Bob Barr in Reason magazine

On Civil Rights: Took post with ACLU based on fundamental common interests

Q: 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.

A: It started with the initial anti-terrorism bill in 1996. That probably was the first time tha 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, and the national driver’s license. I had always known them to be a 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, we both realized 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 agree to disagree on the other issues.

Source: Jesse Walker, in Reason Magazine, “right wing of the ACLU” Dec 1, 2003

On Drugs: In Congress, a strong supporter of the War on Drugs

After entering the House of Representatives in 1995, Georgia Republican Bob Barr acquired a reputation as one of the most conservative members of Congress. It was Barr who in 1996 wrote the Defense of Marriage Act; it was Barr who protested when he learned the military allowed soldiers to practice Wicca. A former federal prosecutor, a firm social conservative, and a strong supporter of the War on Drugs, Barr doesn’t fit most people’s image of a civil libertarian. Source: Jesse Walker, in Reason Magazine, “right wing of the ACLU” Dec 1, 2003

On Foreign Policy: Neocon aggression opens can of worms: others will do same

Q: You wrote that neoconservatives want to “rely on the raw and aggressive use of military power to a unique degree.” Where have they called for using military power where you’d prefer not to use force?

A: One place where this already seems to be coming back to haunt us is the Israeli call--temporarily suspended, but it could be resurrected--to go after Arafat and take him out, to kill him. It’s somewhat inconsistent for us to counsel the Israelis not to do that when that’s precisely the tack we seem to take in Iraq. This seems to open, to some extent, perhaps, a can of worms--where other nations will take the same standard and we might not like it.

Source: Jesse Walker, in Reason Magazine, “right wing of the ACLU” Dec 1, 2003

On Homeland Security: Loud Congressional critic of government’s abuses of power

In his eight years in Congress (he failed to win re-election in 2002), Barr was one of Washington’s loudest critics of the federal government’s abuses of power, taking the lead in investigating the raid on Waco and in opposing Bill Clinton’s efforts to undermine due process in terrorism cases. Since leaving Congress, Barr has taken an advisory post with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and started writing a column for Atlanta’s alternative weekly Creative Loafing--neither ordinarily a haven for Republicans. While many on the right have fallen behind the Bush administration even as it betrays their purported principles, Barr represents another set of conservatives’ growing discomfort with the administration’s erosion of individual liberty. Source: Jesse Walker, in Reason Magazine, “right wing of the ACLU” Dec 1, 2003

On Homeland Security: Regrets voting for the USA PATRIOT Act

Q: You complained that “the attorney general spends his time and prestige traveling the heartland to sow fear and to endeavor to limit public discourse over the most basic of our freedoms.” When the Senate confirmed Attorney General John Ashcroft, did yo ever expect to be describing him like that?

A: No. This has been something that I never would have anticipated two and a half years ago.

Q: Do you regret voting for the USA PATRIOT Act?

A: 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.

Source: Jesse Walker, in Reason Magazine, “right wing of the ACLU” Dec 1, 2003

On Homeland Security: Matrix system and TIA are privacy-invasive programs

The USA PATRIOT Act 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.

We have now the emergence of the CAPPS II system--the airline passenger profiling system. We have, apparently, a number of state efforts that are being funded by the federal government, such as the one that just came to light called the Matrix system, down in Florida, where the feds are providing grant monies to state agencies to set up programs similar to TIA.

Source: Jesse Walker, in Reason Magazine, “right wing of the ACLU” Dec 1, 2003

On Homeland Security: Military tribunals ok, if monitored & defined

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

A: 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’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.

Source: Jesse Walker, in Reason Magazine, “right wing of the ACLU” Dec 1, 2003

The above quotations are from Columns and news articles in Reason magazine. Click here for other excerpts from Columns and news articles in Reason magazine. Click here for other excerpts by Bob Barr. Click here for a profile of Bob Barr.
Please consider a donation to OnTheIssues.org! Click for details -- or send donations to: 1770 Mass Ave. #630, Cambridge MA 02140 E-mail: submit@OnTheIssues.org (We rely on your support!)

Page last updated: Dec 24, 2023