[Yosemitest]

I don't like the ACLU any better than you do, but let's take a closer look. Let's see what Barr and Jesse Walker of Reason Magazine had to say.

Reason: A lot of people were surprised when you took a post with the ACLU, but you actually cooperated with them going back at least to the early Clinton years.

Barr: It started with the initial anti-terrorism bill in '96. That probably was the first time that we recognized specifically that we had some very fundamental common interests. We worked together after that on several other pieces of legislation, such as the asset forfeiture reform, the national driver's license, and the Know Your Customer program.

I had always known them to be a very, very consistent advocate for civil liberties, but we disagreed on so many issues that I never really sought them out in terms of an ally.
But shortly after I came up to the Congress, I realized ,

-- and I think they realized the same thing --
that the size of government and the expansiveness of government power were creating a smaller sphere of personal liberty and personal privacy,
and that we needed to find allies in this fight, and work together on those issues in which we agree and .

Reason: Have you caught much flak from other conservative Republicans for cooperating with them?

Barr: To some extent, but the reaction generally has been positive.
Most people, when they stop to think about it, realize that there is a great commonality of interest between liberals and conservatives on these issues.

Reason: You started out sympathetic to civil libertarian concerns about trying terrorists before military tribunals,
but ended up endorsing the idea. What changed your mind?

Barr: The administration, in that instance, seemed to listen to a number of the criticisms that we made. It made some fairly substantial changes to the way they were going to carry out the tribunals.

There are two concerns that I continue to have.
One is that the administration can change its mind at any time. You can't say, "Hey, this is a great idea," and just walk away from it. You've got to monitor it and make sure nobody backslides.
The second is that I don't think we've seen a consistent standard exercised by the administration in deciding when to use military tribunals. That's bothersome.

If you use it in an appropriate setting

-- a military setting, in the context of an active conflict --
and you have an enemy combatant, a military tribunal with its accelerated procedures lends itself to a wartime scenario.
But the government really needs to have an articulated, consistent standard.
You have John Walker Lindh, who I consider to be a poster boy for a military tribunal proceeding, tried in our civilian courts.
And then you have this other fella, Jose Padilla, being tried in a military tribunal. I think his situation is much more appropriately handled in the civilian courts.

And then you have the Zacarias Moussaui case, where because the government doesn't seem to be getting its way with regard to access to witnesses by the defendant, they indicate,

"Well, if we don't get our way, we'll just go ahead and try him in a military tribunal."
I don't think that's appropriate.

Bob Barr is very conservative, and isn't going to allow the borders to be open, or going to have a Gang of 14 choosing Judicial Nominees.

[counterpunch]

Bob Barr is very conservative, and isn't going to allow the borders to be open, or going to have a Gang of 14 choosing Judicial Nominees.

Bob Barr doesn't have a say in any of it because he's no longer in elected office, nor will be.
 

[roamer_1]

Bob Barr is very conservative, and isn't going to allow the borders to be open, or going to have a Gang of 14 choosing Judicial Nominees.

That much, I think, is true. The only thing I have against Bob Barr is the idea of not finishing what we started in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the whole nexus of issues around the GWOT. I believe him to be wrong in that regard, at least to the extent that I have read.

I don't know how that can be squared with a true Conservative sense. He must meet all three pillars of Conservatism squarely, or I am afraid I cannot lend him my support. But I am willing to be convinced.