First off, the ACLU is not a source I'd consider reputable. So their evaluation of the law is suspect since they are, of course, a leftist organization of the highest order. Of course, it shouldn't surprise anyone that the ACLU's origins are communist in nature and word.

As for the actual argument about the what the Pres. did and whether it's within his right, well, I think that we can only wait and see.

I remember how the ACLU was up in arms about the Patriot Act and how detrimental it would be to Americans and our privacy. Amazing how nothing came of it.

Speaking of the ACLU who is the self-appointed "protector" of the constitution, I'm just wondering when I'll see them defend the 2nd Amendment and the NRA. I won't hold my breath.

"Is the ACLU wrong?"



Yes

My personal opinions on what the admin is doing aside, I thought the Patriot Act was more applicable to the FBI and local law nforcement agencies. So, in that train of thought the Patriot Act is needed to define what is legal and what is not for law enforcement as a whole.

Not holding your breath is a good idea here. The 2nd amendment is not part of the constitution, according to them, at least not in the same way as the NRA reads it (See ACLU Policy 47), and defending it, in the sense that I infer that you mean, is against what they stand for:

"Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected." (http://www.aclu.org/...4523res20020304.html)

(I'm not trying to hijack this thread into a gun thread. Really)

---

---
"You'll find a slight squeeze on the hooter an excellent safety precaution, Miss Scrumptious."

"I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong." -- Richard Feynman

Awesome - you got one ad hominem attack and a one-word answer with no substantiation.

---

_______________________________________________

Regardless of what you think about the ACLU (which, btw, recently defended Rush Limbaugh's ability to keep his medical records private), is the point wrong that it's fairly pointless to worry about renewing the patriot act, when, in practice, it neither really empowers nor limits the president. If you take seriously the president's assumptions about his own powers, he can grant himself every power that the Patriot Act offers to him, and then some powers that the PA explicitly forbids. So what really is the point of the law, other than it lets the congress look like it cares about fighting terrorism too. It's more rhetorical than meaningful.