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.

[Dan from Michigan]

I also oppose the so called patriot act. I opposed it then, and oppose it now.

Calling this big government scheme a "patroit act" is a slap in the face to real patriots everywhere.

[troubled_vet]

On June 9, 2002 Jose Padilla--a.k.a. Abdullah Al Muhajir--was transferred from control of the U.S. Department of Justice to military control. Since that time, Padilla has been held in a navy brig in South Carolina.

Padilla has not been charged with a crime, and does not have access to a lawyer in his detention. This is a clear violation of the 5th Amendment, and probably a violation of the 6th Amendment. It is also a clearly abominable violation of the democratic traditions of the United States.

Padilla has been accused of plotting heinous acts of terrorism, particularly the setting off of a "dirty bomb". He has been accused of conspiring with members of al-Queda, and planning to scout for that terrorist organization, using the benefits of his U.S. citizenship. President Bush has designated Padilla an "enemy combatant".

These are frightening accusations, and they may be true. Accusations do not give the President the authority to lock someone away, however. According to the laws and traditions of the U.S., the way to determine who gets imprisoned is through the due process of a trial by jury.

Jose Padilla may be a traitor and a terrorist. But he was not captured in Afghanistan with a gun in his hand. He was arrested at Chicago O'Hare airport. If Jose Padilla can be held without criminal charges, strictly on the say-so of the President, then any American can be. That is tyranny.

It is essential that Padilla be either freed or charged with a crime.

This is possible under the 'enemy combatant' provision outlined in the Patriot Act. More information here: http://www.lifeandliberty.gov/subs/h_patact.htm

[2nd_Amendment_Defender]

I know there are provisions in the Patriot Act that allow the Federal government to place bugs in your home without a search warrant. That is a complete violation of the Fourth Amendment.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

--Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution

[Robert_Paulson2]

I meant he acts like he must choose between living and liberty. That's a false alternative.

---

no freeper friend.
that is the ONLY alternative... either you have liberty, or the death of liberty, followed by the death of people who love it.

He who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserves and will receive neither. Ever has it always been. It is the founder's principle.

Unless you are willing to DIE to push back abominations LIKE the patriot act... your liberties will one by one be terminated... for your safety.

[Still Thinking]

"If Hillary were President, would you want her to have these powers?"

I don't even want Bush to have those powers (and certainly no Hitlery or someone of her ilk).

[Oztrich Boy]

I forget who said it but
"The man who gives up liberty for security deserves neither liberty or security"

Almost everybody

"In the end more than they wanted freedom, they wanted security. When the Athenians finally wanted not to give to society but for society to give to them, when the freedom they wished for was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free." Edward Gibbon (1737-1794)

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety. Nor, are they likely to end up with either. - Benjamin Franklin Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

The man who asks of freedom anything other than itself is born to be a slave. -- Alexis de Tocqueville

A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares about more than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. --John Stuart Mill [Writing on the U.S. Civil War, 1862]

Never could an increase of comfort or security be a sufficient good to be bought at the price of liberty. -- Hillaire Belloc

If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose its freedom; and the irony of it is that if it is comfort or money that it values more, it will lose that, too. - Somerset Maugham

The American people must be willing to give up a degree of personal privacy in exchange for safety and security. -- FBI Director Louis Freeh (1993)

I said almost

[CyberAnt]

Padilla is a citizen ..?? I didn't know that. Was he born here or is he a naturalized citizen ..??

[eleni121]

The cannot be supportive of the President if they are against the Patriot Act.

The PA is a necessary tool in the fight against internal enemies - and they are here and active. Those against it are either naive fools or hoping that America will be defeated.

[kesg]

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!

The common thread in all of these arguments is that the Patriot Act somehow restricts liberty. But it doesn't, and no one has persuasively shown otherwise. It does make it harder for terrorists and criminals to plot, scheme, and act without interference from law enforcement. That’s a good thing, not a bad thing.

[kesg]

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).

If she becomes President, the Patriot Act will be the least of our problems. But in any event, she isn't President, and she isn't likely ever to become President.

[neverdem]

The cannot be supportive of the President if they are against the Patriot Act.

The President isn't too eager to secure our borders. The President signed the unconstitutional campaign finance reform. He said he would have signed an extension of the unconstitutional so-called "assault weapons ban", if Congress would have extended it. Check the quotes in comment# 146. Lately, the Constitution has been more honored in the breach by all branches of government.

I went to Pennsylvania to campaign for Bush last November mainly because Kerry was a bad joke, especially to Vietnam Veterans, not because that I thought Bush was so great. Maybe the President would get more support if he showed more support for the Bill of Rights.

[Gondring]

Could you tell me who makes up the FISA court?

Seven to eleven federal district court judges from different circuits. They're appointed by the Chief Justice of the United States for staggered terms. There's no "defense" testimony offerred before them when they issue their decisions.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review comprises three federal judges named by the Chief Justice. Its purpose is to hear appeals of applications for search or surveillance that have been denied by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. It convened for the first time on September 9, 2002 to consider a Justice Department appeal.

Okay? Now...how about you explain to everyone how the Patriot Act lowers the standards of required evidence, and how FISA can now apply even if Foreign Intelligence Information isn't the "primary" purpose of surveillance?

[Gondring]

Sophistry. It doesn't restrict liberty, but it does allow liberty to be legally restricted by authorities, without adequate protections.

For example, Section 507 or 806 or just about anything in there! Just a claim that you're a terrorist and they can violate your rights all over the place--no proof, no trial, no defense...just grab medical records, seize your property, etc. If that's not violating civil liberties, then I wonder what your definition is!

[Doctor Stochastic]

Conservatives, liberals align against Patriot Act

Which are the authors (Andrew Young and Gary Hart), Liberal or Conservative?

From many of the FR postings, one must assume that AW and GH represent mainstream conservatism. On second thought; they do.

[Oztrich Boy]

The PA is a necessary tool in the fight against internal enemies - and they are here and active.

Sigh.

[Lazamataz]

"And I'd gladly PERSONALLY sit in the first building waiting for the attack if you could guarantee me that America would remain (or actually, become) free."

Uh, why, if you are no longer around to enjoy it?

Because there are some things that are more important than my life.

I'm going to die anyways, and if my death in any way helped make America free again, it would be a life well spent.

[Lazamataz]

But in any event, she isn't President, and she isn't likely ever to become President.

I call bulls**t.

[eleni121]

You would be sighing plenty of terrorists turned up in your backyard as they have been all over the country.

[Lazamataz]

Padilla is a citizen ..?? I didn't know that. Was he born here or is he a naturalized citizen ..??

Born here.

[verity]

"They are asking us to give up our rights forever."

Not forever - only until you die.