The Barr Code

By charles corley

February 18, 2008 12:42 PM | Link to this

my friend ask the judge “when the last shot is fired in the war on drugs will the government restore our 4th amendment rights”. you know bob, better than most, that it’s time for an honest and open discusion about the drug war. george schultz, milton friedman, william buckley, judge richard posner, carl sagan, gov. gary johnson and many others have known for a long time that the war on drugs is not the way to go. we talked many yrs. ago when ludlow had you on wsb. i called and we talked about cross addiction and that alcohol was always one of the drugs. the longer we wait to have this discusion the harder it’s going to be to do something about it because government has become addicted to drug money. thanks for giving me the chance to say this.

By Tom Gallaher

February 18, 2008 1:28 PM | Link to this

Thanks for the commentary Bob. I think it would be helpful if you would give your opinion of why those who support this level of expanded surveillance are doing so. Assumably those who are mis-informed think they are strengthening a system of protections. I’m inquiring about those who actually understand your premise but are seeking greater access to the citizenry’s privacy anyway (not withstanding the “drumbeat of fear”, which we all understand the motivation for).

By Mike McManus

February 18, 2008 2:23 PM | Link to this

The only piece of this law they really want is the retro-active amnesty for the sleezy phone companies. They deserve to be sued.

Mike

By Antineocon

February 18, 2008 2:36 PM | Link to this

As Mr. Barr correctly notes, the government presently has all the power it needs to conduct lawful surveillance of those who would do us harm. For our misinformed or ignorant President to get up before the American public at a news conference and engage in the kind of fear-mongering he engaged in should be evidence enough that we already have within the borders of this great country our own worst enemies.

By Ron

February 18, 2008 3:01 PM | Link to this

This government doesn’t appear to be concerned with people that would do us harm,it seems to want to spy on it’s own citizens,for reasons known only to itself.They want Presidential powers expanded and they’re just trying different tacks.You can be sure that while everyone is watching this particular item,another illegal act is being perpretrated elsewhere.

By Antineocon

February 18, 2008 3:08 PM | Link to this

Ron, you’ve got it!!!!

By Bosch

February 18, 2008 3:28 PM | Link to this

Nice commentary Mr. Barr. Despite my liberal leanings, it is refreshing to hear an actual conservative opinion, and not the usual fear, fear, fear we usually get from the right.

I really enjoy reading your articles. Keep up the good work.

Antineocon and Ron, couldn’t agree more.

By Mel

February 18, 2008 3:30 PM | Link to this

Barr never mentions the real sticking point on the bill and that concerns retroactive legal immunity for the big telecom companies that were in cahoots on the illegial spying.

By myers

February 18, 2008 3:40 PM | Link to this

Thanks for getting to this matter. The coverage of this story has been absolutely abysmal. One would think that the trashing of the constitution might merit a story but the press just doesn’t seem to care. My moronic representative Dr. Phil ,can send out his fear mongering manure unchecked ,completely void of facts, because the media just can’t be bothered. Thank god for the Internet.

Glenn Greenwald has been doing a great job on dispelling all the spin re: PAA (Protect AT&T Act)

FISA 101

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/02/14/fisa_101/index.html

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/02/16/protecting_us/index.html

This is one of the most bizarre propaganda dramas ever, even when weighed against other Bush Terrorism propaganda dramas of the past. There is one reason, and one reason only, that the Protect America Act expired. Its name is “George W. Bush.” That is who refused to agree to the Democrats’ offer to extend the law by 21 days (or longer), then repeatedly threatened to veto any such extension (“US President George W. Bush on Wednesday vowed to veto another temporary extension of a domestic spying law”), then directed the always-obedient House Republicans to vote unanimously against the extension, which they (needless to say) did. This vital-to-our-safety piece of legislation expired only because George W. Bush repeatedly blocked its extension. It’s just that simple.

FMD, quite reasonably, inquires: “If the nation is really going to be more vulnerable as the result of the expiration of the PAA (Protect AT&T Act), why hasn’t Homeland Security’s color coded threat level been raised to Magenta or Puce or some such thing?”

By getalife

February 18, 2008 3:50 PM | Link to this

We know Bob.

We are not scared like the sniveling coward criminals of the gop who allowed obl to win and change our country.

