ACLU In The News

[Soldier4Christ]

One Nation, Under The ACLU


I thought it would be interesting and informative to illustrate what our Nation might be like if it caved into all of the radical ideals of the ACLU. It ended up quite scary, and if we were to follow the law of consequence to its end, I’m certain I have only scratched the surface.

On October 27, 1787, Alexander Hamilton predicted that a “dangerous ambition” would one day tyrannize the gangling young American Republic, all the while lurking “behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people.” It could almost be said that Hamilton had a prophecy of the ACLU.

Our nation would be quite a scary and dangerous place if it were left in the hands of the ACLU. Creating an accurate picture of what our nation would be like is complicated by the inconsistencies in the ACLU’s philosophy, but one can conclude that it would definitely be a much more dangerous society to live in.

To begin with, if our nation were under the ACLU’s ideas, national sovereignty would be no more. Our constitution would become obsolete and superceded by International law. This would completely undermine national security, which the ACLU are constantly at odds with.

    For instance, the ACLU filed a formal complaint with the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention against the United States, stating that the United States violated international law when it detained 765 Arab Americans and Muslims for security reasons after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack on our nation. Eventually, 478 were deported. ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero said, “With today’s action, we are sending a strong message of solidarity to advocates in other countries who have decried the impact of U.S. policies on the human rights of their citizens. We are filing this complaint before the United Nations to ensure that U.S. policies and practices reflect not just domestic constitutional standards, but accepted international human rights principles regarding liberty and its deprivations.”Source

Since the 5th amendment is pretty much already gone under judicial tyranny, one of the first things you can kiss goodbye is the 2nd amendment. The U.N. are already pushing for international gun control laws, and you can bet the ACLU won’t fight against that.

    ACLU POLICY “The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court’s long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual’s right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms.” –Policy #47

Without any means to protect ourselves, lets take a look at crime in the world of the ACLU. To begin with, many of our current crimes would no longer be considered so. They don’t belive in zoning laws, and do believe in fully legalalized, and unregulated prostitution. So there wouldn’t be any law that could keep a prostitution house from being a certain distance from your neighborhood, your Church, or your child’s preschool. This is especially disturbing when they think child pornography distribution and possession should be legal. So, in the ACLU world, we would probably find it much like Amsterdam, child prostitution rampant. Under the ACLU, All drugs would be legal, and Capitol Punishment would completely be abolished.

The 10th amendment would be gone, rendering all states rights to the international community. We would become a welfare state, with our taxes being used to redistribute wealth around the world, as long as the U.N. didn’t pocket it in scandals.

Freedom of religion would be eliminated. Churches would lose their tax exempt status, completely pushed out of the public sphere, and forced to comply with international laws that compromise their core values.

    In spring 2003, a group from the United Nations Human Rights Commission, of which former ACLU officials Paul Hoffman and John Shattuck are a part, met and discussed a resolution to add “sexual orientation” to the UNHRC’s discrimination list. Homosexual activists at the meeting called for a “showdown with religion,” clearly intending to use international law to silence religious speech that does not affirm homosexual behavior. Source

What a scary and dangerous place this would be if it were given over to the ACLU’s vision for America. In no way would it resemble what our founding father’s intended. For the sake of our children, and their children’s future, Americans can not sit idly by and allow the ACLU’s radical agenda to continue. Help us expose the ACLU’s radical agenda for the subversive danger it is. Get involved. Donate and support organizations like the Alliance Defense Fund and the ACLJ that are out there fighting the ACLU’s agenda. Contact your representatives and Senators and tell them to support Constitution Restoration Act that would put an end to the use of foreign law in our courts. Tell them to support the The Public Expression of Religion Act which would put a stop to taxpayer funding of the ACLU in establishment clause case. Sign Our Petition To Stop Taxpayer Funding Of The ACLU. Pray that America wakes up before its too late.

[Soldier4Christ]

Should The ACLU Involve Themselves In Military Matters?


In 1993, President William Jefferson Clinton, bowing to his ultra left-wing supporters, established the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy relating to homosexuality. However, this policy is a big nothing if a homosexual relationship or encounter becomes general knowledge. Because being a homosexual is still a violation of the enlistment contract or commission the service member agreed to when entering military service to.

Enter Maj. Margaret Witt, United States Airforce Reserve who has been engaged in a lesbian relationship for many years. Last month she was discharged from the Airforce Reserve because the relationship had become general knowledge.

The ACLU has taken up her case and is assisting her fight her discharge.

    The American Civil Liberties Union filed a federal lawsuit Wednesday challenging the U.S. Air Force Reserves’ discharge of a decorated major and flight nurse who had been in a lesbian relationship for several years.

    Major Margaret Witt, 42, of Spokane, was discharged last month, about a year and a half after the Air Force placed her on unpaid leave, telling her she could no longer take part in any military duties.

