Youve Got To Be Kidding!
Active member
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2005
- Messages
- 319
- Reaction score
- 1
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
[On Senator Hatch’s proposal to lift the sunset clauses from the PATRIOT Act]
"On the House side, and I can assure in the Judiciary Committee especially, there is not going to be much traction for Sen. Hatch's idea. It'’ just not going to go anywhere on this side, nor should it, from my perspective."
"Nobody knows how this law is being used, that’s a fair knock, and if U.S. attorneys could do anything they wanted, nobody would be safe. It’s going to take a while for [law enforcement] to adjust their procedures and their safeguards, and if they are not forthcoming on what they are doing, they are going to get slapped really hard."
James Gilmore, Chair, Federal Commission on Terrorism Policy and former Virginia Governor ("Gilmore: Security Must Not Come at Freedom’s Expense," Daily Press, 5/9/2003)
"It’s almost un-American to think about challenging the law. I am not prepared to say that the application of the Patriot Act is being done improperly. But as citizens and as lawyers, we need to be watchful."
Bob Barr, former Republican member of Congress ("Both right and left condemn Patriot Act," The Hill, 5/6/2003)
"There are a lot of people who say, ‘I don’t have anything to hide.’ But every one of us is subject to being criminalized."
Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), Chair of the House Judiciary Committee ("Sensenbrenner vows to uphold sunset of added police powers," Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 4/18/2003)
[On the issue of making permanent many of the expanded police powers]
"That will be done over my dead body."
"If they want the sunset to be repealed, they're going to have to show that Patriot Act One is constitutional and has done good things."
Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), Chair of the House Judiciary Committee ("Key Republican Not Sure on Patriot Act," Associated Press, 4/16/2003)
[When asked about the future of the USA PATRIOT Act]
"I can’t answer that because the Justice Department has classified as top-secret most of what it’s doing under the Patriot Act. The burden will be on the Justice Department and whomever is attorney general at that time to convince Congress and the president to extend the Patriot Act or modify it. But because of the fact that everything has been classified as top-secret, the public debate is centering on (the act's) onerousness."
David Keene, Chairman of the American Conservative Union ("National Security vs. Civil Liberties: Finding a Balance" Press Release, American Conservative Union, 4/10/2003)
"These infringements on the individual freedoms of American citizens are not part of some plot or conspiracy to deprive us of our civil liberties. The President, the Attorney General and those interested in maximizing individual liberty need to work together to guarantee that we can defend ourselves without altering the nature of the greatest society on earth. The USA PATRIOT Act was passed in haste included ideas previously shelved by the Congress, like expanded civil forfeiture and roving wiretaps: ideas that law enforcement wanted, but could never get. When creating sound anti-terrorism legislation, the line should not be drawn at 'what is helpful for law enforcement,' but at what is needed to protect us while preserving the proper balance between preserving civil liberties and our nation's national security needs."
Ken Connor, President of the Family Research Council ("Ashcroft's Terrorism Policies Dismay Some Conservatives" The New York Times, 7/24/2002)
"It’s important that we conservatives maintain a high degree of vigilance. We need to ask ourselves the questions, ‘How would our groups fare under these new rules?"
Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), Chair of the House Judiciary Committee ("J. Edgar Hoover Is Back" Washington Times, 6/10/2002)
"The Justice Department has gone too far. [We can have security]… without throwing respect for civil liberties into the trash heap. We don't have to go back to the bad old days when the FBI was spying on people like Martin Luther King."
John W. Whitehead, President, Rutherford Institute (Forfeiting “Enduring Freedom” for “Homeland Security”: A Constitutional Analysis of the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 and the Justice Department’s Anti-Terrorism Initiatives, 1/9/02, available at: http://www.rutherford.org/documents/pdf/tri_analysis_of_usa_pat_act.pdf)
“While Congress’s anti-terrorism law—the so-called “USA Patriot Act”—may not have been designed to restrict the civil liberties of American citizens, its unintended consequences threaten the fundamental constitutional rights of people who have absolutely nothing to do with terrorism.”
“We must be mindful that while ensuring the security of our husbands, wives, children, and friends may be worth some price paid in terms of our freedoms, even small infringements over time could become major compromises that alter the American way of life.”
