Should the Patriot Act be renewed?

I do not support the renewal of the Patriot Act. Indeed, I was involved in the drafting of a resolution by the Bloomington City Council that joined hundreds of similar bodies throughout the nation in expressing concern about the Patriot Act's potential for the abridgement of civil liberties. The original Patriot Act was rushed through Congress with no discussion, much less debate. No persuasive case has ever been made for the necessity of its provisions. As David Cole argues in his 2002 book "Terrorism and the Constitution," the U.S. government already has extensive statutory powers to investigate and prosecute suspected terrorists. In addition to renewing questionable provisions of the original Patriot Act, the Bush administration wishes to give the FBI greater latitude to investigate and undertake surveillance of those deemed "potential terrorists," whether or not these are U.S. citizens, without the oversight of a judge. It also wishes to codify the ability of the Attorney General to strip individuals of their U.S. citizenship. These measures should be vigorously opposed by all those who take seriously the constitutional liberties that distinguish the American republic. The federal government should be authorized and empowered to investigate, apprehend, and prosecute suspected terrorists, and to protect American citizens from terrorist threats. But more sensible application of existing laws and policies is what is needed to accomplish this, not the Patriot Act or Patriot Act II.