    The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court here, seeks an injunction barring Witt’s discharge and a declaration that doing so would violate her rights to engage in private activities without government interference. SOURCE

Applicable Articles of the UCMJ:

    883. ART. 83. FRAUDULENT ENLISTMENT, APPOINTMENT, OR SEPARATION

    Any person who–

    (1) procures his own enlistment or appointment in the armed forces by knowingly false representation or deliberate concealment as to his qualifications for the enlistment or appointment and receives pay or allowances thereunder; or

    (2) procures his own separation from the armed forces by knowingly false representation or deliberate concealment as to his eligibility for that separation;

    shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

    884. ART. 84. UNLAWFUL ENLISTMENT, APPOINTMENT, OR SEPARATION

    Any person subject to this chapter who effects an enlistment or appointment in or a separation from the armed forces of any person who is known to him to be ineligible for that enlistment, appointment, or separation because it is prohibited by law, regulation, or order shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

When she accepted her commission, she understood at that point that homosexuals are not permitted to serve in the US Armed Forces. Therefore, either or both Articles 83 & 84 could be applicable in a case such as this.

    925. ART. 125. SODOMY

    (a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.

    (b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

If Maj. Witt was involved in a lesbian relationship for many years, it can be assumed that she has engaged in sexual activities with her lover. This being the case, it is an act of unnatural carnal copulation and thus Sodomy. So Article 125 is applicable.

    933. ART. 133. CONDUCT UNBECOMING AN OFFICER AND A GENTLEMAN

    Any commissioned officer, cadet, or midshipman who is convicted of conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

As a commissioned officer in the Airforce Reserve, she is bound by the UCMJ and the provisions of her commission to conduct herself in an honorable fashion. Under this provision, any officer conducting themselves in an honorable manner at all times. Open involvement in a homosexual relationship under the provisions of her commission is considered Conduct Unbecoming an Officer and a Gentleman (regardless of the officer’s gender). So Article 133 is applicable.

And the catch all of catch alls, Article 134:

    934. ART. 134. GENERAL ARTICLE

    Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court.

Openly homosexual Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines have the potential to create a morale and discipline problem within the unit and as such can be seen as being damaging for the good of the service. And conversely, the potential for sexual relationships among members of the same unit or command can also lead to a breakdown in discipline.

Many of us who have served in the military have lived in relatively close quarters with others. You do so in garrison and in the field. It cannot be permitted for members of the same unit to develop relationships. One major reason why is that relationships end.

Another reason has to do with injury in combat. What would it be like if you had two openly homosexual men in an infantry unit who were involved with each other. They go into combat and one of them gets shot. How would his boyfriend react on the battlefield? Instead of the unit being down one weapon, there is a potential of being down two as a result of one round. This is unacceptable.

So the military must operate under different conditions than society. Without a separate set of rules to live by, order in the military would collapse. You cannot have subordinates questioning their orders, you cannot have soldiers wasting military supplies, selling equipment, sleeping on guard, etc… etc… etc… Because if you do, the military would be unable to function.

Our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines are volunteers. They know the score going into the service. If they choose to conceal their sexual orientation knowing that homosexual conduct is a violation of the UCMJ, that is a risk that they take. If they are caught, then they should know that the military will apply the UCMJ because if they fail to, it would lead to a collapse of discipline.

It is no different (except in severity) than a soldier who falls asleep on guard. It is a violation and there is no room for latitude.

Whether agree with the provisions of the UCMJ or not, it is the law of the military. If you don’t agree with those rules, then contact your elected officials. The Armed Services Committee may have some influence. But be forewarned, the UCMJ is developed by the Defense Department and approved by the President. Congress has very little input.

So the ACLU should keep their nose out of this matter. It has no business in a federal court. This is an internal military matter.

[Soldier4Christ]

ACLU Seeks Dismissal of "Operation Meth Merchant" Cases for Racial Bias

The American Civil Liberties Union Drug Law Reform Project moved last week to have charges dismissed against a group of South Asian convenience store owners and operators arrested in northwest Georgia in a controversial investigation called Operation Meth Merchant. That operation ostensibly aimed at stopping convenience stores from selling legal household products that can be used to manufacture methamphetamine, but the ACLU is making a strong case that it was racially biased.

Forty-nine people were charged with criminal offenses in Meth Merchant and 44 of them are of South Asian descent. While more than 80% of area convenience stores are owned by whites or other ethnic groups, 23 of the 24 stores targeted by the investigation are owned by South Asians. Meth Merchant targeted almost 20% of South Asian-owned stores, but less than 0.2% of stores owned by whites or other ethnic groups, the ACLU charged in its April 5 motion to dismiss the remaining charges because of racially selective prosecution. That means South Asian stores were 100 times more likely to be targeted than other stores, the ACLU pointed out.

"Selling Sudafed while South Asian is not a crime," said Christina Alvarez, an attorney with the ACLU Drug Law Reform Project. "The US Constitution requires police to investigate people based on evidence, not ethnicity."

Meth Merchant, a joint operation of the DEA and state and local police, sent informants into the stores seeking to buy items such as cold medicine, cooking fuel, and matchbooks, all of which are legal products. The informants would mention that they needed "to cook," which, according to authorities, was sufficient to indicate the South Asian clerks, many with limited English-language proficiency and none familiar with meth manufacturing slang, knew they were selling items to be used in cooking the popular stimulant.