“Unlike previous wars, this time there may be no truce to signal the return of our freedoms. With or without sunset clauses, there is no horizon for recapturing any freedoms we relinquish today. And the U.S. Constitution, if compromised now, will, in my opinion, never again be the same.
In today’s world, once we place a barbed-wire fence around our civil liberties, they may never be freed. Yet the outcome, at least for now, is perhaps less important than understanding that we are operating in a new paradigm. Concerns for security and freedom will always conflict to some degree. And while Americans must understand that this is a new kind of war on terrorism, with no immediate end in sight, it is also a new kind of challenge to our civil liberties.
Thus, it is time for a fundamental rethinking of what we consider our basic freedoms. We may decide—and I, for one, hope we do—that certain freedoms, especially those guaranteed in the United States Constitution, are simply too precious to sacrifice, at any cost, on the altar of security.”
“To set aside the lessons of 225 years of American freedom, enshrined in the Declaration of Independence as a commitment to the truth that “All men are created equal [and] endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights...life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” as politically or practically inexpedient in a time of “war,” would be to allow the extremists to win by surrendering who we are as a nation. If the American people accept a form of police statism in the name of a promise of personal security, that would be the greatest defeat imaginable.”
Robert A. Levy, Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute, ("The USA Patriot Act: We Deserve Better" Cato Institute, 11/27/01)
"If you think the Bill of Rights is just so much scrap paper, and the separation of powers doctrine has outlived its usefulness, then the USA PATRIOT Act, passed overwhelmingly on Oct. 25, is the right recipe to deal with terrorists. On the other hand, if you are concerned about Fifth Amendment protection of due process, and Fourth Amendment safeguards against unreasonable searches and seizures, then you should be deeply troubled by the looming sacrifice of civil liberties at the altar of national security."
Phyllis Schlafly, President of the Eagle Forum (Letter to Congress, 10/2/2001, http://www.cdt.org/security/011002eagleforum.shtml)
"We can have security and civil liberties in a time of crisis. The Fourth Amendment is one of our most precious constitutional rights, and we will not hand it over to the terrorists. Proposals that give the federal government unprecedented police power to snoop and spy on law-abiding citizens must be rejected. We do not want an American society where everyone is treated as a terrorist, money launderer, drug trafficker, or criminal. Only totalitarian regimes monitor the private actions of law-abiding citizens."
"On the House side, and I can assure in the Judiciary Committee especially, there is not going to be much traction for Sen. Hatch's idea. It'’ just not going to go anywhere on this side, nor should it, from my perspective."
"Nobody knows how this law is being used, that’s a fair knock, and if U.S. attorneys could do anything they wanted, nobody would be safe. It’s going to take a while for [law enforcement] to adjust their procedures and their safeguards, and if they are not forthcoming on what they are doing, they are going to get slapped really hard."
James Gilmore, Chair, Federal Commission on Terrorism Policy and former Virginia Governor ("Gilmore: Security Must Not Come at Freedom’s Expense," Daily Press, 5/9/2003)
"It’s almost un-American to think about challenging the law. I am not prepared to say that the application of the Patriot Act is being done improperly. But as citizens and as lawyers, we need to be watchful."
Bob Barr, former Republican member of Congress ("Both right and left condemn Patriot Act," The Hill, 5/6/2003)
"There are a lot of people who say, ‘I don’t have anything to hide.’ But every one of us is subject to being criminalized."
Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), Chair of the House Judiciary Committee ("Sensenbrenner vows to uphold sunset of added police powers," Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 4/18/2003)
[On the issue of making permanent many of the expanded police powers]
"That will be done over my dead body."
"If they want the sunset to be repealed, they're going to have to show that Patriot Act One is constitutional and has done good things."
Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), Chair of the House Judiciary Committee ("Key Republican Not Sure on Patriot Act," Associated Press, 4/16/2003)
[When asked about the future of the USA PATRIOT Act]
"I can’t answer that because the Justice Department has classified as top-secret most of what it’s doing under the Patriot Act. The burden will be on the Justice Department and whomever is attorney general at that time to convince Congress and the president to extend the Patriot Act or modify it. But because of the fact that everything has been classified as top-secret, the public debate is centering on (the act's) onerousness."
