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."