Only two sections are up for renewal that warrant significant discussion: library records and "sneak and peek" search warrants.

One, popularly known as the "libraries provision," allows the government secretly to obtain records of any person from any business, regardless of wrongdoing; and the other authorizes secret "sneak and peek" searches of homes without promptly informing the homeowner. These two measures undoubtedly raise real concerns, but they hardly warrant the kind of mass rallying that both sides have mustered since the Patriot Act was passed.

Prof. Cole says the immigration provisions of the Act, which are not up for renewal because they don't sunset and are permanent, are the ones that have been abused and on which we should be focusing.

Among the most troubling provisions not sunsetted are those on immigration. They authorize the government to deny entry to foreigners because of speech rather than actions, to deport even permanent residents who innocently supported disfavored political groups and to lock up foreign nationals without charges.

Cole provides several examples. And he explains why there likely will be inadequate debate on the most troubling provisions of the Act. The first reason is that people perceive they apply mostly to foreigners - a kind of "them" vs. "us" perspective.

The second reason is more troubling for Cole. He argues that the liberal agenda is being "submerged" by necessary alliances of liberal groups with conservative groups. I've written positively several times about such alliances, but Cole sends up a warning.

The problem, says Cole, is that the liberal group then foregoes arguing against violations on which there is no consensus with the conservative group - like those pertaining to immigrants.

Cole suggests that liberal groups should align themselves more with international human rights groups, rather than conservative groups, so that important issues like those affecting foreigners will get the attention they deserve.

One of my favorite postelection maps showed the United States divided along the traditional, and increasingly ossified, red and blue state lines. But it was a map of the world, not only of the United States--and the rest of the world was blue. That may not be entirely accurate, but it does suggest that we might find more fruitful allies by appealing to international human rights and principles of human dignity than by joining forces with progun, antitax conservatives.

It's a good solution in theory, but if the goal is to get legislation passed or to prevent passage of bad legislation, I think we have a better chance when we align with the right. They have more voting and lobbying power than international human rights groups. And conservatives in Congress have rarely been moved by principles of human dignity (unless they can tie it to their culture of life platfor.)- I'm not sure they know enough about such prinicples to acknowledge them, let alone support them.

Enemy Aliens.