Posted on 12/16/2005 11:58:17 PM PST by neverdem
Op-Ed Contributor
YESTERDAY the Senate failed to reauthorize the USA Patriot Act, as a Democratic-led filibuster prevented a vote. This action - which leaves the act, key elements of which are due to expire on Dec. 31, in limbo - represents a grave potential threat to the nation's security. I support the extension of the Patriot Act for one simple reason: Americans must use every legal and constitutional tool in their arsenal to fight terrorism and protect their lives and liberties.
The attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, made clear that the old rules no longer work. The terrorists who attacked us seek to kill innocent men, women and children of all races and creeds. They seek to destroy our liberties. They willingly kill themselves in their effort to bring death and suffering to as many innocents as they can, here in this country or anywhere in the world where freedom has a foothold.
In October 2001, after six weeks of intense scrutiny and debate, Congress passed the Patriot Act overwhelmingly (98 to 1 in the Senate and 356 to 66 in the House). We had already received clear signals about our enemies' intentions, in the first attacks against the World Trade Center in 1993, the bombings of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 and the attack on the Navy destroyer Cole two years after that. Despite the abundance of warning signs, it took Sept. 11 to wake us to the dangers we face.
The central provisions of the Patriot Act allow law enforcement and the intelligence community to share information. This might seem elementary, but for years law enforcement had been stymied by a legal wall that prevented agencies from sharing information. For four years now, inter-agency collaboration, made possible by the Patriot Act, has played an important...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
This was done about three dozen times. THAT'S IT. And it was reviewed the same number of times.
I want a democrat with cojones to step forward and say "We should have limits on how far we will go to stop terrorists. We will not go past this line--a line the President crossed when he gave permission to actions which foiled a terrorist attack."
If the dems won't come out from behind their mommy's skirts and admit that yes, they would rather more catastrophic attacks happen rather than risk infringing on three dozen people's civil liberties, than they are the worst kind of traitors. Yes, the dreaded T word--how else would you describe someone who believes Bush should have allowed a terrorist attack to happen on this nation's soil rather than approve of wiretaps?
Why wouldn't you want Giuliani or McCain over Hillary? Either of them would be better that the Hildebeast. Personally, I think Giuliani would do a better job than McCain. Giuliani has already managed a city and done well with it.
"Then" they'll be traitors? Dude, they've been traitors since the early '70s.
That's not what I wrote, my spelling error aside. Read carefully: "Then they'll be the WORST kind of traitors." As opposed to just the regular old run of the mill kind.
Based on what I've seen in my short time on FR, it seems most conservatives on FR would rather see Hillary win over McCain or Rudy.
Exactly.
I doubt the last thoughts of those killed by terror in the future will be "At least I know the government hasn't read my email or tapped my phone."
When the next 9/11 hits it will be the the complete fault of the Democrats, again.
Try telling it to a lib and getting a straight answer as to THEIR alternative to Bush's methods. You won't need earplugs.
Pelosi's admission that there IS no Democrat response is the last, shuddering fall of this horrible party. They may win elections in the future, but this is an obvious sign of the complete lack of moral core. She's almost said "I don't want to hamstring anyone in our party come election time with having to be held to a conviction about the war, I want them all to have the ability to BS as events on the ground around election time warrant."
Problem is, we don't know that. And I wouldn't want to risk it.
Voting for "Any Republican" for Prez may harm the party in the short term, but it'll be better for the country in the long term, in that there'll be a country after his term is up.
Stick around and you may come to appreciate that most conservatives what a real conservative to run, not another "moderate" (sic) RINO. Just take a long hard look at California to see what happens when you send a RINO to do a Republican's job.
The Democrats focus on abortion, affirmative action, the gay lobby and keeping the trial lawyers happy -- that's about it. To them, keeping America safe from terrorists is an unwelcome distraction. Redistributing property and rights from less favored groups to more favored groups is to them the whole purpose of government. And now that political correctness has decreed that Marxism and Islamofascism have common cause, it is almost impossible for a consistent leftist to want to fight terrorism.
That is the EXACT moment civil liberties mean the most. It's the reason we are being targeted by the fanatics and why we're fighting.
We're fighting to preserve our way of life and the Constitution / Bill of Rights. Period. Full Stop.
Yeah...it's the left that keeps freaking out over abortion & the Bareback Mountain stuff. lol /sarcasm.
Please tell me you're joking. You're answer is amost too simplistic to warrant a response. It's like we get like 90% of the way there and then pull this kinda crap that gives the left ammunition to shoot us in the head with (redistributing property rights???)
Actually there were a number of Republicans that participated in the filibuster too, thanks be to God. The GOP is not 100% gone over to pure fascism. Close enough tho. Demogogues like Guiliani hold all the cards, I'm sure he'll be President some day.
This is country's goose is cooked, its all over but the crying.
Rudy is a patriot.
YESTERDAY the Senate failed to reauthorize the USA Patriot Act, as a Democratic-led filibuster prevented a vote. Was there a filibuster, or just the threat of one that caused the pubbies to cave?
(snip)
I support the extension of the Patriot Act for one simple reason: Americans must use every legal and constitutional tool in their arsenal to fight terrorism and protect their lives and liberties. (brought to you by the same people that brought us the First Amendment trampling McCain Feingold CFR and the same people who believe that the rules, tactics, and indeed, the tax code itself of the IRS is a good, legal, and constitutional way to extract money from the people and the ones who can't read and understand the plain language of the document that they swore an oath to uphold as they uproot fundamental liberty and seek to nullify the 2nd and 4th Amendments after having already killed the 9th and 10th)
(snip)
They seek to destroy our liberties. How can they destroy our liberties? Will they attack America and win and rule this country? Terrorists can't destroy our liberty. They can attack and even kill us but the only ones who can destroy our liberties are those who make the laws in response to such attacks. Rather than focus on preventing more potential terrorists from entering the country, our government seeks to turn the focus on the very liberty that they claim to be trying to protect.
(snip)
In October 2001, after six weeks of intense scrutiny and debate, Perhaps someone with a better memory than mine will correct me, but my recollection is that the PATRIOT Act became law with very little, if any, debate and without members of Congress even seeing the actual bill. They were only told by leadership that it was necessary and should be passed. Most of the shameless congresscritters did as told.
(snip)
Despite the abundance of warning signs, it took Sept. 11 to wake us to the dangers we face. This is true, but we focused the scrutiny inward while refusing to do anything about illegal immigration and immigration of people from countries that are friendly to and harbor terrorists.
(snip)
The central provisions of the Patriot Act allow law enforcement and the intelligence community to share information. This might seem elementary, but for years law enforcement had been stymied by a legal wall that prevented agencies from sharing information. For four years now, inter-agency collaboration, made possible by the Patriot Act, has played an important... Is this the Gorelich (sp) wall? If so, this was a creation of the last administration, not a decades long policy. The PATRIOT Act goes a lot further than allowing various agencies to talk to each other.
I didn't read the entire article because I won't do anything to support the NYTimes, but how can I take seriously an article that (pardon the pun) takes liberties with the truth the way that Rudy does here? And this is the man that some of you want as the next president? Give me a break.
He is a pro abort, anti gun, big government liberal with the morals of an alley cat. Tell me how he differs substantially from Hillary. Is it because he is 'our' pro abort, anti gun big government liberal that makes him okay?
Good analysis, I'm glad to see FR isn't completely overrun with mind-numbed robots.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.