Some media commentators have attempted to spin the issue about legislators not reading the so-called USA Patriot Act before passing it.  Riva Enteen researched what happened, and notes that we were not just dealing with lazy legislators, but an actual and explicit political decision to ram the legislation through without review.  She notes:

"There is a requirement that legislation be available to read before voting ... But that requirement can be suspended by the rules committee, and the rules committee voted to suspend that requirement.  And that rules committee decision had to be voted on by the Congress.  What was interesting is that it was a closed vote in the House;  it was eight votes apart.  So, almost half the House said, "Excuse me, but can we just get a chance to read it before we vote on it?"  It was close, but we lost by eight votes.  And when it came to an up or down vote (the final vote for the bill), it was a landslide because everybody is lockstep with this government because it's all in the name of fighting terrorism."

Listen to the program.  Burn CDs of the MP3 and share it with friends.  The program runs for just under 59 minutes.  It's a large mp3:  about 24 megs.  But it's well worth the download time.  This is one of the most fact filled interviews I've heard on the subject to date.

Don't miss this either:

"ACLU report: U.S. heading toward Big Brother society"

http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2003/01/1561073.php

If the ACLU is so hot to save the Bill of rights, how come they always forget the Second Amendment?

It's a mater of money. They don't have resources coming out of their ears, and they don't have to spend funds on protecting the 2nd Amendment because there are plenty of funds and strong groups (NRA, chief among them) out there doing it.

BigSteve,

Another point. Your question is structured in a way that leads to goofy logic. The real question is whether or not they work to stymie the efforts of those that protect the second amendment, to which the answer is a resounding NO. Given that, the fact that it's not a priority for them is totally irrelevant when judging the balance of their work. The litmus test is whether or not they work to protect civil liberties without qualification, and this they do (for example, protecting the first amendment rights of groups like the KKK, groups that many people find repulsive; one can't say some groups have the first amendment right while others don't)

In any event, let's stick to the subject here and not introduce side comments. If you have comments, please keep them on the subject of our rights. This is not a republican, democrat or any other partisan issue. More republicans (William Safire, Dick Army, etc.) than democrats are speaking out about the rampant trashing of the Bill of Rights anyway.

ACLU Spooked by Domestic Spying

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0%2C1283%2C57226%2C00.html