In its motion to dismiss the charges, the ACLU argued that the operation targeted South Asian stores, citing statements from the informants themselves. "They only sent me to Indian stores... they wanted me to say things like 'I need it to go cook' or 'Hurry up, I've got to get home and finish a cook,'" said an undercover informant in a sworn statement attached to the ACLU's legal papers. "The officers told me that the Indians' English wasn't good, and they wouldn't say a lot so it was important for me to make these kinds of statements."

The ACLU also presented evidence that police ignored numerous tips pointing toward at least 16 white-owned stores in the area. Meth makers arrested by police routinely identified this group of local stores as supply sources, yet police took no action. In fact, according to another witness statement cited in the motion, law enforcement officials even alerted one white store owner to the investigation and told him how to avoid trouble by removing particular items from the shelves.

The differential treatment of white and South Asian store operators in Meth Merchant and the targeting of South Asian stores without any evidence against them violates the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, the ACLU argued in the dismissal motion. That clause protects people from being selectively targeted by law enforcement based on their race and/or ethnicity.

US Attorney David Nahmias was unmoved. "With regard to the issue of alleged selective prosecution," he told the Associated Press, "several defendants raised such a claim before the deadline passed for filing pretrial motions. The selective prosecution motions have all been denied by the magistrate judge in a ruling affirmed by the District Court. We will reply to any additional motions in court."

But while Nahmias remained steadfast in his effort to continue to prosecute the remaining cases -- 23 people and 10 corporations have already pleaded guilty and eight cases have been dismissed -- he is facing political as well as legal challenges. The targeted merchants and their supporters have formed the Racial Justice Campaign Against Operation Meth Merchant to end the racially biased prosecutions and build lasting alliances between immigrant communities and people of color in Northwest Georgia. The group has held protest demonstrations, urged Nahmias to end the persecution, and generally attempted to drum up support for the store owners and clerks.

"Operation Meth Merchant is under attack in court and, just as importantly, in the community," said Alvarez. "The local community's ability to courageously speak as a unified voice in protest of the operation has been, and will continue to be, crucial to obtaining justice for the accused."

"Northwest Georgia is made no safer by police targeting a particular racial group while giving a free pass to those they have good reason to believe are actually making and selling meth," said campaign organizer Deepali Gokhale in a statement responding to the filing of the motion. "Families have been torn apart and lives have been destroyed by this racist investigation, and they aren't the only victims here. We all lose when law enforcement adopts irrational approaches that waste taxpayer money, undermine the public's trust, and leave us less safe in the process."

"Scapegoating a community based on their race will never make northwest Georgia safer," said Priyanka Sinha from Raksha, an Atlanta-based organization serving the South Asian community. "Law enforcement has a responsibility to investigate people based on evidence, not skin color. These people are human beings. They are hard-working and long standing members of the Georgia community. Because of these racially targeted and irresponsible prosecutions, their lives are ruined."

"We are fighting together, we are not alone, we knew we were treated unfairly and now here is the proof. Because we have come together ourselves, others are also coming forward to tell the truth and demand that the government treat us fairly," said Gita Patel, wife of one of the South Asian store owners arrested in the sting operation.

The ACLU is representing three defendants in the cases in the US District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. Those trials are set for May 1, unless the ACLU prevails in its motion.

[Soldier4Christ]

This is from the ACLU web site.


ACLU Says Colorado Governor’s Veto of Emergency Contraception Legislation Puts Politics Above Women’s Health

DENVER -- The American Civil Liberties Union today denounced a decision by the Governor of Colorado to veto legislation that would have allowed women to obtain emergency contraception (EC) directly from a pharmacist without needing a doctor’s prescription.

“Governor Owens’s decision to veto this bill puts politics above women’s health,” said Cathryn Hazouri, Executive Director of the ACLU of Colorado.  “If we care about preventing unintended pregnancy, then we should do everything we can to make sure women can get the birth control they need, including EC.”

The bill in question, which drew the support of the Colorado Pharmacists Association and the Colorado Medical Association, would have allowed pharmacists to prescribe EC directly to women.  In eight states - Alaska, California, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Washington – women can receive EC directly from their pharmacist (Vermont is scheduled to join this list this summer.)  Increased access to EC is particularly important because the window in which it is effective is so brief, the ACLU said.

In a recent report by the Guttmacher Institute, Colorado ranked 40th in its efforts to help women avoid unintended pregnancy, and attempts over the last several years have been unsuccessful at expanding access to EC.

“Colorado had an opportunity to step up where the federal government has failed women,” said Louise Melling, Director of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project.  “Emergency contraception is a safe and effective form of birth control that all women should have access to, yet foes of reproductive rights continue to put up roadblocks at every juncture.”

Major medical groups, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, recommend that EC both be available over-the-counter and that it is offered to all victims of rape at risk of pregnancy.  And yet, the Food and Drug Administration refused to allow the emergency contraceptive, Plan B, to be sold without a prescription.  Also in 2004, the Department of Justice released a protocol for treating sexual assault victims that failed to include information about pregnancy prevention and EC.

