ACLU v America, again

[Soldier4Christ]

ACLU v America, again
Stop the ACLU cautiously looks at the ACLU's 10,000 page "list" of crimes committed by US troops in Iraq. Jay writes...

It is no surprise that the ACLU is more concerned about “rights” of our enemies than those of Americans. However, as for the legitimacy of the allegations, I will take a step back with caution.

The problem is the 10,000 pages are courts-martial summaries, transcripts and military investigative reports, not a list. Anyone who's ever had to deal with the government must know their insane obsession over reams and reams of paper work. The 10,000 pages only involve 22 actual cases. So while we've been in Iraq for 4 and a half years, the 150,000 to 160,000 troops only committed 22 crimes? What kind of moron calls 22 killings in 4 1/2 years from 150,000+ people DURING A WAR a "pattern"?

But upon closer examination what the ACLU is calling "crimes" turns out to be more of the wild, anti-American lies typical of ACLU loonies. Here are a few of the "atrocities" the ACLU dimwits listed...

1. On January 14th, 2005, a vehicle approached a US Military convoy. The driver of the vehicle refused to move from the path of the convoy even after repeated warnings. A civilian contractor providing security for the convoy then opened fire on the vehicle injuring several occupants. One round, however, ricocheted and killed a bystander, Faysal Kamel Hamsa, who was standing on the side of the road. The three occupants of the vehicle, a man, a woman, and another of unidentified age, were only injured. The army ruled it a justifiable response. The ACLU, of course, considers it a crime.

2. On February 21st, 2005, an unidentified member of the US military lost control of their vehicle and struck an oncoming vehicle which resulted in the death of a 6-month-old child, Summa Soman Meero. The Military ruled it negligent homicide. The ACLU consider it the murder of an Iraqi citizen by US troops.

3. On January 25th, 2005, Abdulla Fawzi was admitted to the 86th Combat Support Hospital from wounds suffering in after opening fire on US troops. On January 30th, Fawzi died from his wounds. The US Military ruled this a combat death. The ACLU consider it the murder of an Iraqi citizen by US troops.

4. On April 21st, 2005, an Afghani man, Abdul Sayed Rahman, walked in front of a US Humvee doing just over 17mph. The driver attempted to avoid hitting Rahman, but the Humvee's side mirror clipped him. Rahman was immediately transported to military hospital at Bagram Airfield, but died from the injuries he received. The military ruled this an accidental death. The ACLU consider this the murder of a civilian by US troops.

5. On February 17th, 2005, two Afghani's fled upon the approach of Afghani and US Military vehicles. The US Troops pursued and killed both men. Autopsied showed that both were facing the direction of their attackers, and the follow-up investigation by Afghani police found spent shell casings from a weapon or weapons used by one or both men. The military ruled that there was insignificant evidence to rule whether the shootings were justified or not. Both Taliban and Al Queda hide terrorists among the local population, so pursuing suspects is routine, in order to protect both troops and civilians. Suspects who shoot at troops, are obviously presumed terrorists. Apparently, troops who shoot back at terrorists are presumed murderers by the ACLU.

6. On January 31, 2005 a riot broke out at Theater Internment Facility at Camp Bucca, Iraq. After two hours the riot began to escalate, and deadly force was used to quell the rioting prisoners. Three rioting prisoners were killed. The military ruled the killings justifiable. The ACLU classify it as the intentional murder of Iraqi Civilians by US Troops.

Other than a handful of real crimes, already widely publicized, the ACLU's "10,000 pages" are nothing more than their attempt to portray US Troops as wanton criminals, the exact same thing Liberals did during the Vietnam War. There is no caution needed with this story, since it is nothing more than the usual ACLU lies, decorated with a few, miniscule sprinkles of truth to make the lies appear different. The real crime is the treasonous behavior of the ACLU in attacking our troops while completely ignoring the atrocities committed by the enemy.

