Markus,

First, I want you to know I agree with most of what you've written above. In fact, I mirror much of it. And I don't think you're stupid, or liberal (or a traitor to the conservative cause, if that's how you're reading me), or a bad person (I thought I tried really hard to clarify that) or anything negative.

And I should apologize for saying we have "very different values", because I see, in retrospect, you think I'm saying that we probably disagree on a lot of different points, when it's clear, from what you have written, that we don't.

Instead, more core thesis is just that on this point, we have different values, and see it very differently: I don't see "sneak and peek", as allowed via PATRIOT, as loss of an essential, existing liberty, whereas it worries you, and you see it, or apparently expressed that you saw it, as an attack on our liberties.

And yes, of course you were making an emotional appeal. There's nothing wrong with that -- most good appeals (end slavery, etc.) are emotional, or have a strong emotional component.

But the problem that I see here is on one side, the argument you offer -- and much of the rhetoric is is often associated with, or nested within -- is strictly emotional.

(And I didn't mean to single you out, but rather I felt you offered a typical counter-argument and could use it as a springboard for a more general refutation.)

You now say:

I don't know if "Sneak and Peek" is Constitutional or not, what I do know is that I'd like its Constitutionality tested by the Supreme Court.

"Sneak and peek" has actually been around quite a while (even when a Democrat was in office! though it was never detected by the media back then), and I understand the concept has been upheld by the Second Circuit federal court and also the infamously liberal Ninth Circuit court.

But here we also encounter a problem in differing values: In any area I feel that my own intellect can reasonably probe, I don't feel the need to grant too much credence to the testimony of 'experts', including Judge Napalitano (nor the aforementioned courts). Will I listen? Yes. But their opinion doesn't settle the matter for me.

There are several reasons for this. First, historically, 'experts' have been wrong about just about everything. Surely Freud was more of an 'expert' on psychology than myself, but I'd trust my own assessments far ahead of his, and history seems to have shown much of what he believed was wrong. The same thing can be said about Keynesian economics.

But in the original response it was more like "See this here liberal guy, he's probably a great guy but he's wrong."

Again, I apologize if you thought I was calling you a liberal. I don't know what else I can do to make it up to you here.

Please note that I said:

I'm not saying he's a bad person or unpatriotic, or anything like that: He's probably a wonderful person. We just see things differently, and have very different values. And, frankly, I don't want the police to adopt his values, and come out and tell each terrorist that they're being investigated...

Look, it seems obvious to me that the "values" in question are clearly defined as "com[ing] out and tell[ing] each terrorist they're going to be investigated..." -- not liberalism, not a host of other things you might read into my reponse. The phrase "values" I defined there was anchored ONLY to law enforcement, and was clearly not used in any other context.

And even though that's so, I still apologized, and apologize again, that it could have been misconstrued. Even though I discussed NOTHING anywhere in my response except law enforcement and what I perceived your tradeoffs, and values, to be in that area.

I'm not going to fall for the Appeal to Authority fallacy any more than you would. However, the court system, as fallible as it may be, was put into our legal system for a reason by our Founders.

Actually, Jefferson was horrified by the idea that courts might decide things were constitutional, or unconstitutional, but I understand your point: sort of a "two heads are better than one" argument: the more people who look at it, the more likely a decision is to be right.

I'm fine with that, and agree. But that's not a reason to oppose it right now -- indeed, if we strike it down, you'll never get the second opinion.

A reason to oppose it now is because you can think of some specific reason a court should find it to be unconstitutional. Or because you think it's a dumb idea, constitutional or not. (It's not unconstitutional to decide to buy each man, woman, and child in the USA their own pet elephant... ;-))

But they still gave us a court system, why? Because its an extra measure of protection.

I think you're putting words in my mouth here: I'm not against a judicial review at all, and it's fine that you'd look forward to the time when such might occur. You spend a lot of text explaining why judicial review is good, though I've never opposed the idea.

I just don't see what that has to do disliking some law right now. There are all kinds of laws which haven't been reviewed lately by the Supreme Court. That doesn't automatically make me fear them (or like them) before such decision is rendered. It sounds to me kind of like an argument from absense of evidence.

And I personally wouldn't change my mind just because the court found some argument pro or con, unless the opinion mentioned something I hadn't thought of.

But, in case you hadn't noticed it, most the left HATES this law, including a bevy of leftist lawyers, but it seems to me that, despite the enormous manpower out there opposing it, I have yet to hear any correct, coherant, and specific argument as to what the problem might be.

To me, that seems to be a powerful argument in favor of the PATRIOT act, given the great incentive to find such problems. I doubt the Supreme Court is going to come up with anything that the highly-motivated army of lawyers who generally fund the left couldn't produce for our inspection.

I do NOT want to see one threat ended(terrorism) and then look aroud and realize that, because of the measures we took to stop it, see another threat(government tyrrany) take its place.