Emergency contraception, often referred to as “the morning-after pill,” reduces the risk of pregnancy by as much as 89 percent if the first dose is taken within days of unprotected intercourse, but it is more effective the sooner it is taken.

[Soldier4Christ]

Court sides with college in covert videotaping case

 BOSTON -- A worker at Salem State College had no reasonable expectation of privacy when she used a rear work area to change her clothes and apply an ointment for a severe sunburn to her chest, the state's highest court ruled Thursday.

Gail Nelson, who was working as a secretary at the college in 1995, sued the college for invasion of privacy after a co-worker discovered a hidden camera that was taping the portion of the office where Nelson unbuttoned her blouse to apply the ointment.

The Supreme Judicial Court sided with the college, agreeing with a lower court ruling that the college was within its rights to videotape the area without notifying workers first.

"Despite all of the plaintiff's efforts discreetly to conduct acts of a very personal and private nature in the office, in this case, there was no objectively reasonable expectation of privacy," the court ruled. "Even if the plaintiff thought she was alone, there was no absolute guarantee, including when she locked the door to apply her medication or change her clothes for the evening. The office was public."

The camera had been installed after the college became concerned about possible unauthorized access to the office after hours. None of the preserved tapes showed Nelson changing clothes or applying ointment.

The court chastised the college for letting the camera run continuously, including during the work day.

"There is no question the defendants' twenty-four hour video surveillance of the entire office was unnecessarily broad for the limited investigation of alleged criminal activity occurring in the office after hours," the ruling said.

Even so, the court ruled, Nelson shouldn't have expected privacy in that part of the office.

Nelson's lawyer Jeffrey M. Feuer said the ruling was not only a blow for his client, but for other workers.

Feuer said the court "basically said that employees are not entitled to privacy unless they have exclusive control over a work area and the work area is a private one" _ such as their own private office.

"The court also failed to recognize the difference between being seen by or monitored by your boss and being secretly videotaped. The camera is an unblinking eye, it never looks away and it records for posterity everything you do," he said. "That's different than the boss walking by your desk or office and glancing in."

Dr. Stanley P. Cahill, executive vice president for Salem State College said the school was glad the case was settled.

"We are very pleased with the result of this particular case and we are glad it is over for all involved," he said.

John Reinstein, legal director for the ACLU of Massachusetts, called the ruling a significant setback for privacy in the workplace. The ACLU served as co-counsel on the SJC appeal.

"It is unfortunate that the Court essentially found that there was no privacy violation under either the Fourth Amendment or under the statutory right of privacy where a party is subjected to covert video surveillance, so long as the surveillance takes place in a location where they might be observed by others," he said.

The ACLU is backing a bill that would regulate electronic monitoring, insist that companies notify employees of such surveillance and prohibit any monitoring in private areas.

[Soldier4Christ]

Cell fone arrest furor

NYCLU urges fracas review



Witnesses charged yesterday that cops used excessive force at a high school cell phone protest, prompting the New York Civil Liberties Union to call for an inquiry.

"This is a matter that should be investigated by the school authorities and the Civilian Complaint Review Board," said NYCLU Executive Director Donna Lieberman.

But cops insisted the five arrests outside the old John Jay High School in Park Slope Wednesday were appropriate.

More than 200 students cut class to protest a crackdown on cell phones and other devices at the three small schools now housed in the building.

The protest began peacefully but deteriorated when cops tried to force the crowd to disband, students said.

"Anyone who questions the appropriateness of the use of force should use CCRB as the appropriate vehicle for that complaint," said NYPD chief spokesman Paul Browne.

Sophomore Maurice Reid, 15, spent the night in jail after cops charged he kicked a female officer. But Reid and witnesses disputed that.

"She pushed me and I tried to get past her so she clubbed me," said Reid, who displayed a swollen bruise on his left knee.

A worker at a nearby office who saw the incident said cops instigated it by pushing and grabbing Reid before wrestling him to the ground. "We were yelling at the cops to let go of the boy," said the 33-year-old woman, who asked to remain anonymous. "He must have bruises on his legs where they hit him. I feel bad for this student. In this situation, he did nothing wrong."

Reid was let go late yesterday after agreeing to anger-management counseling.

Jaditza Lopez, 14, also spent the night in jail after cops charged her with disorderly conduct and resisting arrest.

"They threw me on the ground because they thought I was protesting," said Lopez, who had a large bruise on her left arm and other smaller scratches and contusions. She said she wasn't demonstrating but had gotten swept along by the crowd.

Lieberman noted there were more arrests at the school protest than at the sweeping mayhem that broke out after an Orthodox Jew was arrested in Borough Park earlier this month.

"It is ironic there were five arrests at a nonviolent student protest and only three in another part of Brooklyn when a police car was torched," she said.

Browne said a fourth arrest was made in Borough Park and noted critics there also accused cops of using excessive force. "The inequity is in her mind," Browne said.

Teacher John Yanno said he was "shocked" by the arrests. "From what I saw it was very peaceful. Police have to realize that these are children," he said.

