[codex]

It's the case, historically, that civil liberties restrict during time of war and expand again in peacetime. Lincoln suspending habeas corpus during the Civil War, Espionage Act of 1917, Japanese American internment camps during WWII, Smith Act, Subversive 
Activities 
Control 
Act, McCarthyism, etc.

Recent re-expansion has included the New York Times' successful defense of the publication of The Pentagon Papers. I think we're seeing another example of this here. 9/11-like attacks have not reoccured, and the public pendulum is shifting back.

If no more significant terrorist attacks occur, eventually I predict that significant portions of the Patriot Act will not be renewed. This is somewhat like firing your gardner as unnecessary because you don't see any weeds in your garden, but, even so, I suspect the Patriot Act is overkill.

[gknoy]

The difference is that now our war is not against a regime or distinct nation of people, so how can we ever say that we have "won"? There will _always_ be people that hate our country, and will be labeled as terrorists. Our government can maintain on this pretext that we are in a state of emergency, conceivably indefinitely.

I feel so cynical, and dearly hope that I will be proven wrong.

[Sharlin]

The thing about wars on abstract nouns is that it's impossible to negotiate peace with an abstract noun.

[betterunix]

If no more significant terrorist attacks occur, rainbow colored ponies will fly through the air to bring happiness to all the little children.

You can conclude whatever you want from a false hypothesis. The truth is that eventually some terrorist will find a way through all the security systems we set up.