J. Bradley Jansen, the former congressional staffer to Ron Paul who wrote the 2002 Liberty magazine article protesting the Libertarian Party's campaign to defeat Bob Barr in the Republican primary that year (see "Bob Barr's Real Record (II))", revisits the controversy in a new article for the American Spectator, published May 23.
Barr is currently running for the presidential nomination of the Libertarian Party, while Paul is seeking that of the Republican Party. Jansen is currently the campaign manager for Ron Paul Republican Vern McKinley, who is running for Congress in Virgina's 10th District.
Jansen, who got to know Barr during his four years as Paul's banking staffer, reveals in the Spectator article that he left the Libertarian Party in 2002 over that issue:
Six years ago, I parted ways with the Libertarian Party over its misguided attempt to defeat Bob Barr in the Republican -- that's right, Republican -- primary. Just as many Libertarians cling to their pipe dream that they had a role in defeating him despite evidence showing their efforts backfired, many now harbor similar delusions about Barr himself.
Jansen also deals with several of the issues raised in the new attacks on Barr from some of his opponents in the Libertarian race -- notably George Phillies and Mary Ruwart -- the most interesting of which is his treatment of Barr's 2001 vote for the USA PATRIOT (Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism) Act [The "Patriot Act".]
Contrary to the claims being circulated on-line that Barr supported the Patriot Act, Jansen claims that Barr opposed that Act from the beginning:
True to his libertarian instincts, Barr was initially skeptical of President George W. Bush's anti-terrorism proposal and earned the ire of Karl Rove for speaking up against it.
That claim is supported by a news report from the time from ZDNet News:
After the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Barr entered the spotlight as the Judiciary committee wrestled with President Bush's USA Patriot Act. Barr initially denounced the bill as handing police too much surveillance powers, and then ended up embracing it. "We were able to eliminate or severely limit the most egregious violations of Americans' civil liberties that were contained in the original proposal," Barr said after the vote. (Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, another pro-privacy politico, opposed the final bill.)
Jansen's further claim that Barr "earned the ire of Karl Rove" for his opposition was confirmed by Wayne Madsen in his definitive article "Exposing Karl Rove," which was reprinted in 2005 on liberal blog Daily Kos:
Bush's binary view of "good and evil" and "friend and enemy" sits well with the Rove strategy. Georgia's conservative but libertarian-minded Representative Bob Barr found out about this in last August's [2002] primary when his GOP primary opponent John Linder began spreading around stories that Barr was "soft on terrorism." Because Barr was skeptical about a number of aspects of the Bush-Ashcroft USA PATRIOT Act, he became a target for the Rove machine.
(Interesting that the Libertarian Party and Karl Rove worked as one to defeat a common enemy in that primary.)
Jansen answers the question: If Barr did not support the Act, why did he vote for it? His answer is revealing:
[Barr] worked with a broad coalition of groups -- including conservatives, libertarians, leftists, privacy activists, and even drug policy reform groups -- to protect our civil liberties in the debate.
And here's the important part: He voted for the bill in the Judiciary committee because we needed him to. Only members who voted for it could be on the conference committee that "reconciled" the House and Senate versions.
When different versions of a bill are passed by the two houses of Congress, a "conference committee" is the joint committee of both houses that decides on the final ("reconciled") wording of the Act the President signs into law. As Jansen puts it, "The conference committee is where the real evil takes place."
As previously reported, Barr was offered a deal: if he voted for the Act, sunset provisions would be inserted into the sections he was questioning in the version before the House of Representatives; meaning that those sections of the law would automatically expire in 2005. However, no such provisions were added to the version that passed the Senate.
That meant that Barr (or someone else) had to be on the Patriot Act conference committee to push for the sunset provisions to go into the reconciled version; and that someone (as Jansen notes) had to be someone who voted for the Act.
So Barr accepted the deal, voted for the Act, and got to serve on the conference committee.
The USA PATRIOT Act conference committee suffered the stubbornness of Bob Barr fighting the worst of it and enacted some provisions to sunset some compromises in exchange for his support.
Sure, fellow Republicans Ron Paul and Bob Ney joined "Butch" Otter who spoke eloquently against its passage on the House floor and voted against the final passage, but none of them were on the Judiciary committee. None of them had the opportunity and responsibility to fight over the devilish details.