We are not scared like the gop who vote away our freedoms, thousands of American have died for,like it is nothing.

They talk tough on the mistake of Iraq but vote away our freedoms because they are scared.

Real Americans are not scared Bob. We want our country back from those sniveling cowards.

By myers

February 18, 2008 4:01 PM | Link to this

Barr never mentions the real sticking point on the bill

Good point Mel. Bush and his congress critter lackeys, could have had a 21 day extension of the current law but went for broke , because the more time that passes and the bigger the stink they raise, the greater the chances that the most dim of bulbs, will realize, that telecom immunity is what this is really about.

My guess is Barr, like most “libertarians” have a greater respect for the Rights of the corporations than they do individuals. I looked at Boortz’s web site and the great “Libertarian” was too busy poking sticks at shiny objects to give a damn about our 4th amendment.

By Jim's a Cherry Picker

February 18, 2008 4:02 PM | Link to this

Bob!

Becareful what you say about El Presidente and his agenda.

You might get branded with the scarlette letter: L.

By Jim's a Cherry Picker

February 18, 2008 4:04 PM | Link to this

Oh…and that L is for Liberal, not Libertarian.

I don’t think GW can say that word anyway.

By Bosch

February 18, 2008 4:05 PM | Link to this

getalife,

:-)

Wish you’d lighten up on Obama, but I’ve always liked your posts - nothing like saying it like it is, man!

By getalife

February 18, 2008 4:16 PM | Link to this

I will Bosch.

If he wins the nomination.

By Sniveling Coward Criminal

February 18, 2008 4:30 PM | Link to this

Gosh, Getalife, you are so brave, so much better than those of us who actually do still fear a terrorist attack in the age of suitcase nukes.

What I am NOT afraid of is that this government is listening to my transatlantic phone calls to my relative in Italy for some nefarious purpose or just for the sheer enjoyment of hearing what I have to say.

I also understand, and I suspect that you do too, that some of the greatest American presidents have used far more dranconian tactics and have exceeded the powers of their office in ways exponentially greater than Bush has.

Sorry to crash the little Libertarian party here, but your hero Thomas Jefferson was one of them.

By Red

February 18, 2008 4:39 PM | Link to this

Thanks, Bob. At least someone has the courage to put it in writing. I have rarely agreed with you, but I certainly agree on this and all of your concerns about the loss of our freedom, from a fear mongerning, power grabbing administration. The US govenment certainly already has the power it needs to fight terrorism, if it really is that big of a threat to us at home. I have always thought that Al Quaida pretty much shot its wad on 9/11, otherwise they would have followed up. There are just too many opportunities to strike here with little effort.

By getalife

February 18, 2008 4:44 PM | Link to this

Sniveling Coward Criminal,

At least you admit you are scared.

Coward.

By Dusty

February 18, 2008 4:47 PM | Link to this

What a bunch of pure baloney!! Everybody here THINKS they know more about our homeland security than the President and the man in charge of that system. Even legal eagle (but not too busy) Bob Barr tries his best at a little political “journalism”.

Yes, we have protection and privacy just like we had before 9/11 which mean little to updated communications. Why would anyone object to instant monitoring of overseas calls from terrorists? You want to help them? Seems like it.

Another thing, these communication companies you want to “sue” were asked to cooperate with the government. They did help to protect the country. DID YOU THINK OF THAT? THEY HELPED PROTECT THE USA!

The ever present ignorance of “Bush-Hate” springs forth eternally from libs. For once, think of your country instead of your personal prejudice.

By getalife

February 18, 2008 4:59 PM | Link to this

Wow crusty,

The author is a lib?

Hahahaha, that is good one.

Typical knee jerk reaction from a gop loyalist and fake patriot.

Did you see them praise President Clinton in Kosovo?

Tell us again how you never supported him or your country in his victorious war.

Fraud.

By Bosch

February 18, 2008 5:05 PM | Link to this

Dusty,

Wow, you are talking smack about a true conservative (Mr. Barr) in line with the great Newt and Company who seems to have had the hindsight to see what a fiasco this administration has been.

I hate to tell you this Dusty, but I think Mr. Barr knows a LITTLE more about these matters than you. Where did you get your law degree? How long were you a U.S. Attorney? How long were you a U.S. Congressman?