[Soldier4Christ]

LIBRARIAN CASE DROPPED


Federal prosecutors have dropped their appeal to seek a gag order on a Connecticut librarian. A wire service reports the case - involving a librarian who had received an FBI demand for records about library patrons under the U.S. Patriot Act - was now considered closed.

It also said that the American Civil Liberties Union would identify the defendant after court proceedings were completed. U.S. District Judge Janet Hall had ruled that the gag order should be lifted, saying it unfairly prevented the librarian from participating in a debate over how the Act should be rewritten.

Prosecutors appealed, but then dropped the case, noting that the librarian has already been identified in news reports and that the Act has now been amended to include a request for exemption from the nondisclosure requirement of the Patriot Act.

[Soldier4Christ]

NYC to randomly scan students for weapons


NEW YORK -- Public schools will begin introducing portable metal detectors at random and searching students for weapons, city officials said Thursday.

By April 26, school safety officers will begin putting up temporary, portable walk-through detectors to screen middle and high school students, officials said. On days machines are at a site, signs will alert students. On any given day, detectors will be in as many as 10 schools.

Crime is falling in city schools, but the number of weapons confiscated is up. This academic year, 307 weapons have been confiscated in schools, including 20 guns, officials said. That's up 5 percent from the same time last year.

About one-fifth of middle and high schools already scan students regularly, but the new program is the first one in which scanners will be introduced at random.

The program is raising privacy concerns. Donna Lieberman, executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, said that it is important to keep schools gun-free but that her organization is examining the program's legality.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg said Thursday it would take time to make sure the process is efficient and doesn't delay students.

I think it's clear that we are on the right course to make our schools safer ... by stopping disorder before it gets out of hand," he said during a news conference at a Brooklyn high school.

[Soldier4Christ]

ACLU Seeks Dismissal of "Operation Meth Merchant" Cases for Racial Bias 4/14/06
http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/431/merchantsuit.shtml

The American Civil Liberties Union Drug Law Reform Project moved last week to have charges dismissed against a group of South Asian convenience store owners and operators arrested in northwest Georgia in a controversial investigation called Operation Meth Merchant. That operation ostensibly aimed at stopping convenience stores from selling legal household products that can be used to manufacture methamphetamine, but the ACLU is making a strong case that it was racially biased.

Forty-nine people were charged with criminal offenses in Meth Merchant and 44 of them are of South Asian descent. While more than 80% of area convenience stores are owned by whites or other ethnic groups, 23 of the 24 stores targeted by the investigation are owned by South Asians. Meth Merchant targeted almost 20% of South Asian-owned stores, but less than 0.2% of stores owned by whites or other ethnic groups, the ACLU charged in its April 5 motion to dismiss the remaining charges because of racially selective prosecution. That means South Asian stores were 100 times more likely to be targeted than other stores, the ACLU pointed out.

"Selling Sudafed while South Asian is not a crime," said Christina Alvarez, an attorney with the ACLU Drug Law Reform Project. "The US Constitution requires police to investigate people based on evidence, not ethnicity."

Meth Merchant, a joint operation of the DEA and state and local police, sent informants into the stores seeking to buy items such as cold medicine, cooking fuel, and matchbooks, all of which are legal products. The informants would mention that they needed "to cook," which, according to authorities, was sufficient to indicate the South Asian clerks, many with limited English-language proficiency and none familiar with meth manufacturing slang, knew they were selling items to be used in cooking the popular stimulant.

In its motion to dismiss the charges, the ACLU argued that the operation targeted South Asian stores, citing statements from the informants themselves. "They only sent me to Indian stores... they wanted me to say things like 'I need it to go cook' or 'Hurry up, I've got to get home and finish a cook,'" said an undercover informant in a sworn statement attached to the ACLU's legal papers. "The officers told me that the Indians' English wasn't good, and they wouldn't say a lot so it was important for me to make these kinds of statements."

The ACLU also presented evidence that police ignored numerous tips pointing toward at least 16 white-owned stores in the area. Meth makers arrested by police routinely identified this group of local stores as supply sources, yet police took no action. In fact, according to another witness statement cited in the motion, law enforcement officials even alerted one white store owner to the investigation and told him how to avoid trouble by removing particular items from the shelves.

The differential treatment of white and South Asian store operators in Meth Merchant and the targeting of South Asian stores without any evidence against them violates the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, the ACLU argued in the dismissal motion. That clause protects people from being selectively targeted by law enforcement based on their race and/or ethnicity.

US Attorney David Nahmias was unmoved. "With regard to the issue of alleged selective prosecution," he told the Associated Press, "several defendants raised such a claim before the deadline passed for filing pretrial motions. The selective prosecution motions have all been denied by the magistrate judge in a ruling affirmed by the District Court. We will reply to any additional motions in court."

But while Nahmias remained steadfast in his effort to continue to prosecute the remaining cases -- 23 people and 10 corporations have already pleaded guilty and eight cases have been dismissed -- he is facing political as well as legal challenges. The targeted merchants and their supporters have formed the Racial Justice Campaign Against Operation Meth Merchant to end the racially biased prosecutions and build lasting alliances between immigrant communities and people of color in Northwest Georgia. The group has held protest demonstrations, urged Nahmias to end the persecution, and generally attempted to drum up support for the store owners and clerks.