[Shammu]

I see the ACLU as criminals, baby killers, murders, death merchants. Agents or islam, and CAIR.

[Soldier4Christ]

ACLU Florida Calls For Bush/Cheney Impeachment

ACLU of Florida Calls for Impeachment Hearings for Bush and Cheney

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Florida has followed the lead of the ACLU of Central Florida, the ACLU of Monroe County Florida, and the ACLU of the Treasure Coast (Florida), all of which followed the lead of the ACLU of Southern California in backing impeachment and calling for the National ACLU to do the same.

The ACLU was a prominent supporter of Richard Nixon's impeachment. In 2006 an ACLU panel argued for impeachment. In recent years, the national ACLU has lobbied against numerous offenses that appear quintessentially impeachable, but refused , despite intense lobbying by its members and others, to back impeachment. The national ACLU recently announced a new motto that many impeachment advocates view as a wish for the impossible (a reference to the current presidential administration): "One More Year, No More Damage."

Richard W. Spisak Jr. of the ACLU of Florida reported that the state chapter met in Fort Myers at 1:30 p.m. on Saturday and passed a motion in support of impeachment hearings for George Bush and Richard Cheney. The motion calls on the National ACLU to urge hearings in the Judiciary Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives. Florida Congressman Robert Wexler, a member of that committee, has recently been leading a push for hearings to begin. Florida citizens have been pushing for impeachment for a long time.

Motion Language Follows:
"The Board of Directors of the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida urges the National ACLU Board of Directors to call for the convening of hearings by the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives to determine whether to recommend Articles of Impeachment against President George Bush, and Vice President Richard Cheney to the House."

According to Spisak, "The debate was energetic with opposing perspectives on tactics related to national staff and issues related to potential complications. Ultimately those who felt this an important step, a pricipled step won the day."

Diane Lawrence, a leading Florida impeachment activist said that her group had lobbied Howard Simon, Executive Director of the ACLU of Florida, and that he recently hinted at his support for impeachment when speaking at an event in Florida with House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, a long-time friend from Simon's days in Michigan. At the event, hosted by the ACLU, Simon said that he disagreed with Conyers on one important point. Perhaps we now know what that point was.

[Soldier4Christ]

ACLU Stops Bible Distribution in After School/Lunch Break Periods

In their continued efforts to destroy religion in America, the ACLU has won another loathsome victory against the free expression of religion. The AP reports that a rural school district near St. louis, MO can no longer allow representatives of Gideons International to give away Bibles to fifth-graders during after school periods or during their lunch break periods.

    For more than three decades, the South Iron School District in Annapolis, 120 miles southwest of St. Louis in the heart of the Bible Belt, allowed representatives of Gideons International to give away Bibles in fifth-grade classrooms.

    The American Civil Liberties Union filed suit two years ago on behalf of four sets of parents. In August, a three-judge panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a temporary injunction against the practice.

    The district altered its policy, saying the Gideons and others were still welcome to distribute Bibles or other literature before or after school or during lunch break, but not in classrooms.

    On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Catherine Perry ruled both practices were illegal and granted a permanent injunction.

Naturally the ACLU claims that any vestige of Christianity in or near a school means that the poor kiddies are being FORCED to become slaves to Christianity. Sadly, they never take cases trying to stop Islam from being forced on our school kids proving that the ACLU only wants to destroy Christians and that they aren't the least bit interested in any issue like "religion in schools."

The school district is going to appeal these anti-religious judges' decision.

[Shammu]

Naturally the ACLU claims that any vestige of Christianity in or near a school means that the poor kiddies are being FORCED to become slaves to Christianity.

And what about the muslims?? The ACLU supports islam, to further their own case for the Anti Christ Law Union. The Anti Christ Law Union needs to wake up and smell their fate coming, before it is to late.............

[Soldier4Christ]

ACLU top-ten list of gov't 'failures' off-base, says conservative attorney

The legal counsel of a conservative alternative to the American Civil Liberties Union says if the ACLU had its way, the United States would never be able to fight any wars the way they were successfully waged all the way back to the time of the American Revolution.

