Conservatives, liberals align against Patriot Act

The Washington Times ^ | June 14, 2005 | James G. Lakely

[neverdem]

---

The Washington Timeswww.washingtontimes.com

---

Conservatives, liberals align against Patriot Act

By James G. Lakely
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published June 14, 2005

---

Conservative groups have found common ground with the liberal American Civil Liberties Union in their opposition to the USA Patriot Act and pledge to wage a high-profile fight against it, claiming even its renewal is shrouded in secrecy.

    Former Rep. Bob Barr, who led conservative efforts to impeach President Clinton, is leading a group called "Patriots to Restore Checks and Balances" that is focused exclusively on opposing the renewal of the Patriot Act.

    The effort also has the enthusiastic support of three of the most influential conservatives in Washington, Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform, David Keene of the American Conservative Union and Phyllis Schlafly of the Eagle Forum.

    "They support this effort because the true conservatives understand the Constitution and understand when it is threatened," Mr. Barr said. "They are not your neo-cons and typical Washington insiders. This is a broad array of conservative groups."

    Brad Jansen, an adjunct scholar at the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute, has also joined Mr. Barr's effort, and said he will prove today that opposition to the Patriot Act is a political winner.

    Mr. Jansen is working for the congressional campaign of Tom Brinkman Jr., a state senator in Ohio who is among 11 candidates running in a Republican primary to fill the seat of former Rep. Rob Portman, who was tapped by President Bush as the U.S. trade representative.

[processing please hold]

Constitutional Concerns

The intent behind the passage of the FISA legislation was to impose limits and a review process upon warrantless surveillance and searches conducted for “national security” purposes in light of the numerous abuses by federal agencies against US citizens. But the politicization and present use of the FISA process has resulted in the erosion of numerous Constitutional rights and basic legal procedures that have their roots in free societies dating back to the Magna Carta.

I could go on and on but, it would not convince you. You're a lemming. Good bye.

[ActionNewsBill]

Could you point out the specific text of the Patriot Act that violates civil rights?

I find section 802 to be particularly troubling.

`(5) the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that--

`(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

Speeding on the highway, jaywalking...

`(B) appear to be intended-- `(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

Writing a letter to the editor that criticizes some aspect of Government...

`(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

Protesting at an abortion clinic, participating in an anti-war demonstration...

`(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

They got one definition right...

`(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.'.

Now maybe none of these abuses would occur under the benevolent guidance of GW Bush, but do you really want these powers available to someone like Hillary?

[William Terrell]

Are you telling me that the government has also used the Patriot Act against drug dealers and mafia types? Oh, the horrors! Next thing you know, they will be using it against kidnappers, murderers, rapists, and child molesters.

Do you understand the potential of being able to execute criminal type statutes on people without due process, without going through a judge?

[kesg]

I meant he acts like he must choose between living and liberty. That's a false alternative. You should want both. But to get both, you must go after the terrorists who want to deprive you of both. The Patriot Act helps us do this.

[AzaleaCity5691]

What happened during the Civil War?

11 states wanted to exercise their constitutional rights. Washingtons response.

4 years of war, war crimes, scorched earth tactics, and 12 years of oppressive Reconstruction which was intended to humilitate what were supposed to be "fellow countrymen"

[kesg]

Do you understand the potential of being able to execute criminal type statutes on people without due process, without going through a judge?

The key word here is potential.. The notion is that we shouldn't have more effective counterterrorism and law enforcement because these powers might potentially be abused. Indeed, some people are more concerned about potential abuse from the feds than actual abuse (or far worse) from terrorists. And frankly, that's just plain dumb. It's the kind of thinking that, if taken seriously, will eventually earn us a Darwin award. Fortunately, not too many take it seriously. In particular, people who are actually responsible for national security don't take it seriously -- at least not in this Administration.

Moreover, you are assuming, wrongly, that the Patriot Act somehow abolishes due process or judicial review. It doesn't.

[Paul_Denton]

Those conservatives who support the unnecessary and dangerous erosions of our individual rights, which is what the Patriot act does - may rue their decision when a liberal government down the line uses it to threaten our first and second amendment rights, among other things. We don't need big brotherism to stop terrorists.

I agree.

[ActionNewsBill]

These folks are nothing but janet renos with a bible instead of dyke haircuts and waco style 'burn em out' weapons.

Well, I guess that is an improvement.

On a side note, just over 53% of FReepers support extending or making the PATRIOT Act permanent, according to the latest poll.

This place used to be all about freedom and liberty....now it's becoming just another statist group-think site.

[TheDon]

Right...

[AzaleaCity5691]

I forget who said it but

"The man who gives up liberty for security deserves neither liberty or security"

[blackeagle]

They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Ben Franklin, 1755, to the Pennsylvania State Legislature

Your answer

[blackeagle]

Here is another fitting quite for this debate

Freedom is fragile and must be protected. To sacrifice it, even as a temporary measure, is to betray it. - Germaine Greer

[kesg]

"The man who gives up liberty for security deserves neither liberty or security."

But who wants to give up one for the other when you can have both?

[AzaleaCity5691]

You can't have both.

No one wants to think that it could happen here, but it almost did in the 1930's. (I'm referring to Long)

Once you give the government these expansive emergency powers, it's only a matter of time before they decide, it's an emergency, and the police state begins to set in.

The government already has a track record of getting away with using the military to enforce decisions in various parts of the country. There is a precedent for this, and anyone who ignores this puts their freedom in peril.

[kesg]

With all due respect, this is crazy. By this logic, anything less than anarchy will inevitably lead to dictatorship.

[Gondring]

And based on the current poll, it looks like many Freepers are happy to have our government taking away more of our rights.

I would venture to guess that most FReepers are not conservative. Most want a Big-Nanny Government as long as it's spouting what they want to hear. :-(

At least some conservatives are standing up to it, though, including many conservative FReepers. :-)

[Gondring]

>>"The man who gives up liberty for security deserves neither liberty or security."

>But who wants to give up one for the other when you can have both?

EXACTLY! There's no need to give up liberty to have security...That false choice is the fallacy that the PATRIOT ACT supporters try to get people to swallow, and once they've swallowed that lie, then it's easy to convince them that the restrictions on liberty are NEEDED!

[Gondring]

Economic Terrorism?

Virginia Kice, a spokeswoman for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said agents went to Pufferbelly based on a trademark infringement complaint filed in the agency's intellectual property rights center in Washington, D.C.

"One of the things that our agency's responsible for doing is protecting the integrity of the economy and our nation's financial systems and obviously trademark infringement does have significant economic implications," she said.

[Gondring]

Pretty obvious, isn't it? Sections 213 through 218 are my "favorites" in there.

[roamincadillac]

WE(conservatives)will all be labeled terrorists if, God forbid, the left ever takes back control of the WH, Congress, and the Senate. There'll be some serious gun grabbing attempts. This Patriot Act business could easily blow up in our faces. Think Hitler(y).