[DTogo]

I voted "Expanded" as I'd personally like to see it encompass organizations that can demonstrably be proven as engaging in seditious and/or harmful behaviour to the country. Freedom of the press and speech is one thing, but if it fans the flames of our enemies and/or results in harm to our troops or civilians, some form of penalty should ensue. Like yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre. IMHO

[Red Badger]

Made part of the Constitution, along with:

The Bill of Rights applies ONLY to U.S. citizens and legal resident aliens.

[loborojo]

Permanent. If you are not doing anything wrong, then you have nothing to worry about.

[handy old one]

The biggest problem is who the government see as a problem.

[Huck]

I voted pull back, because probably anything the gubmint does ought to be pulled back. Unless they start a big initiative to pull things back. I'd probably say they should expand that one, but then again, you never know.

[coloradan]

Fighting words are already illegal. What sorts of additional restrictions on free speech do you think would help prosecute the war on terrorism?

[processing please hold]

Freedom of the press and speech is one thing, but if it fans the flames of our enemies and/or results in harm to our troops or civilians, some form of penalty should ensue.

I agree. They can't use the freedom of speech as a Trojan horse to whip up anti-American feelings.

[Dan from Michigan]

I voted to eliminate it.

If we have to live in a police state, the terrorists win.

[reagandemocrat]

I agree with Huck. Pull back.

[Age of Reason]

I got an idea better than the patriot act.

How about we stay out of foreign entanglements?

[colorcountry]

Yeah, I voted expanded too, which to me meant extended also. I still want it to be temporary (as the need for resticted freedoms is necessary in time of war).

I felt somewhat limited on my choice. I would have preferred to vote extended/expanded.

[phoenix_004]

Permanent...Threat of islamic terrorism is real and here to stay!!!! We have no option but to defend america and in doing so if we have to forgo some rights then so be it.

[CSM]

I voted to pull back. If we can't profile passengers on an airplane, then why should our citizens sacrifice any rights.

[GOP_1900AD]

I also voted expanded. In addition to what DTogo wrote, I'd like to see something like:

---

We assist businesses in the USA, and allied nations, in proactively reengineering foreign operations and supply chain designs in order to avoid:

* Providing aid and comfort to the enemies of the USA and allies;

* Becoming dependent on markets and sources in nations that demonstrate a high likelihood of future anti-Allied aggression;

* Negative public relations owing to association with anti-Allied military aggression; and

* Interruptions in continuity of supply and operations due to embargos, seizures of facilities and assets by hostile entities, war between great powers, treason indictments and investigations affecting corporate officers and management, and any other disruptions of a geopolitical nature.

[FreeAtlanta]

It was poorly named and as a result, became a target for American hating and fearing leftists. It should have just been called, "The anti-Terrorism Act".

[mysterio]

There's no footnote after the Bill of Rights that says "unless you want to catch a terrorist or a drug user."

I say repeal it.

[rattrap]

I voted drop it, it's anti-American. Giving up rights is a slippery slope that no American, who truly understands what this country was built on, should want to go down.

[Dan from Michigan]

Everyone here who voted for extend it, expand it, or make it permanent need to ask themselves two things.

Do you trust John Kerry, Bill Klinton(who pushed for his own Patriot Act over the drug war), Janet Reno, Ted Kennedy, Dianne Feinstein, Charles Schumer, or Jimmy Carter with this power?

Do you trust mid level bureaucrats with this power?

[stompk]

I voted to end it.

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ---Benjamin Franklin

[kidd]

I voted "cut-back". I understand that we are at war, but it has not been explained to me what has been prevented in exchange for the loss of liberty that is associated with the Patriot Act.

I can understand (but don't agree with) the "Extended" or "Expanded" vote, these people trust the govmt more than I and probably want the borders closed.

I cannot understand why anyone would want a wartime act made "Permanent".

[AnnaZ]

I hit "Pass" on this poll. I would have chosen "Reviewed".