 

Earlier this month, the American Civil Liberties Union released a list titled "2007: The Year We Didn't Get Our Freedom Back." The list supposedly documents the "top 10 ways our government failed us" last year. For example, the liberal organization claims the government has not put an end to "warrantless spying" by the National Security Agency. According to the list, the government also failed its citizens by not closing the Guantanamo Bay prison, which houses individuals suspected of terror-related activities against the U.S.


John Armor of the American Civil Rights Union says the ACLU continues to demonstrate that it is not the defender of civil liberties, as it claims. "We consider at least eight of [the items on the list] to be direct assaults on the Constitution of the United States and the government as it was designed under that Constitution," says Armor. "The ACLU does not live up to what it claims is its business."


Armor explains that no warrant is needed for foreign communications -- and what the ACLU really wants, he claims, is for the government not to defend Americans in a time of declared war. He says "when you look at how things were handled during World War II, World War I, the Civil War -- or for that matter, you can go all the way back to the Revolutionary War -- what the ACLU is saying is the United States government has no right to defend America in the same way that its armies and its generals have defended it in every war that its ever fought."


The attorney contends the ACLU was off-base on a number of the claims in its list.

[Soldier4Christ]

Another ACLU ripoff

Two foreign nationals who said they were forcibly drugged by U.S. immigration officials during failed efforts to deport them have agreed to a settlement in the case, their attorney said Tuesday. In exchange for dropping the lawsuit, Amadou Diouf, a native of Senegal, will get $50,000, and Raymond Soeoth of Indonesia will receive $5,000 and be allowed to stay in the United States for at least two years, said Ahilan Arulanantham, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California. The ACLU filed the case jointly with the law firm Munger, Tolles & Olson.

Soeoth, who was appealing his case for political asylum, alleged in the lawsuit that he had been sedated with anti-psychotic drugs in December 2004 at a San Pedro detention facility. Diouf, who also was pursuing an appeal for permanent legal status, said he was medicated in February 2006 while on a commercial plane at Los Angeles International Airport.

Soeoth and Diouf became friends while being held for nearly two years at the Terminal Island detention facility in San Pedro. They reluctantly accepted the settlement when Soeoth and his wife lost their immigration appeal and were threatened with deportation, Diouf said. Soeoth, a Christian, fled his predominantly Muslim country in 1999 to escape religious persecution and "greatly feared returning to Indonesia," Arulanantham said.

Earlier this month, immigration officials said they would no longer forcibly sedate foreign nationals without a federal court order. At the time, ACLU lawyers promised to move forward with the lawsuit to gain compensation for Soeoth and Diouf. The settlement could make it more difficult to force the government to release details about its sedation policy, Arulanantham said.

The settlement reached Monday "does not constitute admission of wrongdoing by the government," but it does "reflect the fact that ICE has changed its policy regarding medical escorts for detainees," said Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokeswoman Virginia Kice.

[Soldier4Christ]

Conservative legal groups team up to save veterans' memorials

The Alliance Defense Fund has announced an initiative to protect war memorials from liberal groups who claim the monuments violate the supposed "separation of church and state." 

The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), the American Legion, and Liberty Legal Institute are joining forces to protect veterans' memorials from legal attacks by groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union. During the past several years, the ACLU has targeted veterans' memorials that feature crosses or other Christian symbols -- suing cities and towns in which the monuments are located. Often, the ACLU is able to collect substantial court-ordered settlements as a result of such litigation.
 
But ADF senior legal counsel Doug Napier argues the memorials do not violate the U.S. Constitution. "The Supreme Court has never ruled these memorials violate the Constitution. There's no law out there that says you can't have them -- and they're memorials," emphasizes Napier. "They aren't advocating a certain religion; they aren't endorsing a certain religion."
 