You know, Mr. Barr was a Republican Congressman for many years, and was so viscious in his determination to have Clinton impeached.

I guess it’s just a gut reaction to hate anyone who criticizes your failed hero.

By getalife

February 18, 2008 5:10 PM | Link to this

Well, they love him in Africa.

By Bosch

February 18, 2008 5:11 PM | Link to this

I think it’s quite weird how some on the ultra right are calling those like Mr. Barr, Libertarians, when in actuality, they are true Republicans/Conservatives. Just goes to show how far gone the wingnuts are.

By Dusty

February 18, 2008 5:12 PM | Link to this

getalife, poor baby,

Go lick the boots of President Clinton like you always do. If you like perjurers and presidential impeachments, he’s your man.

The people of Kosovo have been trying for freedom many years. I congratulate them on their efforts. Americans helped them just like we have helped the Afghans and the Iraqis under President Bush. When are you going to support George W. Bush?

By myers

February 18, 2008 5:22 PM | Link to this

Dusty knows baloney, for sure.

If this put us in such danger, then remember it was Bush who threatened to veto the 21 day extension.

By sniveling Coward Criminal

February 18, 2008 5:23 PM | Link to this

That’s right, Dusty, “Mr. Barr” was a congressman and U.S. attorney. How dare you disagree with him?

By Dusty

February 18, 2008 5:25 PM | Link to this

Bosch, where did you get your degree in law? I don’t have to be an attorney to see where Barr is going. I can also blog my opinion even if you don’t like it. Go intimidate someone else.

Barr was, at one time, a Republican. Now he thinks he can stir up a little trouble and get back in politics. He thinks Bush bashing is his best bet.

Have you ever heard the expression If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, it is probably a DUCK?

Bob Barr is a duck heading for the liberal pond, his home place. Don’t fool yourself. He’s a liberal and that is why you and getalife like him.

By myers

February 18, 2008 5:27 PM | Link to this

“One other vital point: The claim that telecoms will cease to cooperate without retroactive immunity is deeply dishonest on multiple levels, but the dishonesty is most easily understood when one realizes that, under the law, telecoms are required to cooperate with legal requests from the government. They don’t have the option to “refuse.” Without amnesty, telecoms will be reluctant in the future to break the law again, which we should want. But there is no risk that they will refuse requests to cooperate with legal surveillance, particularly since they are legally obligated to cooperate in those circumstances. The claim the telcoms will cease to cooperate with surveillance requests is pure fear-mongering, and is purely dishonest.” http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/02/15/poe/index.html

By D

February 19, 2008 8:13 AM | Link to this

we never needed the addition of a Gestapo. we had all the information necessary about the upcoming attacks on 9/11 from FBI Phoenix and Minneapolis offices. bu the info. wasn’t used, was downplayed by incompetent managers who were more appointed for being ‘yes men’ than actually being able to do the job well. info. gathered didn’t make it up the ladder, we shot ourselves in the foot on that one. this is the area were the government should be focusing. what to do with good info, gathered through good investigative work. also we need to control immigration com[letely. those hijackers never needed to be here.

By Katie

February 19, 2008 8:18 AM | Link to this

With all the money the government spends, if they can’t figure out how to prevent terrorism without reading peoples e-mail and listening to phone calls then they have reached an all time low. We can send a man to the moon but we have to tap phone calls. MORONS!! perhaps we deserve what we get.

By Katie

February 19, 2008 8:19 AM | Link to this

With all the money the government spends, if they can’t figure out how to prevent terrorism without reading peoples e-mail and listening to phone calls then they have reached an all time low. We can send a man to the moon but we have to tap phone calls. MORONS!! perhaps we deserve what we get.

By Copyleft

February 19, 2008 8:36 AM | Link to this

It’s very simple, folks. The telecom companies want guaranteed immunity from lawsuits when they violate our rights.

If Congress won’t give it to them, then they’ll just obey the law, so there! And that’s simply unacceptable in the War on Terra(TM).

By SamJam

February 19, 2008 8:44 AM | Link to this

Yes indeed,

These jacka$$ clowns had 9/11 in their lap and did nothing. Now you expect these dimwits to save you chicken littles from the falling sky. Lock you up on some contrived “suspicion” is more like it. Or maybe for smoking a joint…whooooo. Danger! Why rely on these time-proven morons. With leadership like this, who needs terrorists? The U.S. is so broke it’s destroying itself. Enjoy the bread riots lumpen patriot.

