Can you guess what those numbers mean? The answer is after the jump.

They are the reasons given to justify delayed-notice search warrants issued under the expanded powers of the Patriot Act between 2006 and 2009.

Courtesy of NY Magazine's 9/11 Encyclopedia:

The Patriot Act was mostly a Republican project at its origin, but it would have died long ago without the support of Democrats. Liberals were committed enough to the bill that it took Texas Republican Dick Armey to insist that the new privileges of the Patriot Act would indeed sunset, unless the president asked for, and Congress approved, a reauthorization. In 2005, George W. Bush convinced Congress to renew the act, and in 2010, so did Barack Obama—even though the terrorist threat seemed less urgent, and liberal scholars had concluded that the civil-liberties violations in the bill could be resolved with a few modest changes. Dinh’s original worry—that politicians might not be committed enough to renew these laws—now seems misplaced.

What Dinh didn’t anticipate was a profound shift in liberalism and, therefore, in the politics of the country. Even with a Democrat now in the White House, the liberalism that protects the right of the individual against the majority—the politics of civil rights and abortion and gay marriage—has diminished, in favor of one that aims to improve the lot of the median man. Obama’s liberalism is for the majority, not against it. This spirit, and the unlikely endurance of the Patriot Act, owes something to the central psychological events of the decade: the vitality and threat of new economic competitors, the social violence initiated by the authors of obscure financial instruments, but first and most of all September 11—each of which evoked a particular feeling, that we were all together, under attack.

This official lean towards a paternalistic liberalism (as opposed to the liberalism that protects individuals from the tyranny of the majority) might partly explain the rise of libertarian, destroy-the-government Republican, anarchist, and Teabagger politics in the past few years.

"Liberty before liberalism" is a rallying cry that makes sense not only to conservatives, but us liberty-oriented liberals who are distressed by the drug war, the surveillance state, and the routine abuse of laws ostensibly passed to keep us safe from bloodthirsty zealots, religious or otherwise.

Of course, this was all predicted when the Patriot Act was passed. But the appeal to "all powers necessary and convenient" to protect us from terrorism won that argument.

So far.