"Operation Meth Merchant is under attack in court and, just as importantly, in the community," said Alvarez. "The local community's ability to courageously speak as a unified voice in protest of the operation has been, and will continue to be, crucial to obtaining justice for the accused."

"Northwest Georgia is made no safer by police targeting a particular racial group while giving a free pass to those they have good reason to believe are actually making and selling meth," said campaign organizer Deepali Gokhale in a statement responding to the filing of the motion. "Families have been torn apart and lives have been destroyed by this racist investigation, and they aren't the only victims here. We all lose when law enforcement adopts irrational approaches that waste taxpayer money, undermine the public's trust, and leave us less safe in the process."

"Scapegoating a community based on their race will never make northwest Georgia safer," said Priyanka Sinha from Raksha, an Atlanta-based organization serving the South Asian community. "Law enforcement has a responsibility to investigate people based on evidence, not skin color. These people are human beings. They are hard-working and long standing members of the Georgia community. Because of these racially targeted and irresponsible prosecutions, their lives are ruined."

"We are fighting together, we are not alone, we knew we were treated unfairly and now here is the proof. Because we have come together ourselves, others are also coming forward to tell the truth and demand that the government treat us fairly," said Gita Patel, wife of one of the South Asian store owners arrested in the sting operation.

The ACLU is representing three defendants in the cases in the US District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. Those trials are set for May 1, unless the ACLU prevails in its motion.

[Soldier4Christ]

ACLU Weighs in on Flag Flap at Fallbrook Union High School

The ACLU today accused Fallbrook Union High School officials of violating the First Amendment rights of a 15-year-old student who was ordered to remove a small American flag tucked in her back pocket.

A letter delivered to the school district calls on school officials to stop its practice of censoring students' wearing of flags and comply with the constitutional protection of speech.

The American Civil Liberties Union letter also wants Malia Fontana's school record cleared, and a written apology provided to her and her mother on behalf of the district.

"Freedom of speech is the first principle of a free society, and our public schools have a special duty to honor the constitutional rights of students," said David Blair-Loy, legal director of the ACLU of San Diego and Imperial Counties. "Unjustified censorship of students undermines freedom of speech for all."

But Tom Anthony, superintendent of the Fallbrook Union High School District, said administrators at Fallbrook High didn't immediately record any disciplinary action against the teen.

He said students might have been just "playing around" with a flag and been asked to stop. The exact circumstances of the incident won't be known until next week because Fallbrook High is closed for spring break, Anthony said.

"As far as I know, there was never any discipline," Anthony said.

Anthony said the Fallbrook Union High School District is pro-military and its students are advised to respect the flag.

In a statement, Fontana, a sophomore honors student, said she was carrying the flag to protest the censorship of a classmate who last month was forced to remove an American flag headband.

A week after she was escorted to the assistant principal's office for displaying the flag in the back pocket of her pants, her mother learned that while the school would not require Malia to serve detention, the incident report would remain in her daughter's file until six months after graduation, according to the ACLU.

Nikki Fontana, a secretary for a general contracting company, was troubled that her daughter -- who has never had any discipline problems and maintains top grades -- received a black mark on her record, according to the ACLU.

[Soldier4Christ]

ACLU challenges Air Force's discharge of lesbian major

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

SEATTLE -- The American Civil Liberties Union has filed a federal lawsuit challenging the U.S. Air Force Reserves' discharge of a decorated major and flight nurse who had been in a lesbian relationship for several years.

Maj. Margaret Witt, 42, of Spokane, was discharged last month, about a year and a half after the Air Force placed her on unpaid leave, telling her she could no longer take part in any military duties.

The lawsuit, filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court here, seeks an injunction barring Witt's discharge and a declaration that doing so would violate her rights to engage in private activities without government interference.

"I just want to do my job," Witt told The News Tribune of Tacoma, near McChord Air Force base where she had been based. "I want to be out there with my military family, for the soldiers who need me. It's kind of a waste of a nurse right now."

Witt, most recently a flight nurse and operating nurse assigned to McChord Air Force Base near Tacoma, joined the Air Force in 1986, the ACLU said. She served on active duty for eight years before joining the 446th Airlift Wing's medical evacuation squadron in 1995. She was deployed to Oman for five weeks in 2003 as part of Operation Enduring Freedom.

Witt had been in what the ACLU characterized as "a committed relationship" with a female civilian from 1997 to 2003. ACLU spokesman Doug Honig said Wednesday that relationship has since ended.

Witt's lawyers argue that the Supreme Court's 2003 Lawrence v. Texas decision casts a new light on the military's longtime prohibition against service by gays and lesbians. The court struck down as unconstitutional a law prohibiting consensual sex between adults of the same gender.

"Our basic legal theory is that Major Witt is being discharged from the Air Force for doing something that she has a constitutional right to do," ACLU staff attorney Aaron Caplan told the Tacoma newspaper.

