Skip to main content

Where it starts to become harder to portray Bob Barr as pursuing the neo-con vote

. . . with the comments of the three major candidates for President on the Supreme Court's decision granting habeas corpus to detainees at Gitmo:

Senator John McCain:

"I think it's one of the worst decisions in history," McCain said. "It opens up a whole new chapter and interpretation of our constitution."

McCain is one of the authors of the 2006 Military Commissions Act which set up procedures for the handling of detainees. The act denied the detainees access to federal courts.

The Supreme Court on Thursday said that provision of the law violated the constitution.

McCain on Thursday said he had not read the ruling and reserved his criticism. But on Friday, speaking to about 1,500 people at a town hall meeting in Pemberton, N.J., he attacked the decision, saying the law he helped write "made it very clear that these are enemy combatants, they are not citizens, they do not have the rights of citizens."


Senator Barack Obama:

Barack Obama said of today’s Supreme Court ruling that the detainees at GITMO have the right to challenge their detention in civilian court, “The Court's decision is a rejection of the Bush Administration's attempt to create a legal black hole at Guantanamo - yet another failed policy supported by John McCain.”

He called the decision an important step towards regaining our credibility as a nation committed to the rule of law, “This is an important step toward reestablishing our credibility as a nation committed to the rule of law, and rejecting a false choice between fighting terrorism and respecting habeas corpus. Our courts have employed habeas corpus with rigor and fairness for more than two centuries, and we must continue to do so as we defend the freedom that violent extremists seek to destroy.”


Former Congressman Bob Barr:

With these two decisions the Court “has reaffirmed one of the foundations of American liberties, the historic writ of habeas corpus—which requires the authorities to show cause for an arrest,” explains Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party candidate for president. The justices did not order anyone released, instead leaving that decision up to the trial judge after a full and fair hearing.

Barr, who since leaving Congress in January 2003 has become one of the nation’s leading advocates for protecting privacy and civil liberties, explained that the decision “is as much a victory for the American people as it is for any particular litigant.” The right to habeas corpus is enshrined in the Constitution: “by allowing a defendant to seek relief in court, habeas corpus is one of the most important legal limits on government,” explains Barr.

However, he observes, these decisions, though welcome, “are only the start in a long process of reasserting our liberties.”


Maybe (I'm still skeptical) Bob Barr really is interested in running as a Libertarian, not as some kind of neo-con Ralph Nader.

Which could be more interesting than anyone yet thinks. . . .

Comments

Anonymous said…
Help give Americans a choice, pledge to donate on July 2nd 2008, barrbomb.com
How can someone who was so wrong about so many htings suddenly be so right about them? Barr seems to have discovered the correct path only as a consequence of wanting people to revive his political career.
Anonymous said…
I am with Waldo on this one. Perhaps he had an epiphany? Who knows. At least it is good to hear someone talk about reasserting our civil liberties and rights.
Tyler Nixon said…
Brian's a closet Obama lover...

On Barr, converts are often the most zealous and committed.

I knew Barr whem I worked for Gingrich back in '95. I was shocked when he went so astray in the post-Gingrich era.

But I know that he is no poseur. He means it. Just ask Bill Clinton.
Anonymous said…
I want to believe in Bob Barr. Why did he handpick a neocon for VP?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/021315.html
Anonymous said…
The link that I posted to Wayne Root's neocon rant doesn't work. This one works:
http://tiny.cc/TsPs4

It's hard for me to believe in Barr after he handpicked a neocon VP.
Craig,
I have no problem understanding why he picked Root as VP: it guaranteed his victory of Mary Ruwart. With Root's direct endorsement, it was a sure thing that a majority of his supporters would go to Barr.

Ironically, most Prez candidates pick a VP to help them carry a key state or key demographic. Since no potential VP candidate on the LP ticket could possibly do that, Barr went for one whose endorsement tied up the nomination.

All of which goes back to Waldo's comment: "Barr seems to have discovered the correct path only as a consequence of wanting people to revive his political career."
Anonymous said…
I don't understand why Barr's supposed "pandering" on civil liberties issues in an electoral situation is significantly different than Barack Obama's obvious pandering on gay rights that he's been conducting to attempt to win gay votes.

Nobody honestly believes Obama plans to revoke DOMA or end the military's anti-gay policy. He's repeatedly turned down opportunities to sponsor companion legislation in the Senate to do both of those things.

Now, if Barry O gets a free pass from Dems over this issue, why doesn't Barr get similar treatment?

This is a question my friends in the Democratic Party hate addressing. They're not keen on explaining why I am supposed to be skeptical of Barr but not equally skeptical of Obama. So as a Libertarian, I put faith in my own party just like they put faith in theirs -- and I suspect that my faith is better-placed. ;)

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

Libertarian National Committee Deathwatch Part 1

As the LNC continues to lurch towards collapse, with the latest news of mass layoffs at HQ, I've decided to begin tracking those things leading the national party to irrelevance, even as state and local parties gain power. As news, rumors and rhetoric break out, I shall chronicle them in this ongoing series at Delaware Libertarian. Organizations approaching failure have a number of characteristics. One of the most striking is renunciation of their purpose and effort to reinvent themselves as a "me-too" provider of services in the marketplace. In this, the LNC has been on a collision course with destiny for a while now. Recently, for example, it hired Republican Party web site developer TerraEclipse to redesign the LNC web site . Terra created a web site very similar to those of the clients it brags most about -- far-right Republican conservatives like Tom McClintock and BJ Lawson. A quick look at the web site they built for the LNC is instructive. The tagline on the ...

The disturbing decline of the Delaware blogosphere: a very unfortunate Around the Horn (even if it's not Friday)

I've noticed a change in my own blog-checking habits over the past several weeks, and I don't know if it's just me or the reality of the last month of a divisive political campaign. I automatically used to check out Delawareliberal first and several times a day, because it was where I could find edgy, thought-provoking, and (dare I say it) funny banter going on. These days visit several other spots first, and my visits to DL are both shorter and less engaged. Why? Because the combination of invading neo-con commenters with the stridency of some of the major contributors has led to such pleasant exchanges as a post dedicated to labeling another blogger racist by donviti, whose own sense of provocative humor is generally so far out there that he makes John Belushi doing Samurai bartender on the SNL look positively pro-Asian. Or I can find Delawaredem and jason periodically spewing the idea that anybody who is not a liberal or progressive Democrat is somehow a non-American,...