|
[an error occurred while processing this directive] |
| Barr Exam |
|
Posted by CN Staff on August 23, 2002 at 09:41:42 PT By Jacob Sullum Source: Reason Magazine 
The Libertarian Party is celebrating the defeat of U.S. Rep. Bob Barr, whom it calls the "worst Drug Warrior in Congress." Although I spend much of my time criticizing the war on drugs, I do not share the L.P.'s enthusiasm.There's no question that Barr, who recently lost his bid for the Republican nomination to represent Georgia's newly redrawn 7th District, is an enthusiastic prohibitionist. The four-term congressman has bucked public opinion by doggedly opposing the medical use of marijuana. He even supports a ban on hemp products because they sometimes contain trace amounts of THC--too little to get anyone high, but enough to offend Barr's sensibilities. Yet Barr is also, paradoxically, a vocal champion of privacy and civil liberties. The tragedy of his career is that he does not recognize how the war on drugs undermines those values. Despite his reputation as a rabid right-winger (based mainly on his early support for impeaching President Clinton), Barr is probably a more consistent defender of individual rights than the typical ACLU member. For one thing, unlike many self-proclaimed civil libertarians, he takes the Second Amendment seriously. As a freshman, Barr led the fight to repeal the federal ban on so-called assault weapons, an arbitrary abridgment of the right to keep and bear arms that targets guns based on their militaristic appearance. He also introduced an amendment limiting the scope of the Gun-Free School Zones Act to conduct that was already illegal under state or local law. Such efforts did not have broad support from the general public or Barr's fellow Republicans. His battles with gun controllers reflected his readiness to criticize the government for overstepping its proper bounds, even when party leaders might have preferred that he keep his mouth shut. Barr, a former federal prosecutor, likewise has not hesitated to challenge law enforcement agencies. He emerged as a relentless inquisitor during the 1995 congressional investigation of the federal government's disastrous confrontation with the Branch Davidians near Waco, Texas. Barr has repeatedly defended the Fourth Amendment against encroachments by law enforcement officials seeking broader powers. He has tried to rein in the Justice Department's monitoring of Internet traffic and spoken out against the spread of police surveillance cameras. "Where will the line be drawn?" Barr asked in July 2001. "Can it be drawn? Has government gained so much power to snoop that we have already lost the ability to fight it?" Barr has also shown a commitment to due process. Last year he said the use of secret evidence in immigration proceedings "violates basic principles of fundamental fairness" and is "blatantly unconstitutional," noting that "a cornerstone of our judicial system is the right of individuals to view and respond to evidence against them." Refreshing as such views were prior to September 11, Barr's continued defense of civil liberties since then has set him apart from all but a few of his colleagues in Congress. "Let us not rush into a vast expansion of government power in a misguided attempt to protect freedom," he warned less than a week after the attacks. "In doing so, we will inevitably erode the very freedoms we seek to protect." Barr continues to oppose a national ID card, which he sees as part of "a concerted effort by government to dig deeper and deeper into the lives of lawful Americans." He expressed reservations about President Bush's order authorizing military tribunals for accused terrorists, although he decided, once the details were revealed, that the administration had struck "an appropriate balance between constitutional safeguards and national security." Similarly, Barr ultimately voted for the anti-terrorism package known as the USA PATRIOT Act, saying "we were able to eliminate or severely limit the most egregious violations of Americans' civil liberties that were contained in the original proposal." Later he seemed to regret the vote, lamenting that "power taken by the government is rarely returned." Although Barr will never admit it, that observation applies to the war on drugs as well as the war on terrorism. During the last few decades the leading threat to the Fourth Amendment has been the effort to separate illegal intoxicants from people who want them. In one drug case after another, the Supreme Court has whittled away at protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. By continuing to support the crusade against unauthorized mental states even while proclaiming his commitment to privacy, Bob Barr has been his own worst enemy. Jacob Sullum's weekly column is distributed by Creators Syndicate. If you'd like to see it in your local newspaper, write or call the editorial page editor. Copyright: 2002 by Creators Syndicate Inc. Note: Why I'll miss the "worst drug warrior in Congress" Source: Reason Magazine (US) Related Articles & Web Sites: Libertarian Party Cheryl Miller in TV Commercial Barr, an Ardent Clinton Foe, Loses Seat in Primary Libertarians Target 'Drug Warriors' for Defeat Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help |
 |
| Comment #6 posted by john wayne on August 25, 2002 at 22:52:11 PT |
| I loathe Barr as much as the next CNEWS reader, but I gotta wonder about his replacement, Linder. In California, voters chose Davis over Lundgren for governor a few years ago in such large numbers because of Lundgren's rabid opposition to med mj. Davis has turned out to be someone who never saw a drug law or prison construction project he didn't like. I question whether Barr's replacement is any better than Barr. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #5 posted by karkulus on August 23, 2002 at 20:28:41 PT |
| Bob Barr's girlfriend/wife/sister/daughter (not necessarily the same person !),Ran off with a pothead or something the way he singles out weed even over other drugs!!I believe he'll go to be with Robert McGuinness at some "drug-War Groupie" sort-of foundation like the "Family research council",Where they can nurture each other's stupidity till the cows come home( or pigs)!! [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #4 posted by The GCW on August 23, 2002 at 10:45:47 PT |
| Do you favor the Supreme Court ruling that upheld the Tecumseh School Board policy of drug testing students who are involved in extracurricular activities? yes, I favor the decision no, I do NOT favor the decision http://www.news-star.com/aboutUs/ Current Standings: yes, I favor the decision (49%) = 904 no, I do NOT favor the decision (51%) = 943 TOTAL 1847 Results of this poll are not to be considered scientific. Results do not necessarily reflect the opinions of voters at large. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #3 posted by VitaminT on August 23, 2002 at 10:21:49 PT |
| anyone so intent on nullifying a free election, no matter what the issue, should NOT be relied upon to protect the constitution. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #2 posted by Gary Storck on August 23, 2002 at 10:16:49 PT |
| "Although Barr will never admit it, that observation applies to the war on drugs as well as the war on terrorism. During the last few decades the leading threat to the Fourth Amendment has been the effort to separate illegal intoxicants from people who want them." And since he will never admit, he had to go. If he couldn't understand his own hypocrisy, he had to go. The celebration goes on... [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #1 posted by WolfgangWylde on August 23, 2002 at 10:07:47 PT |
| The author missing one salient point: The Constitution is a singe document, with a single set of ideas that apply universally. You cannot, for example, weaken the 4th Amendment in the name of the Drug War, as Barr has repeatedly supported, without weakening it EVERYWHERE else it is to be applied. In other words, if people like Barr succeed in tearing down the Consitution because of drugs, it won't matter one whit if they try to defend it in other areas. The damage will already be done. I say, good riddance. [ Post Comment ] |
| Post Comment |  |
 |  |