In the first article "theres still a need, Mr Posner writes that certain aspects of the patriot act are long over due however,  I felt as though his paper wasn't that opinionated because although he talked about how the act was making up for lost time and certain aspects of it were needed to increase national security and how the decisions made about the act were justified, he barely goes into detail about the act. To a reader who didn't know what the act was, his article would be a dull, under opinionated read. In my opinion he should've went into more detail about the new measures of security that the act entailed and about the difference between the government seeping too far into peoples personal rights and being justified enough by the strengthening need for more intense national security. In my opinion, i think that we do need the patriot act but not to the extent that they show in the movie enemy of state. I think that if people are under suspicion and the government has reasonable belief to think they are  a threat to national security, they should be put under some surveillance but at the same time, i wouldn't want the government taping into my phone conversations if they misinterpreted something that i said or did.