Explore Candidates → President → Bob Barr on Civil Liberties and Domestic Security
Bob Barr
on
Civil Liberties and Domestic Security
- Abortion and Birth Control
- Civil Liberties and Domestic Security
- Crime and Punishment
- Education
- Environment and Energy
- Gay Rights
- Government and Elections
- Gun Control
- Health Care
- Immigration
- Internet and Media
- Iraq and Foreign Policy
- Medical Marijuana and Drug Policy
- Religion and Public Life
- Science
- Social Security
- Taxes and Budget
- Trade and Economics
Q: Do you regret voting for the USA PATRIOT Act? BARR: I do. I was hoping at the time that it would not be used as a floor but as a ceiling. But it's been a taking-off point for expanded authority in a number of areas. Perhaps most important is the fact that the administration seems to be pushing its application as broadly as it can in nonterrorism cases. And despite the assurances by the administration that Section 215, which relates to obtaining records from libraries and other repositories, is not being used, the fact is it is being used. It has become much more problematic because it's part of a growing list of privacy-invasive government programs, such as TIA [Terrorism Information Awareness]. They changed the name [from Total Information Awareness] and John Poindexter has left the Defense Department, but I've seen nothing that indicates to me proof that TIA is absolutely dead with a stake driven through its heart and burned and its head cut off, which is how Steve Forbes used to describe what we needed to do with the IRS. So my presumption is that it in some form or fashion is continuing.
Q: Now you're saying, 'the Patriot Act I shouldn't have done any of it.'? BARR: "What happened Glenn is that we received several assurances--in addition to the sunset provisions which we wanted to get for the whole bill but just didn't have the votes for--by the administration that it would not seek to expand it [the Patriot Act if passed]... I have come to the conclusion that the best thing to do would be to get rid of it [the Patriot Act] and look at its powers in the light of now, this year--well, 2009--to determine what we actually need. Some power in the Patriot Act work very well, the other provisions though--such as the sneak and peak searches where the government can come into your house or business and search and never tell you they've been there--the Government doesn't need those powers and they have in fact been abused."
"Before continuing, it is important to note that I voted for the Patriot Act and continue to support portions of it. I did so for three main reasons. First, much of the Patriot Act is largely non-controversial and simply updates existing laws to reflect the new challenges of 21st century technology. Second, I took the administration at its word when it suggested the more wide-ranging powers in the law would be used exclusively for counter-terrorism, and were only necessary given the extraordinary threat Al Qaeda and like groups represent. Third, I believed that the administration would respect our inclusion of sunset provisions in the bill to force Congress to look anew at these measures with its nerves a little less frayed. Instead, however, the Bush administration has freely used the Patriot Act in cases unrelated to terrorism, and has vigorously campaigned to have the sunset provisions removed, which would make the entire Patriot Act a permanent fixture of our legal landscape."
Testimony to Judiciary Committee Concerning the 2001 Patriot Act (quote)
"I'll tell you not just what I would do about the Patriot Act, but what I have been doing against the Patriot Act for the last five years. And that is working with a broad coalition of folks from the ACLU to the ACU to the Libertarian Party and everything in between. And that is to take the USA Patriot Act, drive a stake through its heart, shoot it, burn it, cut off its head, burn it again, and scatter its ashes to the four corners of the world..."
"Thanks to the fact that a majority of members of Congress apparently cared more for starting their August recess on time than for protecting the Fourth Amendment-based privacy rights of the citizens they represent, this administration now is able to intercept any telephone or e-mail communication by anyone in this country, based on nothing more than an assertion that it believes one of the parties is overseas. No evidence or belief that one party to such conversations is a known or suspected terrorist - the rationale for the legislation that the administration declared publicly - is needed. Despite such bipartisan clarity in the preamendment FISA law, we now know that this president decided in late 2001 to ignore this requirement of the law. He did not seek at the time to change it if he believed it to improperly limit his power as "commander in chief," but simply ignored it. Now, the Congress has given its blessing - at least temporarily - to Bush's violations of the old law. In so doing, it has subjected virtually every international call a person makes or e-mail anyone sends overseas to potential surveillance. The Congress did this by removing from the entire FISA mechanism - and from any court oversight - all calls, regardless of who makes them, if the government has reason to suspect that one of the parties is overseas. In other words, all international communications. The sweep of such power is indeed breathtaking. However, the Congress did get to leave for its August recess on time."
"When you have a President that stands proudly apparently before the American people and says 'yes I violated the law but I did it for you'--that is listening in surreptitiously to U.S. citizens' conversations without court order. When you have an attorney general for this president--a republican president--that sits before the Senate of the United States and says 'don't worry about habeas corpus it's not important.' When you have a President that calls himself conservative that oversees a 27% increase in non-defense discretionary spending during his administration... we don't have a president that bears any relationship to the Republican party I used to be with."
"The vote in the Senate on September 19, 2007, derailed an effort to restore the right of habeas corpus made clear that a near-majority of Senators, primarily Republicans, either do not understand the principle of habeas corpus, or are still gripped by the irrational fear that pervades our country since 9-11. The Senate is on record once again supporting the unbridled power of a President to declare any individual he wants as an “enemy combatant” and then detain that person indefinitely without even being able to go before a judge to have the government show it has at least some rational basis to hold the person in prison. I think this abdication of power to a President by Congress is unfortunate and extremely dangerous. This is a move the Republicans in the Senate will come to regret, if for no other reason than because future presidents, including those of the Democratic Party who the Republicans would not likely support, would be able to exercise this awesome power."
"When you have a President that stands proudly apparently before the American people and says 'yes I violated the law but I did it for you'--that is listening in surreptitiously to U.S. citizens' conversations without court order. When you have an attorney general for this president--a republican president--that sits before the Senate of the United States and says 'don't worry about habeas corpus it's not important.' When you have a President that calls himself conservative that oversees a 27% increase in non-defense discretionary spending during his administration... we don't have a president that bears any relationship to the Republican party I used to be with."
"America's elected officials at all levels must renew their respect for the law and work to protect the rights of individuals. The place to start is restoring the writ of Habeas Corpus, which protects against unlawful detention, and thus stands at the core of individual liberty. Article 1 of the Constitution provides that this right shall not be suspended without clear and necessary cause, such as during an invasion. The Military Commissions Act of 2006 effectively ended this protection within America."
Campaign website, www.bobbarr2008.com, "Issues" Apr 22, 2008
"This administration has gone beyond even the Bizarro World standard of declaring up to be down or left to be right. Not only is torture not torture, but there exists insufficient clarity even to know what is torture so we can determine whether an interrogation technique is torture or not. While the extreme sophistry and word gamesmanship practiced to a fine art by this administration might make a high school debating coach proud, it does great disservice to the notion that we exist in a society in which there are rules and norms of behavior with clarity and definitiveness and in which government agents as well as the citizenry are held to standards of behavior. This is not something of which we as Americans should be proud, and the use of torture will come back to haunt us in ways this administration apparently either doesn't realize or simply doesn't care about."