The monuments, says the attorney, must be defended. "We cannot allow the memory of these families to be sullied by a few disgruntled people who don't like it," says Napier. "[Their opinions] shouldn't spoil it for the millions of Americans who support these memorials and the millions of veterans that they represent."
 
Napier says the cross is a universal symbol of sacrifice, and that scripture and other religious texts have been sources of comfort for those who have lost loved ones in war. He states that one person's agenda should not be allowed to diminish the sacrifice made by American veterans.

[nChrist]

If our representatives had a half a brain, the ACLU and groups like them would be shut down or at least public funds be denied them. The ACLU is about tyranny, not FREEDOM. It's always been the opposite of FREEDOM.

It ought to be a crime to make public funds available for the taking by groups like the ACLU. It really wouldn't take much intellect or creativity to take public funds completely out of the picture for the ACLU and groups like them. Our representatives DO NOT have the authorization of the people to fund subversive, anti-American groups with our tax dollars. Did we ever vote to give the ACLU a single penny? NO! Let these idiots pay their own bills and send them home with empty pockets. The members of the ACLU are NOT our elected representatives, nor are they representatives of any kind. This is a FREE country, and groups like the ACLU shouldn't have the power to threaten, coerce, or force a single thing. The individual members of the ACLU should have the power to VOTE individually - no more and no less. Other than what their individual votes will accomplish, nobody cares what the ACLU wants and they need to be sent home. Contrary to the ACLU'S opinion, they don't have any more rights than the average citizen, and it's far past time to inform them of this fact!

[Soldier4Christ]

Court rejects ACLU challenge to wiretaps

An attempt to blast a crippled U.S. spy satellite out of the sky using a Navy heat-seeking missile — possibly on Wednesday night — would be the first real-world use of this piece of the Pentagon's missile defense network. But that is not the mission for which it was intended.
ADVERTISEMENT

The attempted shootdown, already approved by President Bush, is seen by some as blurring the lines between defending against a weapon like a long-range missile and targeting satellites in orbit.

The three-stage Navy missile, designated the SM-3, has chalked up a high rate of success in a series of tests since 2002 — in each case targeting a short- or medium-range ballistic missile, never a satellite. A hurry-up program to adapt the missile for this anti-satellite mission was completed in a matter of weeks; Navy officials say the changes will be reversed once this satellite is down.

The government issued notices to aviators and mariners to remain clear of a section of the Pacific beginning at 10:30 p.m. EST Wednesday, indicating the first window of opportunity to launch an SM-3 missile from a Navy cruiser, the USS Lake Erie, in an effort to hit the wayward satellite.

Having lost power shortly after it reached orbit in late 2006, the satellite is well below the altitude of a normal satellite. The Pentagon wants to hit it with an SM-3 missile just before it re-enters Earth's atmosphere, in that way minimizing the amount of debris that would remain in space.

Adding to the difficulty of the mission, the missile will have to do better than just hit the bus-sized satellite, a Navy official said Tuesday. It needs to strike the relatively small fuel tank aboard the spacecraft in order to accomplish the main goal, which is to eliminate the toxic fuel that could injure or even kill people if it reached Earth. The Navy official described technical aspects of the missile's capabilities on condition that he not be identified.

Also complicating the effort will be the fact that the satellite has no heat-generating propulsion system on board. That makes it more difficult for the Navy missile's heat-seeking system to work, although the official said software changes had been made to compensate for the lack of heat.

The Pentagon press secretary, Geoff Morrell, said Defense Secretary Robert Gates was briefed on the shootdown plan Tuesday by the two officers who will advise him on exactly when to launch the missile — Gen. Kevin Chilton, the head of Strategic Command, and Gen. James Cartwright, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who held Chilton's post until last summer.

"We all have an agreed-upon series of steps that need to be taken for this launch to be given the go-ahead," Morrell said, adding that no final decision has been made on when to make the attempt.