By katherine watson

February 19, 2008 9:00 AM | Link to this

I f we don’t have our goverment listening in we would be in a lot of trouble. London is doing this and have prevented another bombing. Our goverment is not stupid, they know what to listen for especially after 9/11. I don’t have anything to hide in my conversations on the phone. The ones who are fussing the loudest are the ones that I am concerned about. What are they trying to hide?

By Davo

February 19, 2008 9:56 AM | Link to this

Anyone foolish enough to believe that this or subsequent administrations will limit their spying to ‘suspected terrorists’ doesn’t deserve the freedoms outlined in our Constitution.

This issue isn’t about left vs. right…it reeks of fascism and must be stopped.

RP’08

By jay

February 19, 2008 10:12 AM | Link to this

Thank you Bob.

I wish you’d come back and run against Saxby, we need that man out.

By LydiasDad

February 19, 2008 11:20 AM | Link to this

yes, the gov’t should be able to eavesdrop on phone calls made to/from known and suspected terrorists locations overseas. That’s all we’re talking about here people. The gov’t isn’t listening when you call your neighbor. The gov’t honestly doesn’t give a damn about that. Wake up people! No one’s rights have been violated. Do YOU know of anyone? Quit creating conspiracy theories. You’ll be the first to b*** when another attack happens on our soil that could have been prevented if we had just heard that one phone call to Afghanistan.

By LydiasDad

February 19, 2008 11:26 AM | Link to this

No one’s spying on your and your neighbors Ron. No one cares. You’re not that important. It’s that kind of idiocy and paranoia that puts us all in danger. The left WANTS us to treat terrorists as our own, and that’s foolish. Obviously it’s been too long since 9/11 for you and some others. I’m sure you’ll get reminded soon if the wiretaps stop, and of course, then you’ll blame the CIA for stopping the wiretaps. I know how it works.

By Kip

February 19, 2008 11:49 AM | Link to this

Dear Antineocon… Maybe I’m missing something, or perhaps it’s you. You state “the government presently has all the power it needs to conduct lawful surveillance of those who would do us harm”. The way I understand this (and it is correctly stated by Barr as well) is that the government NO LONGER has the power to monitor telephone or email transmissions if one party is OUTSIDE of the United States. Wouldn’t you agree that it’s entirely possible and actually more like quite probably that the ones plotting to do us harm are outside of our borders?? WAKE UP!!!!!

By Copyleft

February 19, 2008 3:21 PM | Link to this

I always love it when someone says “What do you have to hide from the government?” It’s a convenient way of identifying fools who are willing to surrender our hard-won liberties for the illusion of safety.

Of course, the government CAN wiretap and intercept calls and e-mails, just as they always could: within the law. By following DUE PROCESS.

The fact that there’s some measure of accountability is what’s bugging (rim shot) the Bushies. Having to follow the rules before they can eavesdrop on “dissidents” (read: Anyone Bush doesn’t like) really irks them.

And that’s our #1 defense against tyranny, a far greater threat than mere terrorism.

By blacksheep

February 19, 2008 3:43 PM | Link to this

s’matter, Bob, I say something wrong?

By Doris Hickey

February 28, 2008 12:51 PM | Link to this

I am a 65 year old Republican, and asking to have someone explain why do I care if someone is listening to my phone calls, looking at my e-mail etc.? What am I saying or doing that the govt. should care or knock on my door? You can now get online and find exactly where my house is up here in the Ga. mountains and my address and phone? Why no one asked me about this? I every year have to do these stupid taxes and tell all I have or what I totally made so the govt. does not miss one penney they can take away? I grew up with the community phones where we could pick up and hear our local neighbors talking and did we sometimes listen sure we did? I am concerned about our anti- smoking laws and I do not smoke, are you too fat so now you cannot eat maybe at McDonalds, the cameras up on the poles saying I went through a yellow light etc. Explain please what the govt. hopes to hear from everyday private phone calls or a terrorist wanting to blow us up, which should I really be concerned about? So far we have been safe WHY?