Thankfully, we had a former CIA agent and prosecutor on our side who knew the ins and outs and the ramifications of the proposals to fight for our privacy and civil liberties. He was our "man on the inside" for us to share our proposals. Some of those proposals were adopted and became law.
As the anti-Patriot Act coalition's "inside man," Barr was able to ensure that its most egregious parts would cease to be law on Dec. 31, 2005. However, George Bush was re-elected in the 2004 elections, and those provisions were renewed for another four years in 2005.
Jansen notes that Barr now regrets his choice:
It's telling that Barr doesn't think he did enough to safeguard our liberties. He now regrets the USA PATRIOT Act vote that he exchanged for Bush's promises. Just as most Americans gave President Bush some benefit of the doubt in those hectic and fearful days immediately after the terrorist attacks, Barr believed the president when he said that the powers in the anti-terrorism bill would be a ceiling not a floor.
However, he points out that others' judgement has been more charitable:
"Barr made it respectable to question the giveaway of powers to government in the civil liberties area in a very, very difficult time in America's history. And that's certainly worth a lot," says Fred Smith, who runs the libertarian Competitive Enterprise Institute. "Even though he didn't totally succeed, he was one of the voices raised. He did this from a southern state and from a conservative perspective, and that was very useful."
Barr has continued to oppose the Act through several organizations: the American Conservative Union, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Libertarian Party (which he joined in 2006), and the American Freedom Agenda (which he co-founded, along with Bruce Fein, David Keene and Richard Viguerie, in 2007.)
------
J. Bradley Jansen, "Enemy of the Good," The American Spectator, May 23, 2008.
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13262
Declan McCullagh, "Net privacy loses a voice," ZDNet News, Aug 26, 2002.
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-955298.html
roseeriter, "I Want Karl Rove's Head (on a platter)," Daily Kos, Feb 08, 2005.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/2/8/12425/22901
"About Us," American Freedom Agenda (accessed May, 24, 2008.)
http://www.americanfreedomagenda.org/About/default.html
http://www.nolanchart.com/article3852.html
http://www.nolanchart.com/article3849.html
-
©2008 George Dance, all rights reserved. You must have written permission from the author in order to republish this work.
Published: Saturday, May 24, 2008
Last modified: Tuesday, August 12, 2008
The views expressed in this article are those of George Dance only and do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. George Dance is solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Report violation by George Dance of Nolan Chart LLC's terms of use policy.
| More Articles By George Dance |
Reader Comments:
Posted By: Bill Moore
Date: 2008-05-25 09:58:46
Bob Barr is former CIA? And he's willing to be the "inside man"? This doesn't give me a very good feeling when he's running for the top spot in the Libertarian Party.
Posted By: Omegis13
Date: 2008-05-25 10:47:07
DEFINITELY a good article for LP members to read regarding his stance on the PATRIOT ACT. Just goes to show you that there are always at least two sides to a story. Glad to see the other side of this is getting brought to light WITH SUPPORTING ARTICLES! Keep up the good work!
Omegis13
Posted By: DB Harshaw
Date: 2008-05-25 15:41:32
You see, Bob Barr was just "pretending" to support the so-called "P.A.T.R.I.O.T" Act... and by adding those "sunset" provisions (and thus making the whole thing seem like it was just an "emergency" thing -- say like the "Alien and Sedition" act). Never mind that this type of "compromise" mitigates the egregious nature of something that is STILL unconstitutional, and therefor a blatant violation of his oath of office... Plus, this way he could still "pretend" to support the thing and thus NOT earn the ire of constituents (i.e. donors) in the future.
And of course, never mind as well that such "mitigations" and "sunset provisions" make it much less likely to be challenged and actually RULED as unconstitutonal (because the issue should be "moot" before it reaches the courts... see it's just a "temporary" thing for the duration of the "emergency" that's all -- you know, just like those Japanese & German internment camps were during WWII -- they weren't REALLY a racist unconstitutional detainment violation of the Bill of Rights,i they were just a "compromise" that was necessary in that time of "emergency").
Fraudulent politics as usual !
Fortunately Mr. Barr is now almost completely irrelevent, his LP run will be nothing but a "Milk Run" for the money.