"The secretary is the one who will decide if and when to pull the trigger," the spokesman said, adding that Gates was departing Wednesday morning on an around-the-world trip that will include a stop in Honolulu, Hawaii, where a military command center will be monitoring the satellite operation.

Left alone, the satellite would be expected to hit Earth during the first week of March. About half of the 5,000-pound spacecraft would be expected to survive its blazing descent through the atmosphere and would scatter debris over several hundred miles.

Known by its military designation US 193, the satellite was launched in December 2006. It lost power and its central computer failed almost immediately afterward, leaving it uncontrollable. It carried a sophisticated and secret imaging sensor.

Morrell said the cost of adapting the Navy anti-missile system for the shootdown mission was $30 million to $40 million.

China and Russia have expressed concern at the planned shootdown, saying it could harm security in outer space. At the State Department on Tuesday, spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters that the U.S. action is meant to protect people from the hazardous fuel and is not a weapons test.

China was criticized last year when it used a missile to destroy a defunct weather satellite.

The Navy ship-based system, which includes a command-and-control and radar system known as Aegis, as well as the SM-3 missiles, is just one segment of a larger, far-flung missile defense system that has been in development by the American military for more than three decades.

Managed by the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency, the program includes interceptor missiles sitting in underground silos at Fort Greely, Alaska, and at Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif., as well as radars around the world that are used to track an enemy missile and help the interceptor hit it.

As currently configured the missile defense system is designed mainly to counter a threat from North Korea. The Bush administration, fearing an emerging missile threat from Iran, is in talks with Poland and the Czech Republic to place interceptor missiles in Poland and a tracking radar in the Czech Republic. Russia has objected strenuously, saying such bases would be a threat to Russia.

[Soldier4Christ]

ACLU seeks access to uncensored transcripts of terrorist hearings

John Armor, the legal counsel to the American Civil Rights Union, says the ACLU continues to demonstrate its preference for an American defeat in the war on terror by attempting to limit the U.S. government from obtaining information from military prisoners.

The American Civil Liberties Union recently filed suit seeking a court order that it be given uncensored transcripts of military hearings for 14 of the "high value" terrorist detainees. John Armor of the American Civil Rights Union -- a conservative alternative to the ACLU -- argues that would be the same as if, in World War II, someone had sued to have the interrogation records of German spies released. "[It's] insane on the face of it that they should ask a court to do such a thing," says the attorney.
 
Armor says it is not just irrelevant to the ACLU that tens, or hundreds, or even thousands of Americans may be killed if the information held by these "illegal combatants" is not obtained and used. He says it seems to be the goal of the ACLU to take steps that will keep that information hidden, and lead to those deaths.
 
"They do want to aid these guys," he exclaims. "If you look at it politically, not legally, the ACLU wants the United States to lose in the war on terror because it feels that governments which are socialistic are preferred to what we have -- and those are the kind of people we're up against," he adds. "Of course, the fact that they're murderous dictators seems to escape the interest of the ACLU, so they're rooting for the other side to win and trying to help them."
 
Armor says it is fortunate that the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly and clearly ruled against the ACLU's position on this issue.

[Soldier4Christ]

ACLU comes out in favor of the SECOND amendment!

But only as part of their campaign to defend illegal immigration:

“A federal judge has stopped enforcement of a Kentucky law barring non-citizens from carrying concealed deadly weapons. U.S. District Judge Thomas Russell said the law is written too broadly and violates the rights of attorney Alexander M. Say, a British national who has lived in Kentucky for 15 years. …

The [ACLU] sued the Jefferson County Sheriff’s Department and Kentucky State Police on behalf of Say. The ACLU challenged the citizenship requirement, saying Kentucky lawmakers should not have passed the law. … Say argued that no federal law requires U.S. citizenship for people to be licensed to purchase, carry, transport or carry a concealed deadly weapon, and neither should state law.”

