[Vision2020] Butch Otter, Arlen Specter & Sandra Day O'Connor Have What In Common?

Ted Moffett starbliss at gmail.com
Sat Jul 1 20:13:33 PDT 2006


Matt et. al.

I gave facts in the words of Sandra Day O'Connor regarding her serious
concerns that the attack on the judiciary coming from the Bush
administration and/or US Congress is a threat to our democracy.  Did you
read the quotes from her speech that I referenced with a web link?  How can
you say I need to come up with facts when I present facts that you ignore?
In case you want to address these facts O'Connor mentions in her speech:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1729350,00.html
------------
It seems you dismiss the facts I present without even addressing them, then
announce that I need to come up with facts.  How can reasonable discussion
proceed based on this approach?

You also attempt to dismiss my concerns about attacks on our democracy by
using oversimplifying labeling, calling me "left sided."  Sandra Day
O'Connor was a republican appointee (by Ronald Reagan) to the US Supreme
court who is widely regarded as a moderate conservative, not "left sided,"
to use your wording.  How can my referencing her opinions express "left
sided" thinking, whatever that is?

I am sure you are aware that Idaho Congressman Butch Otter has opposed
aspects of the Patriot Act.  Is he "left sided?"  Certainly not.  Yet he
also finds aspects of the current republican administration's agenda to be
over reaching, and a threat to civil liberties:

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPrint.asp?Page=%5CNation%5Carchive%5C200309%5CNAT20030925a.html
-----------

In fact, a thoroughgoing conservative approach to politics is very definite
on its concerns to limit the power of government and protect individual
civil rights.  Concern over the erosion of civil rights the current
republican administration is pushing is thus very much a truly conservative
issue.

>From Republican Senator Arlen Specter:

http://www.brennancenter.org/programs/downloads/Judges%20Letter12.7.05.pdf.
------------------------------
I just listened to testimony on C-Span from Arlen Specter, a Republican
Senator and judiciary committee chair, expressing his firm disagreement with
President Bush's orders establishing military tribunals to try Guantanamo
detainees beyond the review of the judiciary and the US Supreme Court, which
we all know just decided to block Bush's decision.  Here is more evidence
that the Bush administration is trying to limit the power and independence
of the judiciary, giving more credence to Sandra Day O'Connor's concerns.
There is talk among legal experts that this US Supreme Court decision is
potentially a land mark decision defending the US Constitution from
overreaching by the executive branch to limit the judiciary, even in a time
of war.

Of course the US is not a now a dictatorship.  But democracy requires
constant vigilance by its citizens to prevent the slow erosion of rights
that could lead to a dictatorship.  And anyone who announces this could
never happen here, and does not respond to the current erosion of civil
rights, is asking to have their freedoms taken away.

And now for more conservative quotes expressing concerns over the erosion of
civil rights being pushed by the Bush administration:

Conservative Voices Against PATRIOT Act II (4/15/2004)

*Bob Barr, former Republican member of Congress ("Subpoena plan stirs
alarm," **Atlanta Journal Constitution,  **9/26/2003)*

[On the President's request to give law enforcement administrative
subpoenas]:

"This moves us in the direction of the executive law enforcement power
extending to the point where they can do whatever they want, whenever they
want, however they want to do it? All in the name of fighting terrorism."

*Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) (**CNN: Lou Dobbs Tonight**, 9/25/2003)*

"I supported the Patriot Act that President Bush signed into law. I thought
that was necessary. Some of the proposals that have been floated now to
Patriot Act II amendments to it, I think we better be very careful with our
constitutional rights there."

*Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), Chair of the House Judiciary Committee
("Sensenbrenner not eager to expand subpoena powers," **Milwaukee Journal
Sentinel, ** 9/16/2003)*

[On the President's request to give law enforcement broad new powers]:

"I don't see an urgency involved in any of these things. It will be subject
to extensive hearings?Is the judiciary committee going to drop everything on
its schedule to do this? The answer is no."

[On the President's request to give law enforcement administrative
subpoenas]:

Sensenbrenner said he was "particularly troubled" by the subpoena power
requested by the administration.

"You can't in one breath defend (the) Patriot Act, saying (intelligence)
warrants are reviewed by a judge, then in the second breath say we'll have
administrative subpoenas."

*Steve Lilienthal, Free Congress Foundation ("Hatch alarms right over
anti-terror act," **Salt Lake Tribune**, 9/15/2003)*

[Responding to provisions of a draft narco-terrorism bill, the VICTORY Act]

"We're not supportive of illegal drugs, but we would say the federal
government has plenty of resources already on hand for this. The government
was seeking a lot of these powers before 9-11, but after the attacks, they
seized upon terrorism as a way to get what they had always wanted."

*Paul Weyrich, Chairman, Free Congress Foundation ("Hatch alarms right over
anti-terror act," **Salt Lake Tribune**, 9/15/2003)*

[Responding to provisions of a draft narco-terrorism bill, the VICTORY Act]

"We are concerned not about Ashcroft, but about a possible subsequent
attorney general, named by President Hillary Rodham Clinton, who might
define as terrorists those of us who peacefully oppose government polices."


*Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, board member,
National Rifle Association and American Conservative Union ("Hatch alarms
right over anti-terror act," **Salt Lake Tribune**, 9/15/2003)*

[Responding to Sen. Orin Hatch's (R-UT) pledge to grant President Bush's
request to expand law enforcement powers beyond the Patriot Act]

"That's like somebody saying they'll raise taxes indefinitely. Why would he
want to give the federal government indefinite power?"

"These federal prosecutors are like teenage boys on prom night who have one
thing on their mind and they want more of it. It's Congress' job to
sometimes tell them no. [House Judiciary Chairman Rep. James] Sensenbrenner
has certainly been more aggressive in that than Hatch, unless Hatch is doing
it quietly behind closed doors."

*Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), member of the Senate Judiciary Committee ("Bush
Seeks to Expand Access to Private Data," **New York Times**, 9/14/2003)*

[On the President's request to give law enforcement administrative
subpoenas]:

"I'm concerned that it may be too sweeping."

[On the President's request to help terrorism suspects without bail]:

"The Justice Department has gone too far. You have to have a reason to
detain."

*James Gilmore, Chair, Federal Commission on Terrorism Policy and former
Virginia Governor ("Gilmore Cautious Over State Of Security And Civil
Liberties," **National Journal: Technology Daily **, 5/12/2003) *

"I am not prepared to say that the [USA] PATRIOT Act is being used in any
unlawful way, but as citizens, we have a duty to be watchful of that,
particularly if PATRIOT Act II comes along."

*Bob Barr, former Republican member of Congress ("Unusual coalition of left
and right says civil liberties under attack," **Atlanta Journal Constitution
* *, 5/11/2003)*

"It looked like a proposal. It smelled like a proposal and it quacked like a
proposal. Therefore, I think it is a proposal and a very serious one.
Anybody that is lulled into a sense that this is not going to be a real
battle is deluding themselves."

*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)*

Stated it was "way premature" for Congress to consider the PATRIOT Act II.

*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."

*Bob Barr, former Republican member of Congress ("GOP Calls for Wider Powers
to Track Citizens," **Seattle Post-Intelligencer**, 4/11/2003)*

"Already, government investigative powers have been dramatically expanded.
Already, intelligence is working under the flawed premise that to get the
bad guys you need to spy unmercifully on the good guys."

*Lori Waters, Executive Director, Eagle Forum ("GOP Calls for Wider Powers
to Track Citizens," **Seattle Post-Intelligencer**, 4/11/2003)*

[Passage would edge the country closer to a philosophy] "where there are two
types of people: the caught and the uncaught. We see a growing effort of the
government to tag and track everything we do. We don't think these are the
most effective way of preventing terrorists from getting on planes and
blowing them up."

*Stephen Thayer, American Conservative Union Executive Director,
("Conservative Backlash Provisions of 'Patriot II' Draft Worry Those on
Right," ABCNews.com, 3/12/2003) *

*"*There's no question the government has to have the tools to protect us
from terror attacks and to prosecute those who want to harm us. But having
said that, the American Conservative Union wants to be sure that Congress
takes into account the civil liberties of the citizens and through their
deliberations reaches the proper balance between law enforcement and
protecting citizens' rights."

*Christopher Pyle, former U.S. Army intelligence officer, served on the
Church Committee, ("Conservative Backlash Provisions of 'Patriot II' Draft
Worry Those on Right," ABCNews.com, 3/12/2003)*

"I don't think the Fourth Amendment exists anymore. I think it's been buried
by the Patriot Act and some of the court rulings that have been handed down.
We need a requiem mass for the Fourth Amendment, because it's gone."

*Michael Hammond, Gun Owners of America consultant, ("Conservative Backlash
Provisions of 'Patriot II' Draft Worry Those on Right," ABCNews.com,
3/12/2003)*

"We have some serious concerns and part of our concerns spring from the
fact that some of our members are part of the so-called militia movement.
We're looking into whether some of these groups or even the NRA [National
Rifle Association] could be designated terrorists by this or a future
administration."

"We're going to make our case why basically suspending the Constitution
could have an adverse effect on conservatives, either under this
administration or under a future administration? All of a sudden it became
apparent that a lot of people could be made noncitizens. We're very
concerned about that. The whole thing is Orwellian."

*Nat Hentoff, Syndicated Columnist, ("Sweet Land of Liberty," **The
Washington Times**, 2/24/2003)*

"Attorney General John Ashcroft, with support from President Bush, has
increasingly forgotten that the Constitution is ours - not just his. The
Center for Public Integrity has now exposed Ashcroft's sequel to the Patriot
Act for what it is: an assault on the Bill of Rights drafted without
consultation with Congress."

"I can't, within a single column, detail every abuse against the Bill of
Rights contained in the Justice Department draft."

