Nice points.

While I agree in theory that anti-terror legislation should not be wasted on small time criminals, I see no reason to stifle the potentially broad definition of "terror" when the criminals lawyers will certainly use every loophole to see felons go free or serve the least amount of time.

8 years of Clinton and general lawlessness in the WH, the stock market and the big businesses is offset by a conservative administration that leans towards zealous prosecution of criminals. Throw the ACLU and the lawyers into the current mix and you have a pretty fair match up - probably still favoring the criminals and their high powered attorneys.

Let the democrats regain control of Congress and the Patriot Act would be gutted by new legislation anyway even if it is renewed. So the prosecutors use this period and window of opportunity to get some of the folks who have been thumbing their noses at Lady Justice and eating lunch off of her scales.

Government can't be trusted when it comes to taking our money - that's certainly true.
Personal income taxes were never to exceed 2%. The definition of "rich" always manages to be inclusive of nearly everyone who has a job.

However, I see anti-terror legislation as a short-term balancing tool. It closed many loopholes which companies were using to export our technologies overseas, it has shed just a bit of light on our horrific immigration system and given teeth to existing legislation meant for serious felons.

It won't last forever, that is almost certain, and will be rolled back and then the ACLU crowd will be right back on their way to legalizing everything that is considered criminal behavior today.

Yes, it all balances out. The pendulum swings one way and then the other. Society only has a tolerance for so much conservatism or so much liberalism. I see it swinging further right for another four years before swinging back to the left.

I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

SDAI-Tech1

PS
The FBI is outmatched by the computer-savvy international kiddie-porn industry, which operates out of Amsterdam and other places in northern Europe. The DHS is the "newest" computer savvy organization with the "mostest" equipment for tracking sophisticated distribution networks. One doesn't realize how much our intelligence agencies eroded between 1992 and 2000. They missed the whole computer revolution and are now just recovering from being paper shufflers in an age of e-mails. If the DHS is involved it is only because the FBI doesn't have the capabilities or funds to go after these folks. Yes mission creep is a bad thing, but again - I see it as sort of making up for a completely lax and increasingly outmoded infrastructure in other agencies. Don't forget because Clinton was a target of potential legal actions - he completely underfunded and purposely stifled these agencies in his proposed budgets so they would be hard pressed to get the goods on him.

All over the world the information revolution was happening and the FBI, CIA and others were still playing with the fingerprint kits.