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.

[troubled_vet]

Thank you for being rude and insulting.

It seems that happens to you a lot on this site. Could it be that it is because you make false claims and attempt to disseminate incorrect information?

Good luck with that, and expect more of the same...

[Lazamataz]

None of this is persuasive.

Then it is clear you shall never be persuaded.

One wonders at what point you would stand up against government encroachment.

[kesg]

Then it is clear you shall never be persuaded.

If your conclusions were true, you would persuade me. But you haven't shown that they are true. For dumb sheeple like me, it isn't good enough merely to blurt out bald assertions and have me accept them on faith. That ipse dixit dog won't hunt.

[Lazamataz]

If your conclusions were true, you would persuade me. But you haven't shown that they are true.

In another time, I would have needed to show you the actual Jewish corpses.

[Leatherneck_MT]

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

Makes them no different than the people who seek the same thing but try to do it through hijacked airplanes and anthrax scares.

Sheep, that's all they are. Sheep.

[rattrap]

You can't have both. From your post you've obviously chosen safety. Za Rodina, Za Bush Comrade!

[kesg]

"If your conclusions were true, you would persuade me. But you haven't shown that they are true.

In another time, I would have needed to show you the actual Jewish corpses.

[neverdem]

"And I bet the government hasn't done a single bad thing to any of them under the Patriot Act."

Critics: Patriot Act Warnings Come to Fruition

Critics of the Patriot Act say the 2001 law, which was intended to enhance police powers to track terrorists, has recently been misused to investigate a political scandal in Las Vegas.

The same folks who warned that provisions in the Patriot Act are too far-reaching and could infringe on the civil liberties of regular Americans say the Las Vegas case is the first — but certainly not the last — example of federal law enforcement using its broadened surveillance powers to prosecute domestic criminals who do not threaten national security.

"It would seem to me the fact that the FBI is wasting any time at all prosecuting strip club owners is good news for terrorists," said George Getz, national spokesman for the Libertarian Party, which is calling for the repeal of the Patriot Act, passed shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks.

Who said, "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help"?

[kesg]

And the problem here is...?

[neverdem]

"And the problem here is...?"

We were assured that its provisions would only be used in cases involving terrorism.

Former Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga., who voted for the bill, but has since voiced his concerns of the law, said he wasn't surprised, but disappointed to hear reports earlier this month that FBI agents investigating two strip club owners in Las Vegas on bribery charges bypassed a grand jury and instead used the Patriot Act to subpoena the financial records of the bar owners as well as several prominent city and county officials.

It's the proverbial beast's nose under the tent. I guess you're waiting for the hump.

[Gondring]

Imaginary?

What's your point..that it's secretive? I agree. I can name some past members, but would have to research to give you current membership.

If you're merely a student looking for your homework being done for you, please note that it's rude to make requests for answers without researching things yourself.

[Gondring]

You don't see it...or you don't think it's a problem?

[kesg]

"And the problem here is...?"

We were assured that its provisions would only be used in cases involving terrorism.

Well, I certainly didn't ask for any such assurance. And the law itself isn't limited to terrorism. Nor should it be. The law makes it harder for terrorists and criminals alike to plot, scheme, and operate without government knowledge or interference -- and it does so in a manner fully consistent with the Constitution. So again, I'm not exactly seeing the problem here.

[kesg]

You don't see it...or you don't think it's a problem?

I don't think there is any problem here whatsoever.

[Gondring]

...and it does so in a manner fully consistent with the Constitution.

Well, many people find that assessment hard to believe. In fact, the court didn't agree with that...and struck part of it down.

[KoRn]

Good. I think the 'Patriot Act' is more harm than good for most of us. You may be in favor of it now, but how will you feel about it when a huge Government liberal is in power and would consider this site to be a domestic terrorist organization. How will you like to hear language like "only a terrorist would want to have guns like that"? It can and probably will happen. John Kerry even did it to some extent in the 04 campaign by saying allowing the sale of "assault weapons" we are helping terrorists.

We lasted well over 200 years in this country with no patriot act in place and didn't have a terrorist attack until 911. This largely due to the fact that we had 8 years of nothing to prevent a 911. Yet during this time we had 'Waco'. Imagine what would happen when such people get back into power and they have something like the patriot act at their disposal.

[Tench_Coxe]

Never argue with a fool, after a while, no one will be able to tell the difference between yourself and the fool. The person you are responding to obviously likes to engage in mental self-abuse.

[William Terrell]

Then if you want to avoid abuse, the only answer is anarchy.

Not when we're talking about procedural rules that make up due process, and the rules of evidence. These aren't law, as such, but statutes that determine how to administer the law. Everyone with enough IQ to keep their heart beating knows people need to live together by law.

Those procedures are designed to avoid abuse by the law. If you allow abuse of them, whatever the provocation less than clear and present annihilation, you stand to regret that inaction when an administration so inclined will use them to their potential limits.

[steve-b]

Out of curiosity, has the government allegedly done a single thing to you, or anyone you know, under the Patriot Act?

Maybe. Maybe not.

It's illegal under the PA to give a more specific answer to that question.

[steve-b]

Well, having blown what little credibility you had left with your endorsement of bait-and-switch scammery, you might as well just bow out now.