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.

[mysterio]

Wait until the dems win and expand the "patriot" act to include guns and a national registry. Maybe that will wake you guys up to the fact that there's more than one amendment we need to be protecting.

This is rapidly becoming my top issue. I want to see the Bill of Rights restored from the assualts on it over the past century or more.

[mysterio]

Yes, I've read it.

[TheDon]

That is one valid argument against the PA. Another argument is that we are not at war.

We are fighting nations which support transnational terrorists. So far, Afghanistan and Iraq have been successfully won. That would leave at least Iran, Syria and NK. I would hardly define that as a war against concepts.

[jmaroneps37]

This and his aclu board membership is why bob barr COULDN'T run for senate. He NEVER would have won a pubbie primary in Georgia.

[popdonnelly]

Anyone interested in defending the country? Hello? As the World War II expression had it, "Haven't you heard, there's a war on." These concerns about the Patriot Act will last until the next terrorist attack, when everyone will be hollering, "Why didn't we do something?"

[kesg]

Would you mind of someone in Langley or Greenbelt goes through your internet history or library history to see if you are a child molester or drug dealer without cause?

No. But I can see where a terrorist, a drug dealer, or a child molester might have a problem with it. Besides, they have much more important and interesting things to do with their time. And in any event, I certainly don't know that they can do it "without cause."

[TKDietz]

"I think that conservative thought on this subject would be to improve the conviction rate before making the power to arrest greater. A 50% conviction rate is abysmal, at best."

Where did you get that 50% figure? Are you just talking about "terrorism" cases? My understanding at least for felony charges filed in this country that a conviction for some crime or another is had about 95% of the time. A 50% conviction rate would be pretty pitiful, but of course I'd have to wonder if it was because police and prosecutors are charging people without evidence who in many cases may be innocent.

[mysterio]

So we cannot defend the country and keep the Bill of Rights intact? Or are you arguing that the "patriot" act does not undercut the Bill of Rights? If you are arguing that, then I suggest you read it carefully. And to help you, pretend that Janet Reno wrote it. Read it like you don't trust the author.

[dljordan]

" Perhaps he was too busy pushing his law (HR 1528) that would make it a felony not to be a drug snitch."

He just drafted H. J. Res. 24. I found it over on http://thomas.loc.gov/. It gets rid of the 22nd amendment.

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd amendment to the Constitution. (Introduced in House)

HJ 24 IH

109th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. J. RES. 24

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd amendment to the Constitution.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

February 17, 2005

Mr. HOYER (for himself, Mr. BERMAN, Mr. SENSENBRENNER , Mr. SABO, and Mr. PALLONE) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd amendment to the Constitution.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

`Article --

`The twenty-second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is repealed.'.

[B Knotts]

Thusly, this war has no chance of ever ending.

Not fair, Laz. Heck, this thing might be wrapped up inside of 300 years.

Then, you can have all your rights back.

[kesg]

And then if Hildebeast gets in she can use it against gun owners, smokers, and those who fail to recognize Her Greatness.

In other words, let's don't have more effective intelligence, counterterrorism, and law enforcement because they can potentially abuse their powers. For me, this is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I would rather keep the baby and deal with any bathwater separately.

[B Knotts]

In other words, let's don't have more effective intelligence, counterterrorism, and law enforcement because they can potentially abuse their powers.

That's actually the exact rationale behind the Bill of Rights.

[jmaroneps37]

"If Hillary were President, would you want her to have these powers?"
I remind you, we have a war to win or do you think it is such a sure thing that we'll win that we can start worrying about who will cater the celebration on V-T day.
All we can do right now is do EVERYTHING possible to win, then worry about who gets the power next.
N.B. the beast doesn't have a chance to win.

[highball]

Exactly. Terrorists may take my life, but only the government can take my freedom. If I let it.

[kesg]

Only if you think that the Patriot Act is inconsistent with the Bill of Rights. I don't, and neither do most courts who have considered Constitutional challenges to the Act.

[ActionNewsBill]

Are you telling me that the government has also used the Patriot Act against drug dealers and mafia types?

Don't forget those evil Rubik's cube knock-off sellers....they are the really terrorists in disguise

Homeland Security Agents Visit Small Toy Store in Oregon About Magic Cube

ST. HELENS, Ore. Oct 28, 2004 — So far as she knows, Pufferbelly Toys owner Stephanie Cox hasn't been passing any state secrets to sinister foreign governments, or violating obscure clauses in the Patriot Act.

So she was taken aback by a mysterious phone call from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to her small store in this quiet Columbia River town just north of Portland.

"I was shaking in my shoes," Cox said of the September phone call. "My first thought was the government can shut your business down on a whim, in my opinion. If I'm closed even for a day that would cause undue stress."

When the two agents arrived at the store, the lead agent asked Cox whether she carried a toy called the Magic Cube, which he said was an illegal copy of the Rubik's Cube, one of the most popular toys of all time.

He told her to remove the Magic Cube from her shelves, and he watched to make sure she complied.

After the agents left, Cox called the manufacturer of the Magic Cube, the Toysmith Group, which is based in Auburn, Wash. A representative told her that Rubik's Cube patent had expired, and the Magic Cube did not infringe on the rival toy's trademark.

[B Knotts]

I stand by what I said, which does not address whether the Patriot Act is or is not consistent with the Bill of Rights.

The fact is the Bill of Rights does exactly what you were talking about; it insists upon "less effective" law enforcement capabilities, precisely to limit the abuse of same.

[Mister Baredog]

If the Patriot Act was in effect prior to 9/11, would that have enabled the authorities to stop the attacks?

B4 this Act it was illegal for the CIA to work with the FBI on terrorism. Do you not remember the WALL created between them???? Remember all the unconnected dots?

B4 this act a cell phone couldn't be tapped without the specific phone number. Disposable cellphones rendered law enforcement helpless without those roving wiretaps.

What rights have you lost?

[Oztrich Boy]

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.

Trouble is BoR IV thu VI details procedures that must be followed against those scumbags.

Let the State decide that Patriot Act supercedes the Bill of Rights anytime the State feels like it, who really won the Cold War anyway?

[B Knotts]

Outrageous. But not terribly surprising.