Posted on 12/23/2005 1:56:48 AM PST by SusanD
Lou Dobbs has an online poll on whether the Patriot Act should be extended, how long, if at all. Right now No extension is winning.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Well the Democrats are certainly going to be happy with the poll.
Voted - looks like DU had the heads up on this one. Best if they left their heads up their bottoms per usual.
voted bump!
yes i voted
it really is the communist news network isn't it.
If they are so suicidal I wish they would just off themselves and let us who want to live take care of business.
I just voted...
Yes, for 6 months 16% 912 votes
Yes, for 4 years 5% 269 votes
Yes, indefinitely 8% 431 votes
No 71% 4018 votes
Total: 5630 votes
So, if about 4,000 people from FR go over there...
BTTT
Been there, done that...
BTTT
I voted.
I think I saw that they extended it for a month. What they need to do is to review the Patriot Act from top to bottom, keep the good, throw out the bad. There are some aspects of the act that G. Gordon Liddy and Judge Napalatano (sp?) both think went too far and these are thinking conservatives, not knee-jerk foam-at-the-mouth liberals. Sorry, I can't provide details of their objections though.
Let see, almost all dim senators voted for it originally. Since then they say the W has made America much more vulnerable to terrorism, yet NOW they see no need for the patriot act. Doesn't make sense, but it doesn't have to since they are dim.
Napalatono-who I like-is dead wrong about this one. He is towing the Libertarian line, not the Conservative. He keeps spouting on about a neutral judge being in between the govt and the suspected terrorist to make it constitutional. Problem is, we are seeing how many neutral judges there are these days and it's not encouraging.
Well maybe it is to Al Qaeda.
What they need to do is to review the Patriot Act from top to bottom
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~``
If you had developed knowledge of the details you would know that this was already done. I read there were about 30 revisions put together in House Senate conference.
My congressman, J. Sensenbrenner who is chairman of the House Judiciary committee was vocally against the original Patriot Act because it endangered civil liberties. After the revisions, he was a supporter.
The Senate and the House had jointly hammered out these revsisions. The house passed it and the "there is no terrorism" Kennedy-Schumer-Boxer-Durbin crowd threatened the COMPROMISE legislation. You must have missed Sen Reid gleefully crowing that the Patriot Act had been killed. Remember most of this is about providing the same law enforcement tools to anti-terrorism efforts that are available to anti-drug efforts.
Keep reading here you will learn a great deal more than you will from Judge Napolitano.
Here's another reference for you
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_10_55/ai_101796889#continue
Roving wiretaps. Thanks to the Patriot Act, terrorism investigations can use roving wiretaps. Instead of having to get new judicial authorization for each phone number tapped, investigators can tap any phone their target uses. This is important when fighting terrorists whose MO includes frequently switching hotel rooms and cell phones. It's a commonsense measure. It's also nothing new: Congress authorized roving wiretaps in ordinary criminal cases back in 1986. It's hard to see Patriot as a blow to civil liberties on this score.
Hope this helps.
I think this makes perfect sense...
knowing what we know about the dim.
Good points...
Yeah, thanks. I didn't know it had been reviewed and revised. I did hear about Sen. Reid's disgraceful behavior.
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.