Posted on 12/16/2005 10:58:09 AM PST by new yorker 77
--------------------------------------------------------
Larry Craig – Idaho
Phone: (202) 224-2752
Email: http://craig.senate.gov/email/
Website: http://craig.senate.gov/
--------------------------------------------------------
Chuck Hagel – Nebraska
Phone: (202) 224-4224
Email: http://hagel.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Home
Website: http://hagel.senate.gov/
--------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Murkowski – Alaska
Phone: (202) 224-6665
Email: http://murkowski.senate.gov/contact.cfm
Website: http://murkowski.senate.gov
--------------------------------------------------------
John Sununu – New Hampshire
Phone: (202) 224-2841
Email: http://www.sununu.senate.gov/webform.html
Website: http://sununu.senate.gov/
--------------------------------------------------------
Frist also voted against it in order to keep the option open to hold another future cloture vote.
spot on! bravo
never underestimate the stupidity of people in large groups
BTW, didn't like five of the Founders say "those who would trade liberty for the perception of security deserve neither"?
It was Ben Franklin who said it.
Admittedly, my comments require a deal of knowledge of our Founders to respond to.
But look at poor Wuli- he can't get any responses to his simple request for specifics. No one against the PA will respond rationally. They just rant.
Your argument about Madison seems to deal with today's NYT story not the PA. The PA is an act passed by congress, it deals with the Constitutional aspects of law enforcement and intelligence gathering, not those of the President.
So the difference is the feds don't need a court approved warrant. And that's where I have concerns with a Clinton Administration having those powers.
Politicians have an unnatural knack of abusing power. IMHO, it's best to have the Patriot Act temporary, requiring renewal from time to time.
I'd especially rather be free than "protected by the Government".
Some of these politicians will never get it until the Capitol building in DC is blown up.
The failures {laxness on the part of the Pentagon and Congress} of our defense posture was the reason the attacks but one succeeded that day. I remember Oak Ridge used to have just due north of it in a community called Briceville an USAF radar station and some missile defense systems in the area. No one took it for granted because we were the United States no one would attack us.
9/11 came about because even the intelligence and defenses we had then were since 1989 being cut back and down graded. We didn't need the PA to defend us in the Cold War and there was much more intelligence operations going on then but it was focused on foreign nationals.
The problems in that respect began when we let anyone and everyone come into the U.S. and even educated terrorist in our colleges. Defense was so lax that on January 1, 2001 at midnight only one of our aircraft carriers in the world was underway. Where are the flag officers who once sat on watch in patrol planes. We had all the capabilities we needed to stop 9/11 even intelligence on those who did the attacks. They were not utilized. Creating yet another law will not resolve the dangers.
In the 70's we got on the right track. I don't think any freedom loving soul in here for example objects to the Air Marshall program. But at the same time having Grandma searched once, twice, third time for good measure while someone who meets a possible terrorist profile is waved through because we dare not violate his civil rights is insane. 99.9% of all baggage searches are unneeded. Sorry folks but if a M.E. national wishes to use our transportation system then yes search them. We did no less in WW2. When was the last time an American threatened to take a hi-jacked plane into a building? 1971 IIRC. He spent years with Castro in the Havana Hilton.
The difference is they get a FISA court approved warrant.
Many of the terrorist investigations in the 1990s failed to become more fruitful and meaningful because of the legal limitations in warrants and intelligence sharing, some limitations due to changes in technology, some due to the nature of what is being investigated, potential acts of war, as opposed to already committed acts of "crime". A crime that has already been committed does not have the time sensitive nature in its investigation that a potential terrorist act does. Some of the provisions recognize this difference and the demands of it.
Re: #9...Glad to hear this about reason for Frist's vote.
I don't understand that; why he changed his vote so the bill could be reconsidered.
Looks like we'll have to get out the emails and phone calls. Personally, I'd prefer whips.
Wasn't it because of a lack of imagination on the part of senior political leadership? A very similar lack of imagination displayed by our pro-immigration Republicans today?
>
Frist should have been sure this bill was crafted more carefully so as to be passed along to the conference.
Today's vote was on the conference version. The Senate passed its version in July, and the objections today relate to "compromises" made in conference.
>
My bad. I guess we blame the conferees for not crafting it to win.
The "political leadership" was too busy chasing after blue dresses to pay enough attention. That did not disuade the FBI, the CIA and the justice department from trying, and many of the Patriot Act changes came from them, from their frustration with inadequate procedures more that the lack of political leadership behind them.
LOL. I don't quite get it but you're right, when it comes to the rules. Obscure so us little guys can't interfere or complain too much.
And that's supposed to make me feel safer?
I could be wrong, but when Hillary and the Clinton cabal are involved, it doesn't.
In fact, I have a healthy distrust of ALL politicians.
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.