During her 18-year career, Witt served in the Persian Gulf and received various honors, including the Air Force Commendation Medal for saving the life of a Department of Defense employee who had collapsed aboard a government-chartered flight from Bahrain.

Lt. Col. Anna Sullivan, spokeswoman for the 446th Airlift Wing, said the 446th had no documentatiom that Witt had been discharged. As for the case itself, she declined comment.

An Air Force spokeswoman at the Pentagon declined to comment. The U.S. attorney's office in Seattle said the case had not yet been assigned.

The ACLU argued that Witt's absence has harmed her unit's morale, and that it comes at a time when the Air Force Reserves has a shortage of flight nurses.

"Major Margaret Witt has been an exemplary member of the military with a distinguished record of service," said Kathleen Taylor, executive director of the ACLU's Washington office. "To discharge her simply because of her sexual orientation is unfair and does not make our military stronger."

Caplan said Witt did not disclose her sexual orientation to her Air Force commanders.

Witt contends that the Air Force began investigating an allegation that she had engaged in homosexual activity in the summer of 2004. A civilian woman told an Air Force investigator that she and Witt had lived together "in a committed and loving relationship" from July 1997 through October 2003, according to the lawsuit.

Witt said she was once chosen to appear on a recruiting brochure for the Air Force Nurse Corps and was her squadron's Officer of the Quarter in 2003.

[Soldier4Christ]

Hawking his new book, Newsweek's Meacham joined O'Reilly's ACLU-bashing

    Summary: Appearing on Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, Newsweek managing editor Jon Meacham agreed that the founding fathers would have disapproved of -- as host Bill O'Reilly termed it -- the ACLU's opposition to the "Pledge of Allegiance ... God, Christmas icons." Further, Meacham did not dispute O'Reilly's characterization of the ACLU as engaged in a "jihad ... against Judeo-Christian tradition in this country."

On the April 11 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly asked Newsweek managing editor Jon Meacham what the founding fathers would have thought of the American Civil Liberties Union's (ACLU) opposition to the "Pledge of Allegiance ... God, Christmas icons." Meacham, the author of a new book, American Gospel: God, the Founding Fathers, and the Making of a Nation (Random House, April 2006), responded, "They would have been against it." O'Reilly later asked him, "So you're firmly convinced, based upon your research, that the founders would not approve of the ACLU jihad ... against Judeo-Christian tradition in this country?" Meacham agreed with O'Reilly's characterization of the ACLU as engaged in a "jihad," saying, "I think that what they wanted was religion in the country."

Media Matters for America has documented O'Reilly's numerous previous attacks on the ACLU, including his descriptions of the organization as a "terrorist group" made up of "terrorist allies" and his claims that it is "going out of its way to help Al Qaeda" and that "Hitler would be a card-carrying ACLU member."

From the April 11 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:

    O'REILLY: What do you think Benjamin Franklin and George Washington and Thomas Jefferson and James Madison would have thought about the ACLU, all right -- Pledge of Allegiance, no God, Christmas icons out of the public arena -- what do you think those guys would have thought about that?

    MEACHAM: They would have been against it. They would have been against the ACLU taking on the elimination or pushing for the elimination of religious references in the public square. There's no question.

    O'REILLY: When you say there's no question, how do you know that? Give me a concrete example.

    MEACHAM: Because the Declaration of Independence, our founding document, grounds the fundamental human rights and the cause for which we went to war against the world's mightiest empire in rights that were the gift of nature's God and endowed by their creator.

    O'REILLY: But that wasn't in the Constitution. Once the ACLU spits at you -- if they wanted that, they would have put it in the Constitution.

    MEACHAM: But you have to read the documents together. You can't be secular and read the Constitution and eliminate the Declaration, nor can you be on the right and read the Declaration and ignore the Constitution.

    O'REILLY: So you have to take the two together to form the picture of what the founders wanted? That's your point of view. You know that will be disputed by the far left. You know that?

    MEACHAM: Sure, they call it the godless Constitution. But it also says it was written in the year of our lord 1787.

    O'REILLY: All right. So you're firmly convinced, based upon your research, that the founders would not approve of the ACLU jihad, pardon the pun, against Judeo-Christian tradition in this country?

    MEACHAM: No, I don't think so at all. I think that what they wanted was religion in the country. They didn't want it coercive. They did not want it forced on people, because largely for religious reasons. The religious argument for religious freedom is that if God himself did not compel obedience, then no man should try.

    O'REILLY: OK, Why did they want religion in the country in the public square, not just the synagogues, and churches?

    MEACHAM: Because, as John Adams said, man is by nature a religious creature. Homer said -- they were following Homer -- that all men need the gods. George Washington clearly understood that the victory in the revolution -- he said, "I can only attribute it to the hand of providence." These were men of intense, private, often complicated faith. Not simple Christianity in many cases.

    O'REILLY: All right. So it was just a benevolence on their part. They thought religion was good for them; it would be good for everybody else.

    MEACHAM: Good for morality.

[Soldier4Christ]

One success behind it, ACLU pursues more prisoner photos

NEW YORK -- A civil liberties group on Tuesday demanded the release of more pictures of U.S. soldiers and detainees after the government acknowledged it had only one new Abu Ghraib prison picture because the rest were already public.

