In many ways the debate over reauthorizing the Patriot Act comes down to the question: do you trust your government? If you read Alberto Gonzalez in The Washington Post this morning you might be inclined to answer "yes." Then again, if you read Senator John Sununu in yesteday's New Hampshire Union-Leader you might answer, "not so much."

In debates like this where there doesn't seem to be a clear cut answer, often times the best thing to do is to find Congressional leaders you like and trust and see where they come down on the issue. That's not so easy to do here.  John Sununu is neither a RINO or a reactionary, and he's co-author of the bill in the Senate seeking to postpone permanent reauthorization of the Patriot Act. Larry Craig and Lisa Murkowski are also against. Arlen Specter, who most consider a rather liberal-leaning Republican, is in favor of reauthorization and says that concerns about protecting civil liberties have been adequately addressed.

I've written about how overblown some criticisms of the Patriot Act have been. We needed to change the way law enforcement worked in this country in the wake of 9/11 and Congress acted quickly and appropriately. That said, the revelation that no one, including Congress, was aware that the FBI had issued some 30,000 national security letters over the last few years should give everyone pause.  On balance, however, my sense is that the Patriot Act has been a net positive, which is to say that it has contributed in a meaningful way to our security without impinging too much on the civil liberties of law abiding citizens. So long as that balance is maintained, and so long as sunset provisions are kept at four years to ensure accountability, Congress shouldn't delay  reauthorizing the Patriot Act.