Put me down on the side of Bob Barr, David Keene and others who are opposed to an expansion of the Patriot Act:

"It is a slap in the face to the Constitution," said Barr, who leads a bipartisan coalition calling for limits on the act.

Passed six weeks after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the Patriot Act was intended to give law enforcement more power to fight terrorism. But Barr and other critics say the law goes too far and gives federal investigators unbridled power that endangers civil rights. The proposed "administrative subpoenas" approved by the intelligence panel last week would "wipe away the 4th Amendment" protection against unreasonable searches, Barr said.

Barr also accused the president of giving "the back of his hand" to concerns about constitutional protections "that so many have fought and died for."

The head of the American Conservative Union, David Keene, said he was upset that the administration appeared to be encouraging the Patriot Act provisions' renewal through the more secretive Senate Intelligence Committee, despite pledges of openness and of a willingness to consider compromise. The Senate Judiciary Committee also has jurisdiction over renewing the act, but it has not begun deliberations, which are generally open to the public.

Keene is particularly upset with Atty. Gen. Gonzales, who has agreed in recent meetings with conservative activists, participants said, to the principle of open discussion and careful review of the Patriot Act before 16 of its most important provisions are renewed. The Intelligence Committee's decision to proceed on the Patriot Act was made without objection from the White House or from Gonzales.

"I find it disquieting that he talks like he is a reasonable guy and then, when it comes down to it, acts like he is not," Keene said. "We need to know: Who is the real Gonzales?"

I wish the Bush administration was half as serious about enforcing the Mexican border as it is about expanding the Patriot Act.

UPDATE: From a Washington Post editorial:

"...the Senate intelligence committee has included as part of its reauthorization package a broad authority for the FBI to collect information from businesses in intelligence matters using an administrative subpoena the FBI can issue on its own. This should not become law. Administrative subpoenas make sense in regulatory matters and have made their way into certain criminal and security investigations. But the Justice Department already can get the records it needs using the traditional, wide-ranging investigative powers of the grand jury or another provision of the Patriot Act. Administrative subpoenas are more secretive than grand jury subpoenas, and they involve less scrutiny from prosecutors; they strip away a layer of oversight. The administration may well make a persuasive case for Patriot Act renewal, with increased oversight. But this particular power should not be granted."

Agreed.