[Soldier4Christ]

After sucking city dry, ACLU 'hate machine' to be honored?
Council members considering proposal for day praising activists

The ACLU at times has battled San Diego in court over a historic cross on a veterans' memorial and the use of city facilities by the Boy Scouts, collecting hundreds of thousands of dollars of money from city taxpayers for its efforts.

Now the city is considering a plan to honor the organization.

"San Diego City Councilwoman Toni Atkins and Council President Scott Peters have placed on the city council docket one of the most despicable and anti-Christian items in recent years. They are planning to declare American Civil Liberties Union Day in the city of San Diego," warned James Hartline, who himself is a candidate for the city council this year.

"The American Civil Liberties Union has done everything possible to destroy Christianity in the American culture and government. From tearing down crosses on public property to removing crosses and the Ten Commandments from governmental buildings, there has been no greater hate machine against our constitutional right to free religious expression in America than the ACLU!" Hartline said.

"The idea that radical lesbian San Diego City Councilwoman Toni Atkins and her leftist council partner Scott Peters want to honor the ACLU by declaring a day of honor IN OUR NAME in the city of San Diego is just plain evil," he said.

Hartline, a longtime activist for family values in his city, said the ACLU has a history there of running a long-term battle to kick Boy Scouts off public property in Balboa Park that other organizations are allowed to use, forcing homosexual marriage on society, attacking pro-life protesters at abortion clinics and restricting the rights of school children to have Bible studies or pray on school grounds.

Hartline said the meeting is tomorrow, in an apparent effort by city officials to load the item onto a council agenda and adopt it with little public notice.

"We cannot ignore this terrible attack on our faith and values by allowing our name to be used to honor the horrific and hateful ACLU," Hartline said.

He told WND the issue is so important because it "institutionalizes the organization from a positive perspective."

"What's problematic from a legal perspective is the fact that the ACLU has gotten hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal settlements, so if they sue the city again, it gets hard for opposition to go against them," he said.

"Naming a day in their honor is entering into very dangerous ground," he said.

Not only did the city pay the ACLU about $900,000 in one of its settlements, the ACLU has been on the opposite side of 80 percent of San Diego's residents on issues such as the Mt. Soledad Cross, he said.

"Here we have a council member wanting to honor a group that's going against the will of the majority of San Diegans," he said.

[nChrist]

    

UM?  - I thought there was much more common sense in San Diego than in Northern California Cities, but I guess that I was mistaken.

[Soldier4Christ]

ACLU Fails in Attack on Baptist Children’s Home

    After a 10-year legal battle, a federal judge has dismissed an American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit against a home providing social services for at-risk children. The lawsuit claimed the home, Sunrise Children’s Services, should not receive partial expense reimbursements from the government for its needy youth programs because of the home’s religious affiliation. The Alliance Defense Fund provided funding for attorneys with the Christian Legal Society and Thomas More Law Center to defend the home in the suit.

    “Faith-based organizations should not be discriminated against for their beliefs. The reimbursement Sunrise receives has never been used for religious indoctrination. It has always been used for social services that help needy kids, and we are pleased the court has dismissed this needless lawsuit. This is an important victory for faith-based social service providers,” said Tim Tracey, litigation counsel for CLS’s Center for Law & Religious Freedom.

    “Sunrise Children’s Services has the same right to receive reimbursement to provide help to the children of Kentucky as any other social services provider,” said Pat Gillen, another attorney who worked on the case and now serves as a visiting professor of law at Ave Maria School of Law. “The ACLU and its allies fought long and hard to take away that right, but the court didn’t let that happen.”

    The suit began when the children’s home, formerly known as Kentucky Baptist Homes for Children, dismissed Alicia Pedreira, an employee who was involved in homosexual behavior. The Kentucky ACLU attempted to characterize Pedreira’s dismissal as religious discrimination and challenged the state and federal reimbursement the home receives, claiming its religious affiliation made the reimbursement a violation of the Constitution’s Establishment Clause. The court rejected the religious discrimination claim in 2001 and ruled Monday that the plaintiffs do not have standing to challenge the reimbursements.