I'm not looking for outrageous claims.  Just simple facts about what is wrong with it.  A lot of people are deathly afraid of it.  Many don't care.  It seems to know no party boundaries.  

My understanding of it, is that it allows agencies to get a warrant served by a "secret" court, which keeps National Security things secret.  That court must answer to Congress in a yearly report, chronicalling every warrant it issued.  

It also allows spying by agencies using updated techniques...  ie, intercepting email, and cell phones.  If there is more to it than that, I'd like to hear about it.  The way I see this is just keeping up with technology.

What am I missing? Be specific, please.  Sources would be good, too.

Source

You will not get a rational discussion. While your characterization of the Patriot Act is mainly accurate, the people who hate it will NEVER admit that. They cannot point to a violation of the Constitution in the Patriot Act. They will make a lot of outrageous claims. Just ask them to show facts to back up the bloviating.

Now, on to the flame war.

Every time I try to rationalize the Act, I hear words to this effect, "those who would give up liberty for security deserve neither liberty nor security..."

That's not word for word, but you get the point.

Quoted: You will not get a rational discussion. While your characterization of the Patriot Act is mainly accurate, the people who hate it will NEVER admit that. They cannot point to a violation of the Constitution in the Patriot Act. They will make a lot of outrageous claims. Just ask them to show facts to back up the bloviating. Now, on to the flame war.

uh....have you read it?

Quoted: Quoted: You will not get a rational discussion. While your characterization of the Patriot Act is mainly accurate, the people who hate it will NEVER admit that. They cannot point to a violation of the Constitution in the Patriot Act. They will make a lot of outrageous claims. Just ask them to show facts to back up the bloviating. Now, on to the flame war. uh....have you read it?

If you plan on doing it, I hope you've got a few weeks to spare.

It's tedious going.

If you scour the patriot act for a long enough time i am sure you will find something that might be construed as unconstitutional. But then again most laws in this country are unconstitutional.

Quoted: Quoted: You will not get a rational discussion. While your characterization of the Patriot Act is mainly accurate, the people who hate it will NEVER admit that. They cannot point to a violation of the Constitution in the Patriot Act. They will make a lot of outrageous claims. Just ask them to show facts to back up the bloviating. Now, on to the flame war. uh....have you read it?

Every single word. I have done so more than once. I am also a degreed Constitutional Historian, so I know just a little bit about that document as well.

So, instead of a flippant remark, how about posting a specific issue with the Patriot Act, citing clause of the act and where and how it conflicts with which specific Constitutional clauses.

Ball's in your court.

Like I asked, what is it that is bad?
I see the comment "give up Freedom, and lose Liberty"
What freedom?  Do you not agree with regular phone taps?
It has just been changed to allow for roving taps (tap the any phone the person uses, rather than just a specific phone #)
My understanding is, there must be a reason for the tap to be issued.
You can't issue a tap because someone is a scumbag and you hope to find something incriminating.
You have to have a valid suspicion of wrongdoing, and even then a tap can't be a fishing expedition, it must only pull info germaine to the search warrant.
Am I wrong?

Quoted: Like I asked, what is it that is bad? I see the comment "give up Freedom, and lose Liberty" What freedom?  Do you not agree with regular phone taps? It has just been changed to allow for roving taps (tap the any phone the person uses, rather than just a specific phone #) My understanding is, there must be a reason for the tap to be issued. You can't issue a tap because someone is a scumbag and you hope to find something incriminating. You have to have a valid suspicion of wrongdoing, and even then a tap can't be a fishing expedition, it must only pull info germaine to the search warrant. Am I wrong?

You are correct. Warrants are still issued. Probable cause is still required.

No one uses home phones any longer, so I can see how cell phone tapping would be awfully important.