Pff, only terrorists are interested in Hungarian music,

I'm currently working in Congress and so know a little about this topic because of my issue areas. Here's my two cents...

Yes, this type of activity is covered under part of the Patriot Act, which is expiring. In the reauthorization bill for this year, the power allowing this type of activity is restored and gives government officials the ability to track and investigate anybody's books, gun sales (which places many gun owners in opposition to the act), phone records, etc. if that person is "reasonably expected" to be involved in terrorist activity. While the article did not mention whether this particular student was suspected of terrorist activity, it seems pretty unlikely, and thus I would say that this is likely an abuse of an act that is already abusive to civil liberties. Unfortunately, the Patriot Act is pretty quiet on the topic of what recourse citizens abused under the auspices of the act have (shocking right?), so this guy is pretty much out of luck when it comes to justice.

But yes, basically the Patriot Act says the government can investigate nearly any part of a person's life if that person is suspected of terrorist activity and the investigator can establish that the information would be "relevant" to the investigation. The search must also be cleared through the agency director, but that's basically just bureaucratic comfort language.

At least the Senate shot the thing down (thank you Sen. Russ Feingold). However, with the new executive privileges Bush started trying to assert this week, it probably won't matter. The whole "government can spy on you now" story from this week is basically what Bush is doing because the Patriot Act reauthorization is killed; his new policy, administered under "executive privilege" of the Constitution means that he just does what the Patriot Act allowed him to do without being authorized to do it under the Patriot Act.

So he needed a law to say he could do it before. That law expired, so he's just saying he can do it because, turns out, it was an executive power all along! How convenient! If I may, WHAT THE FUCKING FUCK!? If he needed a law before, it's clearly outside the bounds of his Constitutional powers to do it in absence of the law. This is a gross abuse of executive power.

I would tell you to write to your congressman, but as one of the people who answers those letters, I can guarantee you it is futile. Please go campaign for candidates who know what the hell civil liberties are and have the courage and conviction to protect them. Sure, campaigners are paid in pizza and faint praise, but you get to keep the t-shirts. Good times.

Hmm... I hope I don't go on a watch list for writing this. Oh well, I once said I wanted to pants John Ashcroft, so I've probably been on the list for awhile now anyway.

Kennedy.

That's a good question because the Constitution states that "a majority of each House shall constitute a quorum to do business." So, one could pretty easily assert that the idea is for the Senate to do business when 51 of its 100 members are present.

However, the Senate operates under its own set of rules (these are the rules that allow for a filibuster, an act many mistakenly consider to be a constitutional right). Under these rules, the Senate assumes that a majority is present until a Senator "suggests the absence of a quorum (ie 51 members)." So the Senate acts on the presumption that there's always a majority present when it's in session. Basically this is so the Senate can do stuff without needing at least 51 Senators on the floor all the time; it lets them wander in/out, go to meetings, etc. It also leads to things like, I don't know, having only Sen. Warner from Virginia vote on the 5-week extension of the Patriot Act. This is even funnier when you consider that he was acting as the presiding officer. So he was the presiding officer, the only voting Senator and the only one who could call for a quorum if he wanted to do it. I can hardly wait for the misleading "John Warner was the ONLY SENATOR to vote for reauthorization of the Patriot Act!" ad comes out.

So first the Patriot Act was going to be permanent, then it was going to sunset, then it was going to be authorized under executive order, then it was going to be extended for 6 months, and now it's going to be extended for 5 weeks. Lesson: if you can't convince 'em, confuse 'em (or exhaust them).

It turns out the original story was a hoax created by the student in question.