So, as most of you know, I made a post about the provisions of the patriot act that were not renewed. Well, not long after that post, the provisions were put to a second vote and they DID PASS. So for all those who oppose what it stands for or what it allows our government to do concerning our privacy, you may get a break next year when it goes up for renewal again.

Like the first time the renewals went up for vote, there isn't any real consensus in the general population about the PA. Many times you get answers somewhere along the lines of, "I understand why it was implemented, but I do find it silly to assure people that I am not supporting terrorists," as Samantha Foltz commented.

Many understand the reasoning behind hightened security, but feel the added pressures of making every single person a suspect. The security squeeze makes people who want some sort of preventative effort go into a limbo of what they believe is necessary and what is absurd.

"There are some reasons why the Patriot Act is necessary, but every time I go to open a bank account or apply for a job is it really necessary for me to fill out that paper confirming I'm not paying my wages to terrorist groups?" Said Adam Neyameyer. "Some things are a little crazy but I'm sure there are some provisions that have saved us from further attacks....I know that we need some of it to prevent further 9-11 type events from happening."

Nick Grever said, “While I believe the PA itself is outdated, we do need to insure our safety in some manner. Do I agree to wiretapping and other invasive modes of surveillance? No. But these methods aren't exactly new.”

I think one of the more interesting examples of this protection vs. rights views comes from Sydney Benter. She was very outspoken against the PA, but also commented on the airport scanners that would not be an issue if not for acts such as 9/11.

“While I think the Patriot Act is/was unconstitutional, I have no problem whatsoever with beefed-up security measures at airports.” Benter said. “I don't mind that a couple folks in a dark room see my body if it means that it's less likely that someone will be able to conceal a weapon. If the scans were copied and published with a name attached it would be a different story. But I'm willing to sacrifice a few moments of privacy for overall security. The Patriot Act is like a full-body scanner on steroids. A bit too invasive.

This is a very testy middle ground, but pretty reasonable in my own opinion. She is more than willing to cooperate with security measures but finds one of the principle doctrines of that security to be illegal, out of good taste, and a little too forceful. It really does not seem like the PA is in good standings all on its own. If anything people are just tolerating it.

But for some, the measures the government has taken after 9/11 have been rash, intrusive and unnecessary, like Carly Beringer.

“I think the Patriot Act is wrong and I do not agree with the invasive techniques the government uses to "protect us,” Behringer said. “They don't need to tap our phones to "protect" us or pat us down at the airport and feel our genitals to "protect" us. They are turning the American people into sheep, haha. And I feel like we are living in the book "1984." You have cameras watching you everywhere and an unconstitutional document that makes sure the government can bend almost any rule to investigate or incarcerate you.”

Valid points on the state of security. The PA blurs the line of what is necessary and what is not. There is a constant threat from an unseen and unidentifiable enemy that is supposedly lurking amongst us. It is a good reason to beef up funding for making the general population a bit more subservient and as in all states of crisis; it weeds out those who do not go right along with the status quo.

Finally, a point was made by Gin Ando that I thought was something that goes overlooked a lot during this discussion; why do you need to take such measures if lesser ones could have worked?

“It could, I suppose, be argued that the PA is a necessary evil to keep America safe and out of harm's way, why don't we just restructure our intelligence programs?” Ando said. “Richard Reid might have been stopped if the world just worked together. Secret intelligence being not-so-secret with each other.”

The United States intelligence network is vast and has more funding and power behind it than many of us realize. But the barriers between agencies and the sheer amount of info collected makes for a messy, inefficient, suspicious and even dangerously incompetent form of protection.

Thank you all for your wonderful comments, and thank you all for respecting one another’s opinions. I was really glad to see everyone express themselves as they did and I feel that we can learn from one another that way. Good work guys!