A four-year extension of some expiring provisions of the infamous Patriot Act passed Thursday, with some rare bipartisan opposition. It passed without any amendments, with a bipartisan contingent both for and against the extension. In the Senate it passed 72-23, with 4 Republicans, 18 Democrats, and 1 Independent voting against it. Then in the House (250-153), with 31 Republicans and 122 Democrats voting against it.

The three provisions that were extended are: the use of roving wiretaps, which allows federal authorities to monitor conversations of suspects; the “lone-wolf” provision, which allows the government to investigate individuals with no known affiliation with terrorist groups; and Section 215, also known as the “library provision,” which allows the FBI to order the “‘production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items)’…[and] permits the FBI to compel production of business records, medical records, educational records and library records without a showing of ‘probable cause’…Instead, the government only needs to claim that the records may be related to an ongoing investigation related to terrorism or intelligence activities.” Although Section 215 already contains a clause restricting potential misuse of the law and permits access to records only with a court order, these protections are not adequate enough to protect the civil liberties of ordinary Americans.

Both Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), attempted to add amendments to the Patriot Act that would have increased oversight of the actions allowed by the Act and would have increased civil liberty protections. These proposed changes were denied a vote by the Senate although the Judiciary Committee approved them. Leahy said: “The extension of the Patriot Act provisions does not include a single improvement or reform, and includes not even a word that recognizes the importance of protecting the civil liberties and constitutional privacy rights of Americans.”

According to Politico, “Republican leaders blocked Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) from even getting a vote on his bipartisan amendment that would have required greater congressional oversight of the anti-terrorism tools in the law.” Senator Rand Paul’s amendment applied to Section 215: He wanted to limit surveillance under this section “to suspected terrorists and spies,” therefore “restoring privacy to the records of innocent library users.” None of the proposed amendments were added to the Act. It was extended without any increased protections.

Can the extensive loss of civil liberties resulting from this Act since its enactment in 2001 be justified by any tangible results? Has giving the government the power to invade our constitutional right to privacy made us any safer?

Reach Staff Columnist Cara Palmer here or follow her on Twitter.