Hours after the acknowledgement by the Department of Defense, the American Civil Liberties Union said the government must now turn over 29 more photographs and two videotapes related to the treatment of detainees in U.S. custody.

ACLU lawyer Amrit Singh said the organization learned of the images, apparently not taken at Abu Ghraib, when the Army turned over documents late last year in response to an ACLU lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Manhattan.

"It became apparent to us there were no grounds for holding additional abuse pictures," she said, noting that the judge presiding over the case had issued a strongly worded opinion saying the public had a right to detainee abuse images.

The new legal fight was disclosed as the ACLU celebrated its success in forcing the government to acknowledge it knew about the Abu Ghraib pictures already published on various Web sites months before the scandal erupted in spring 2004.

The digital photos of physical abuse and sexual humiliation of inmates at the Iraqi prison generated international outrage and called into question the Bush administration's moral standing in its campaign to spread democracy to Iraq. One photo showed a naked hooded prisoner on a box with wires fastened to his hands and genitals.

The government told the ACLU on Monday night that the photographs published online and offered in prosecutions of some soldiers were authentic and turned over one other picture, of two detainees standing side by side in orange jumpsuits with their faces blacked out.

U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein had ordered the release of the pictures, and the government dropped its appeal after it became apparent that nearly all the pictures were already public.

ACLU lawyers have said the continuous challenges to the release of the pictures likely led to their being leaked publicly.

Singh said the public will have a chance to decide for itself about the conduct of its government.

"It's a victory for the principle that the public has a right to know about the kind of misconduct its government has been engaged in," she said.

Megan Gaffney, a spokeswoman for government lawyers in New York, declined to comment Tuesday.

The judge earlier this year had ordered the pictures released, saying that terrorists "do not need pretexts for their barbarism" and that suppressing the pictures would amount to submitting to blackmail.

"Our nation does not surrender to blackmail, and fear of blackmail is not a legally sufficient argument to prevent us from performing a statutory command," the judge said. "Indeed, the freedoms that we champion are as important to our success in Iraq and Afghanistan as the guns and missiles with which our troops are armed."

Dozens of the photographs were taken by a soldier. A military policeman who saw the photos turned them over to the Army.

Abu Ghraib prison, built by Saddam Hussein's regime in the 1970s outside Baghdad, was used as a major detention center by U.S. authorities after the dictator was toppled in 2003. It gained international notoriety after U.S. military personnel were charged with humiliating and assaulting detainees.

[Soldier4Christ]

Judge troubled by government delay in deciding whether Muslim scholar can enter U.S.



NEW YORK -- A federal judge said he is troubled by government delays in deciding whether a Muslim scholar can enter the United States and may order authorities to make a decision.

A lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union accuses the government of manipulating the Patriot Act to try to silence Tariq Ramadan, who has been invited to speak in the United States later this month and twice later this year.

U.S. District Judge Paul A. Crotty said the State Department seemed to be taking a long time to act on a request by Ramadan last August to enter the country, especially since Ramadan's case had been active for more than two years.

"I've convinced myself that when the government wants to act, it can act quickly," the judge said at a hearing Thursday, noting that the government acted quickly in December 2004, when Ramadan withdrew a previous request to enter the United States.

"You jumped on it like a wolf going after a lamb chop," the judge said. "I have the impression that the government steps on the brake and accelerator depending on what it wants to do."

Assistant U.S. Attorney David S. Jones insisted the government was not trying to act slowly and the case was being taken seriously. "It's not being put in a drawer," he said.

Jones said a decision was delayed because an interview of Ramadan in December identified eligibility issues that needed to be investigated.

Ramadan, a Swiss intellectual and visiting fellow in Oxford, England, has said he opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq and sympathizes with the resistance there and in the Palestinian territories. But Ramadan has said he has no connections to terrorism, opposes Islamic extremism, and promotes peaceful solutions.

Outside court, ACLU lawyer Jameel Jaffer said it was "great" that the government had backed off an August 2004 suggestion that Ramadan did not oppose terrorism.

"It's very stigmatizing to have the U.S. government saying you support terrorism," he said.

The judge asked both sides to submit written arguments by the end of April, which Jaffer noted meant that Ramadan could not attend this month's PEN American Center's World Voices Festival in New York.

The judge said Ramadan could still appear at the festival through electronic means.

[Soldier4Christ]

LIBRARIAN CASE DROPPED


Federal prosecutors have dropped their appeal to seek a gag order on a Connecticut librarian. A wire service reports the case - involving a librarian who had received an FBI demand for records about library patrons under the U.S. Patriot Act - was now considered closed.

It also said that the American Civil Liberties Union would identify the defendant after court proceedings were completed. U.S. District Judge Janet Hall had ruled that the gag order should be lifted, saying it unfairly prevented the librarian from participating in a debate over how the Act should be rewritten.

Prosecutors appealed, but then dropped the case, noting that the librarian has already been identified in news reports and that the Act has now been amended to include a request for exemption from the nondisclosure requirement of the Patriot Act.