Posted By: Darel
Date: 2008-05-25 18:34:59
So I'm suppose to accept this article as fact and is the final version of truth? I'm a long term GOP member who supports Ron Paul. I have reviwed many of Barr's co-sponsership of bills and bills presented on thomas.org and based on his history I will not vote for Barr. I have however noticed another man whom I know our nation can benefit from and that is Chuck Baldwin. It's time se start seeing each party except for the communist party be able to present and support it's party so the people can see what ever person stands for. Ron, would have had the opportunity to have become president if it were not for the corrupt media. I look foreward to find out who the LP canidate will be. REgardless who it is I hope they will support Paul.
Posted By: blakmira
Date: 2008-05-25 23:52:11
Well, isn't that special. Mr. former CIA-member Bob Barr has a cute little excuse and story behind why he just "had" to vote for the Patriot Act.
So, now what's his excuse for CURRENTLY still supporting the War on Drugs? Yes, Barr, why DO you support financial aid to Colombia to continue the ridiculous neocon War on Drugs, hmmmm?? Yeh, sure, none of us even suspect you are a neocon plant...
Bob Barr is something to wipe off your shoe that you've stepped in. ***FLUSH*** [the sound of Libertarian toilets flushing their party after hearing Bob Barr has become the official nominuee]
Posted By: uhoh
Date: 2008-05-26 10:17:38
The Libertarian Party might want to send itself a funeral wreath with the nomination of Barr as their candidate - many more will leave the party now. Quite possibly more than already left to become Ron Paul Republicans. Barr was not a logical choice. It's a shame that the party of constitutional principles elected a man who has no respect or understanding of the Constitution or the principles. His votes and recent interviews demonstrate this vividly.
On a bright note, the nomination of Barr makes me even more happy that I registered as a Republican for this election. I'm sure many other former Libertarians share in my relief... I can't imagine being put in the positition Libertarians have just been put into. Heartbreaking and mind-blowing choice of candidate.
Posted By: Benjamin
Date: 2008-05-26 11:32:13
Ditto to what DB Harshaw said(well said).
I thought the Harry Browne years were dark ones for the LP for far lesser reasons, this is a whole new level of suckage.
The only very slightly possible bright side coming out of his nomination is that this could put pressure on the republican party to not make McCain official, because Barr would definetly bleed critical votes from McCain, there is no question about that. Whereas I doubt he would bleed much if any from Ron Paul(and one would think would back out entirely and tell everyone to vote for Paul were that to happen).
However, I am a realist above all else, and I understand perfectly that the chances of that happening are very slim(like, I have a better chance of winning the lotto this week). One can hope I guess.
Posted By: Nicolas
Date: 2008-05-26 17:01:06
The political machinations of Ron Paul & Co. have a habit of backfiring. This dubious tactic reminds me of the reported plan by Rockwell, Rothbard, and Paul to attract the racist fringe. That brilliant plan supposedly led to the disgusting newsletters for which Paul was justly excoriated.
Posted By: George Dance
Date: 2008-05-30 07:52:33
uhoh: "On a bright note, the nomination of Barr makes me even more happy that I registered as a Republican for this election."
I'm glad you're happy with your own presumptive nominee, then. Few others seem to be.
Posted By: Keith
Date: 2008-07-17 19:29:01
If the "patriot act" was Barr's only transgression, this nonsense might be somewhat believable, but the Barr's track record of supporting the neocon agenda is endless. This Barr guy shows up and makes a bit of libertarian sounding noise, and then we are suppose to forgive him of all he has done over many years as an establishment politician. No way!!
Posted By: Jah Red
Date: 2008-07-18 12:09:09
Lets also not forget that Barr was the cheif executive for the IRS's e-file program..
Everything he voted for he makes up some sort of excuse, like "I was misled." Sort of reminds me of the trial about some village in Veit Nam were the excuse was i was only following orders.
Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinch both received the same info as Barr and neither of them voted for either the War in Iraq or the Patriot Act ..
Barr your excuses don't change your performance!!!!
Your excuses don't bring back the lives that have been lost in Iraq whos blood is now on your hands.
As someone who had given his Oath of Office it is his responsibility to make sure the info is correct before he sends any citizen to fight a war where they put their life on the line by his vote.. Evidence of his violation of his Oath of Office.
He supported a war without an Official Declaration of War by Congress, in violation of Article I of the US Const. More evidence that he has violated his Oath of Office..