David Keene, Chairman of the American Conservative Union ("National Security vs. Civil Liberties: Finding a Balance" Press Release, American Conservative Union, 4/10/2003)
"These infringements on the individual freedoms of American citizens are not part of some plot or conspiracy to deprive us of our civil liberties. The President, the Attorney General and those interested in maximizing individual liberty need to work together to guarantee that we can defend ourselves without altering the nature of the greatest society on earth. The USA PATRIOT Act was passed in haste included ideas previously shelved by the Congress, like expanded civil forfeiture and roving wiretaps: ideas that law enforcement wanted, but could never get. When creating sound anti-terrorism legislation, the line should not be drawn at 'what is helpful for law enforcement,' but at what is needed to protect us while preserving the proper balance between preserving civil liberties and our nation's national security needs."
Ken Connor, President of the Family Research Council ("Ashcroft's Terrorism Policies Dismay Some Conservatives" The New York Times, 7/24/2002)
"It’s important that we conservatives maintain a high degree of vigilance. We need to ask ourselves the questions, ‘How would our groups fare under these new rules?"
Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), Chair of the House Judiciary Committee ("J. Edgar Hoover Is Back" Washington Times, 6/10/2002)
"The Justice Department has gone too far. [We can have security]… without throwing respect for civil liberties into the trash heap. We don't have to go back to the bad old days when the FBI was spying on people like Martin Luther King."
John W. Whitehead, President, Rutherford Institute (Forfeiting “Enduring Freedom” for “Homeland Security”: A Constitutional Analysis of the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 and the Justice Department’s Anti-Terrorism Initiatives, 1/9/02, available at: http://www.rutherford.org/documents/pdf/tri_analysis_of_usa_pat_act.pdf)
“While Congress’s anti-terrorism law—the so-called “USA Patriot Act”—may not have been designed to restrict the civil liberties of American citizens, its unintended consequences threaten the fundamental constitutional rights of people who have absolutely nothing to do with terrorism.”
“We must be mindful that while ensuring the security of our husbands, wives, children, and friends may be worth some price paid in terms of our freedoms, even small infringements over time could become major compromises that alter the American way of life.”
“Unlike previous wars, this time there may be no truce to signal the return of our freedoms. With or without sunset clauses, there is no horizon for recapturing any freedoms we relinquish today. And the U.S. Constitution, if compromised now, will, in my opinion, never again be the same.
In today’s world, once we place a barbed-wire fence around our civil liberties, they may never be freed. Yet the outcome, at least for now, is perhaps less important than understanding that we are operating in a new paradigm. Concerns for security and freedom will always conflict to some degree. And while Americans must understand that this is a new kind of war on terrorism, with no immediate end in sight, it is also a new kind of challenge to our civil liberties.
Thus, it is time for a fundamental rethinking of what we consider our basic freedoms. We may decide—and I, for one, hope we do—that certain freedoms, especially those guaranteed in the United States Constitution, are simply too precious to sacrifice, at any cost, on the altar of security.”
“To set aside the lessons of 225 years of American freedom, enshrined in the Declaration of Independence as a commitment to the truth that “All men are created equal [and] endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights...life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” as politically or practically inexpedient in a time of “war,” would be to allow the extremists to win by surrendering who we are as a nation. If the American people accept a form of police statism in the name of a promise of personal security, that would be the greatest defeat imaginable.”
Robert A. Levy, Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute, ("The USA Patriot Act: We Deserve Better" Cato Institute, 11/27/01)
"If you think the Bill of Rights is just so much scrap paper, and the separation of powers doctrine has outlived its usefulness, then the USA PATRIOT Act, passed overwhelmingly on Oct. 25, is the right recipe to deal with terrorists. On the other hand, if you are concerned about Fifth Amendment protection of due process, and Fourth Amendment safeguards against unreasonable searches and seizures, then you should be deeply troubled by the looming sacrifice of civil liberties at the altar of national security."
Phyllis Schlafly, President of the Eagle Forum (Letter to Congress, 10/2/2001, http://www.cdt.org/security/011002eagleforum.shtml)
"We can have security and civil liberties in a time of crisis. The Fourth Amendment is one of our most precious constitutional rights, and we will not hand it over to the terrorists. Proposals that give the federal government unprecedented police power to snoop and spy on law-abiding citizens must be rejected. We do not want an American society where everyone is treated as a terrorist, money launderer, drug trafficker, or criminal. Only totalitarian regimes monitor the private actions of law-abiding citizens."
