the government serves the people. It is also quiet obvious even to Liberal Democrats, dangers are escalating rapidly through the unspecified use of the Patriot Act as identified in this exert.
May 27,2011 - “Jim Abrams Associated Press” stories;
“Two Democratic critics of the Patriot Act, Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon and Udall of Colorado, on Thursday extracted a promise from Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., that she would hold hearings with intelligence and law enforcement officials on how the law is being carried out.
Wyden says that while there are numerous interpretations of how the Patriot Act works, the official government interpretation of the law remains classified. "A significant gap has developed now between what the public thinks the law says and what the government secretly claims it says," Wyden said.”
For full story click provided link; http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_patriot_act .
Senator Rand Paul lost his fight for amendments to the law. Let us all hope he was incorrect in his stance. If he was right, illegal search and seizure will likely escalate in search of assumed threats.