So what we have done already as part of the legal reforms, as part of the Contract With America, is to address square on, head first, eye to eye, the problem of habeas corpus reform particularly, but not only as it relates to death penalty cases.

We have set very finite limits within which habeas corpus which, as my colleagues know, are indirect attacks on criminal sentences such as the death sentence, we have set very strict limitations on the number of petitions that can be filed and the time limits within which those petitions can be filed. But I think it is also important for the American public to know that we have not cut off in any way, shape, or form legitimate avenues of appeal to raise legitimate issues on a timely basis that go to the heart of a case.

We have simply said those matters must be raised in a timely fashion. They must have true merit. And if they do, they will be heard. But if they do not, they will not be heard. And I think this will assist greatly to restore the credibility in our criminal justice system that really reflects on the entire judicial system that is so sorely lacking these days.

Bob Barr, U.S. House of Representatives, Congressional Daily Record, February 21, 1995, pages H1964-H1965

In 1995, Barr effectively worked to block the Comprehensive Terrorism Prevention Act of 1995 in the House of Representatives, while at the same time, the Senate’s Grand Equivocator, and Poster-boy for Term Limits, Orrin Hatch, was doing his best to block any and all initiatives/amendments to this bill, which were promulgated by the Clinton Admin or Democratic legislators, unless they were intended to directly curtail access to the Federal Courthouse via habeas corpus.. The Republican politicians managed to get a different proposed Terror Prevention bill in 1996. They also significant;ly broadened its scope, and beefed up its title to: “The Antiterrorism Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996″. Both Barr and Hatch were far too willing to work into a frothing frenzy for tawdry political gains, those whose fashion sense in outer wear was to be Reynolds Wrapped.Barr was able to get his big Amendment 2 incorporated into the final bill and then enacted as Public Law No: 104-132.

This provision, though simple, Mr. Chairman, in my proposed amendment will strengthen that study that is required currently by H.R. 2703. With regard, Mr. Chairman, to what I consider the linchpin of this legislation, and that is habeas corpus reform, it is important to recognize that the proposed amendments in H.R. 2703 to our Federal habeas corpus laws strike a very appropriate balance between Federal and States’ rights that is not currently in place. The reforms contemplated by H.R. 2703 will stop the endless, pointless, and abusive delays currently available to those in our State court system to avoid the carrying out of a death sentence.
[. . .]
The reforms of our habeas corpus laws in this bill strengthen us and get us back to what our habeas corpus laws were intended to be, and that is a true safety valve for serious abuse by either a Federal or a State court judge. They bring a better balance, because under this bill no longer would a Federal judge be able to arbitrarily take in any habeas corpus case that he or she wants for whatever reason they want. Rather, they would have to, under H.R. 2703, they would have to show that there is an articulable and reasonable basis for bringing that case into the Federal system. It is a true safety valve. Yet it would not be one that could continue to be abused as the current provisions allow.

Moreover, Mr. Chairman, the provisions in H.R. 2703 that relate to reform of our Federal habeas corpus laws would place reasonable time limits on the use of the Federal habeas corpus provision. There have to be reasonable limits. There has to be a reasonable balance, else it will be an unreasonable system and wreak havoc on the American people, as we have seen in decade after decade.

Bob Barr, House of Representatives, Congressional Record, March 13, 1996, page H2168

Anyone who believes that fast tracking those convicted of capital offenses to the executioner is an effective terror preventative, should have their head examined by getting it screened for Acute Logic Deficit Disorder. Terrorists are not likely to be dissuaded from committing an act out of concerns for punishment’s severity and timeliness, should they both survive the attack, and manage to get captured.

Now fast forward to the present manifestation of Barr as libertarian, and read from his recent authorship an op/ed reprint served on his campaign website:

Bob Barr, “Troy Davis’ ‘day in court’ brought travesty of justice“, August 8, 2007

It does indeed look as if Troy Davis got railroaded and screwed; looks as if the real perpetrators the capital crime Davis was convicted of, had manged to weasel themselves onto the prosecutor’s witness list, allowing them to hurl accusations of guilt at him. It is laudable for Mr. Barr to point out this travesty of justice. However it is also despicable of him to have simply glossed over the appeals “procedural flaws”, and this exposes Barr as a Contemporary Conservative, who only pretends that accepting responsibility for the cause that flows from past acts is a foundational tenet of his political beliefs. Barr just tells people it is, because it provides him with extra turns on the soapbox, from which he can then hurl pontificating derogations at two guys who want to get hitched, and then go play stable the pony in the back 40 corral:

The case of Troy Davis is a reminder of the legal hurdles that death row inmates must overcome in the USA in order to obtain remedies in the appeal courts. In this regard, Amnesty International fears that Troy Davis’ avenues for judicial relief have been all but closed off. In particular, he is caught in a trap set by US Congress a decade ago when it withdrew funding from post-conviction defender organizations in 1995 and passed the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act in 1996.

“‘Where is the justice for me?’ The case of Troy Davis, facing execution in Georgia“, Amnesty International, February, 2007

Indeed, and I add, where is Mr. Barr’s shouldering of responsibility?
Or maybe I should instead just muse:
This is the Rectaltude of Bob Barr’s Intents…

I got caught up with some high estimations on the Barr Bomb, but realistically….according to their website they are nearing 300 pledges. Thats about 1/2 of 1 percent of the Ron Paul day. Assuming the same average donation, it would be about 30K day.

The Barr campaign, on a bad day does 2k anyway, 10k on a good day. Add that in, looking about a 40k day.

But…the average donation won’t be more, it will be less. Thats just a hunch. On the other hand, a lot of people who donate, never bothered to pledge.

All in all, I like a nice round guess of a 50K day, which, isn’t going to disappoint the Barr campaign, I don’t think.

I look forward to continued momentum, and some bigger days in August, though.

I’m assuming/hoping CNN is misquoting Barr on that. I think it’s pretty “unibertarian” to take money wasted on foreign intervention and spend it on domestic intervention. Besides, I don’t know the numbers, but I would assume much of the money being spent in Iraq isn’t really ours, it’s being borrowed from countries like communist China.

Boman is opposed to DOMA and says so on his Web site. He has taken some heat for this from the socially conservative types in the Ron Paul crowd.

ART

I find it hard to believe that the Barr campaign will raise anywhere close to this much money.