I agree. I just don't see this as government tyranny, since I don't see any prohibition against "sneak and peek" searches, or getting my library or cell phone records, especially in such a limited context, in the Constitution.

And, as I've also pointed out, these techniques have been available for years in other contexts, so I'm not seeing this as some sort of signficant change. I can't understand why these things were suddenly found wrong now, and not before, other than partisanship.

Again, if you think I'm wrong, show me how this violates the Constitution, or why you think the founders were short-sighted for not including stronger, more limited language in the fourth amendment.

Again, I beg you to get specific.

On the other hand, it seems to me we're swallowing camels and straining gnats here: It drives me nuts that all my shopping and cell phone records are available to the highest bidder. And what are the "civil libertarians" all crazy about? The *FBI* getting the same records! Just like my local police can. And after obtaining a court order (which Microsoft won't need). Oh good heavens, get real, folks.

Since when did people care that the police could see their library or cell phone records? This isn't an erosion of existing liberties, this is, frankly, amnesia. And historical precedent? Don't you realize that people's MAIL was read, without a warrant, during World War II -- when there was a lot less domestic threat from Nazism than from Islamic terrorism?

Look, I'm not here to say I want to go back to that, but people are going NUTS here when they claim this is something new, and yet don't even NOTICE the HUGE, SERIOUS changes in society and government.

Again, I'm not saying, for example, that gnats are delicious to eat, or should compose your average diet. I just can't help but notice all the camels. Proportionality is what I'm seeking here.

As always, the threat of the collapse of free society into governmental tyranny is at its most dangerous when its at its most subtle...

Actually, the danger of collapse into tyranny always had to do with the denigration of the moral character of it's people. Or at least that was George Washington's theory.

We survived the Civil War and WWII, which had much more significant "infringements" on civil liberties. Why? Because the populace wouldn't have had it any other way: they got their values largely from the home and the bible, and couldn't easily be confused otherwise. And most understood what the constitution said and didn't, and didn't view it as springing from judges.

But today, it seems to me, people are easily manipulated into emotional states, about whatever the media seems to want them up about. Good heavens, you might find this hard to believe, but I've even found conservatives echoing leftist arguments, without even really being sure of the exact details allegedly behind the argument!

And have I mentioned that people look to the COURTS to tell them what is good legislation, because they now consider the topic too obscure for their own inquiry, and can't even seem to recall their own national history? ;-)

Look, I'm a recovering semi-liberal myself, and am still learning a LOT (and I echoed your exact same opinions just a few weeks ago until I sat down and read parts of the act myself, and realized I'd been HAD -- again!), so don't take my jibe, above, personally -- I'm not immune either.

But DO take it seriously.

Look, it's great if you want to get serious about civil liberties. Then get the most upset about the biggest violations.

The Iranians are being blamed for the attack
at Kabala where five American soldiers were
kidnapped and murdered. The impersonated
Americans and seemed to know the schedule of the
military planners that night. After 6pm on the
20th January day 2007, the phoney American troops
with a "blond" leader, raced through checkpoints
and entered the American compound. The checkpoint
even radioed ahead that an American convoy was
enroute to the night meeting. My guess is Mossad, the Israeli secret service group,
using German operatives staged the raid to get the US to attack Iran. Watch the movie, "Munich"
for a glimpse into these sick bastards "modus operandi". The movie is supposed to make you
hate the Palestinians, but the Israeli retaliation was
even more sickening to watch. In reality, they
killed many innocent people, that were totally
unconnected with the Black September group. Step one for the USA is to leave the Middle East and
stop all funding to Israel. Deal with it.

Absolutely fascinating.

But, just a few details, if you don't mind:

(a) Did you notice this post has nothing to do with Iraq? Or are you deliberately trying to come off as incoherant?

(b) Re: Watch the movie, "Munich" for a glimpse into these sick bastards "modus operandi".

Are you aware that the details in Munich are fiction? Even the parts you can check (like words attributed to Golda Mier) are false. All you're glimpsing there is the prejudices of a Hollywood writer. (Birds of a feather, I suppose.)

(c) Re: My guess is Mossad, the Israeli secret service group, using German operatives staged the raid to get the US to attack Iran

I see.

Then Mossad has got to be one of the stupidest intelligence organizations in the world: all another attack will do is encourage the Democrats in their bid to get the US out.

You know, I found some rotten food in my fridge. Earlier tonight, I was thinking it had just gone bad, but now that you've explained this, I suspect it was a plot by Mossad to poison my family.

(d) Re: Step one for the USA is to leave the Middle East and stop all funding to Israel.

Then, after that, we can move into step two -- which involves slaughtering the Jews or driving them into thes sea. Won't that be fun?

Then, after taking care of the Jews, and their conspiracies to dominate the world, earth will be a wonderful place.

Hmmmm... where have I heard that line of reasoning before? Hmmm..... Germany, I think. About the 1920s. Yeah, that worked out well.