Mike the Usurper wrote:

But House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wisconsin, who shepherded the bill through the House, said sunset provisions were not necessary because there was no evidence the Patriot Act was being misused and lawmakers could provide sufficient oversight.

I think one thing that is overlooked in this is that Sensenbrenner is considered to be the right's answer to, well, I have a hard time thinking of anyone as far to the left as Jim is to the right, not even Ted. He's the one who held up the Intelligence Act because he wanted to attach immigration riders to it. He's the same one who, when presented by Amnesty International quoting FBI documents abouts abuses at Camp X-Ray, Abu Gharib and Bagram, simply didn't want to hear it, gaveled the meeting closed and walked off.

This is quite a lively discussion and I want to throw my hat into the ring. The thing that pisses me off about the Patriot Act is that both sides have turned it into such a political football that its almost impossible to have substantive discussion about it.

To Sensenbrenner I would say:

The discussion about whether or not these provisions are properly crafted hangs on the question of whether the checks and balances actually make sense for the long term and not on documented cases of abuse. This law is about the future and not about the past. Furthermore, even ardent defenders of the law conceed that various gag rules make it very difficult to document abuses. And no, I don't trust lawmakers to provide oversight. You, yourself have argued that the political discussion hasn't been substantive (more on that in a minute). To turn around and argue that its going to be effective at preventing abuse seems hypocritical.

To the left I would say:

Various overbroad calls for repealing the thing have contributed nothing at all to the debate. Sensenbrenner may have been a dick in that hearing, but he was right. POW abuse has absolutely nothing to do with the Patriot Act. Hearings about the Patriot Act ought to be about the Patriot Act. Talking about unrelated issues prevents the substantive debate that is needed about the specific provisions. Its almost as if you don't want that discussion to happen, because you don't actually want to reform this law. (Hrmmmmmmm.)

The most troubling provisions of this law are not the ones which have been opened to debate by the sunset clause. It is absolutely inevitable that the National Security Letters will be abused if the Supreme Court does not ultimately declare them unconstitutional.

A law that says that an FBI agent can write a letter demanding information with absolutely no oversight at all that cannot be challenged or even discussed is absolutely asking to be abused. As a temporary emergency measure it might have been acceptable. As a permanent part of our legal system it is not.

RE: Patriot Act Extended