"The bill says, an 'intent to relinquish nationality need not be manifested
in words, but can

be inferred from conduct.' Who will do the inferring? An employee of
Ashcroft? The same Ashcroft who has accused his critics of '(scaring)
peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty.' This section of the bill
means that if you were to send a check for the legal activities of an
organization and, unbeknownst to you, it has been labeled as a terrorist
group, then you could be deported. Deportations of American citizens are not
'phantoms of lost liberty.'"

"We the People' must turn to Congress to protect us from this out-of-control
Justice Department, since the president has yet to keep it within the bounds
of the Constitution and its principles. Clearly, they can't be trusted to
solely interpret the Constitution - something the Constitution doesn't give
them the power to do anyway."

*Bob Barr, former Republican Member of Congress, ("Ashcroft wants even
more," **The News & Observer**, 2/20/2003) *

The proposed legislation seeks "all sorts of powers far beyond what any
normal person would deem necessary to fight terrorists acts."

*Ernie Blazar, spokesman for Republican Senator Christopher Bond, member of
the Select Committee on Intelligence, ("Secret Arrests in the U.S.?," **The
News-Leader **, 2/16/2003) *

While the senator has "a blanket policy" of not commenting on early drafts
of legislation, Blazar noted that Bond would have "some trouble" with any
proposal that would allow secret arrests of U.S. citizens.

*Larry Klayman , Judicial Watch, ("Fighting terrorism is one thing,
subverting Americans' freedom is another," **Asheville Citizen-Times**,
2/14/2003) * *[on the issue of secrecy behind PATRIOT II] *

*"*We're very concerned about it. This is a case where left and right agree.
... True conservatives don't act this way."

*Bill O'Reilly, Host, Fox News: The O'Reilly Factor, ("Does the Domestic
Security Enhancement Act Violate Rights?" **The O'Reilly Factor**,
2/13/2003) *

"First of all, if passed, they can come up to you and me and demand a DNA
sample for no reason at all other than we're suspected terrorists? They want
to go up to you and me, no reason, all right, and say, hey, give me that DNA
sample. I don't want that."

"But this, if passed, sends a chilling signal that I can be, and you can be
pulled over, and anybody watching could be pulled over. And a cop could take
you right out of the car and say, 'Hey, give me your fingerprints right now.
For no reason at all other than we suspect that you're a terrorist.' Not
going to fly with me."

"Now, the wiretap. This is another thing. Now -- and believe me, I'm kind of
with you in the sense that I want the government to have the tools to
protect us. I mean, I'm not the ACLU poster boy, as you know, OK? But now
they want to have a window where they don't have to explain to anybody why
they're wiretapping anybody else."

"The president should have [emergency powers], as Abraham Lincoln had during
the Civil War, in times of emergency stress or emergency to make these
things happen. Just to give it to the attorney general, no. I mean, look,
Janet Reno was the attorney general, John Mitchell was

the attorney general. I don't want these people to have this power. And this
guy Ashcroft is throwing sheets over statues. Come on."

"I trust an elected official like the president, not an appointee."

[On loss of citizenship due to affiliation with a terrorist organization]

Yes, and that's fine with me. And I would say foreign terrorist groups and
domestic that are defined in writing, I would say OK. But not the way it is
now. So they've got a lot of work to do on this. Because I don't want people
pulling a hair out of my head just because they don't like me because I'd be
bald in two seconds."

*Errol Louis, Editorial, (**New York Sun**, 2/10/2003)*

"The 80-page document is a catalog of authoritarianism that runs counter to
the basic tenets of modern democracy."

*Andrew Napolitano, Fox News Senior Judicial Analyst, ("Analysis With Andrew
Napolitano," **Fox News: The Big Story With John Gibson**, 2/10/2003) *

"Well, it is wrong to assume that a person gives up their citizenship
because they installed a telephone in an office building that happens to be
used by a terrorist organization. The problem with the statute is, it
doesn't -- it makes it easy for the government, so easy it's
unconstitutional, critics say, because it doesn't require the government to
prove that the person intended to aid the terrorist organization? So the
government would have itself -- be given enough power, declare a person
aided a terrorist organization, strip them of their American citizenship,
and deport them, without a trial, and without judicial review."

[Question: Right. But why do you find this so personally threatening?
They're not going to come after you, judge, or me.]

"Well, I don't think they're going to -- they're going to after you or me,
even though we at times have given the attorney general some elbows in the
ribs when we think he deserved it. It is personally offensive because the
whole purpose of our Constitution is to guarantee liberty, it's to guarantee
that things like this will not happen in stressful times."

[Question: But we confer upon people who ask it, who come here. We confer
the citizenship upon them. What you're saying is that once we realize they
came here with nefarious motives, we can't take it back?]

"That's correct. They have to be tried and prosecuted like anybody else,
because it is too much power, critics argue, in the hands of the government
just to strip citizenship and punish without trial
----------
Vision2020 Post by Ted Moffett
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20060701/740f5749/attachment-0001.htm


More information about the Vision2020 mailing list