ACLU In The News

[Soldier4Christ]

 Rich Liberals Attempt Supreme Coup in Kentucky

In Kentucky this year 263 out of 265 judicial positions are up for election, including 5 of 7 spots on the Kentucky Supreme Court. That makes this year a very important election year and one in which, perhaps more than ever, citizens need to make an effort to educate themselves on their judicial candidates. This is often a difficult task because there is little information on many of the candidates in mainstream print and there is not usually a great deal of name recognition. However, a little research effort will go a long way in making Kentucky better.

The truth is, liberals already know this. A concerted grassroots effort made by either side over the next few months could potentially change Kentucky forever. Kentucky Supreme Court Justices serve 8 year terms, and incumbents generally enjoy an advantage over opponents. Rich liberals have already begun pouring money into the campaigns of candidates who they hope will become activist judges. A simple search of the Kentucky Registry of Election Finance's online searchable database FOUND HERE will tell you a lot about the type of people who want your candidates to win.

Probably the most interesting of the judicial races this year is for the 6th District's Kentucky Supreme Court Justice position. This seat is being vacated by Justice Wintersheimer, and Wil Schroder is running against Marcus Carey.

This is a race in which Wil Schroder is claiming to be a "pro-life" Catholic, yet Marcus Carey received the endorsement of the Northern Kentucky Right to Life Association. That is a bit odd, and already Mr. Schroder reminds me of people like John Forbes Kerry (D-MA). It is well-known that liberals hide their opinions from the people in order to mask themselves and get elected before unleashing their tyrannical liberalism on the people of their states and the country, and it sounds to me like that is what is happening here. I would not be surprised at all to hear reports of Mr. Schroder claiming to be a Republican. This would afford him a wonderful opportunity to make a grandiose Clintonesque statement such as, "Yes, I did claim to be a republican and I (finger wagging begins) meant it. I think everyone involved in representative government is a republican, with a little "r." I'm being accused of associating myself with a political party during a judicial election which is strictly forbidden by the Kentucky Judicial Ethics Code. I never did such a thing."

Of course, Mr. Schroder would be on to something if he were to bring up judicial ethics. Currently, Mr. Schroder has an elected official serving as his campaign chairman. This is a very questionable practice, and is specifically forbidden in this 1997 judicial ethics opinion. Margo Grubbs, a NoKy gay rights activist, is also on Mr. Schroder's campaign team. Something tells me that she would probably refuse to serve on the judicial campaign of a pro-life Catholic because he would probably also be an anti-gay homophobe bigot racist. Mr. Schroder is beginning to look more and more liberal to me, and November is looking more and more like Christmas to Conservatives.

With all of this talk about Wil Schroder, you may now be wondering about who Marcus Carey is. The truth is he can't say. He can't say because Kentucky's current judicial ethics rules forbid free speech by judicial candidates despite the fact that the United States Supreme Court has already overruled clauses such as ours in the 2002 Republican Party of Minnesota v. White decision. Minnesota did, and Kentucky still does, violate the First Amendment by prohibiting judicial candidates from announcing "his or her views on disputed legal or political issues." The Court found this to be in direct violation of the candidate's rights. With that in mind, consider how Mr. Carey looks to voters when they ask him, "Are you a Republican or a Democrat?" He can't say and he looks bad. "How do you feel about abortion?" He can't say and he looks bad. Mr. Carey is following Kentucky's rules while Mr. Schroder ignores them, and therefore, following the rules is putting Mr. Carey at a significant disadvantage.

This is why Mr. Carey filed a lawsuit in federal court last week challenging Kentucky's current judicial ethics rules. Luckily for him, he has James Bopp arguing the case, who argued and won the R.P. Minn. v. White case before the U.S. Supreme Court. In a statement released on June 9th, Bopp stated, "Despite a federal court decision striking down Canon 5, the Kentucky Supreme Court continues to advance rules that unconstitutionally violate judicial candidates' free speech rights. Voters are being denied an opportunity to make an informed decision, and judicial candidates, including those running for the Kentucky Supreme Court, are not able to mount a meaningful campaign for their candidacies because their free speech rights are so excessively restricted."

Predictably, Kentucky's major news outlets derided Mr. Carey and his decision to file suit. An article from The Courier-Journal's June 12th edition read, "A candidate for the Kentucky Supreme Court wants a federal court to throw out the state’s judicial election rules because he says they prohibit him from offering his views on gay marriage, when life begins and other hot-button topics." The same article later added, "it would end nonpartisan judicial elections in Kentucky." The article does not mention the U.S. Supreme Court's distinction between non-partisan judicial elections and judicial campaigns.

In response to these attacks on Mr. Carey, he released a rebuttal which, predictably, was not ran by major news outlets but will now be published by Blue Grass, Red State, in defense of free speech. The rebuttal, in its entirety, is found at the end of this entry.

I do not know a single voter who wants to cast his or her vote based on lies that they have led to believe are true and vague doublespeak that is indecipherable. The public has the right to ask candidates questions, and candidates have the right to answer them. Of course it would be wrong for them to "pre-judge" cases or promise decisions in advance, but that is not the issue in this suit or in this election. Political ignorance runs rampant throughout our country, and Marcus Carey's lawsuit will go a long way in reducing it in Kentucky. This suit is why we have courts, and it will be a light in our darkness.

If you are still curious about the merits of Mr. Schroder and how they hold up to Mr. Carey's, take a look at who is giving them money. Mr. Carey has a very diverse donor field. On his campaign finance report you will find donations from farmers, CEOs, business people, housewives, a U.S. Senator and some of his staff, engineers, attorneys, doctors, and so on. Wil Schroder's campaign is supported almost exclusively by attorneys. That is not a good sign, especially when you consider the reputations of some Mr. Schroder's donors.

Stan Chesley, owner of the home pictured above, donated $1,000 to Mr. Schroder's campaign. Are we to think that people like Mr. Chesley donate money for the fun of it? Mr. Chesley held countless Cincinnati fundraisers for President Clinton in the nineties. President Clinton then appointed Mr. Chesley's wife Susan Dlott to the bench of the Southern District of Ohio.

Birds of a feather flock together . . .

Mr. Chesley made a lot of his money by suing the Diocese of Covington over the recent sex-abuse craze in which Chesley and other attorneys forced the Diocese to sell Camp Marydale, which had served the community for decades. Of course, he was also involved in the Fen-Phen lawsuit craze, which ultimately led to the attorneys making more money than their clients and a Northern Kentucky judge resigning after being reprimanded for misconduct in the case. Judge Bamberger, essentially, granted the attorneys unusual class-action status and approved excess fees for the attorneys - one of which was a close friend of the judge. Mr. Chesley noted that they had made "an amazing settlement."

The aforementioned close friend of Judge Bamberger, Mark Modlin, brags that he is very close to Wil Schroder. Mr. Schroder sent back Mark Modlin's $1,000 donation to hide his association with him.

Sixteen different attorneys (in fairness, one of whom is likely related to Mr. Schroder) from liberal law firm Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP have contributed a total of $9,720 to Wil Schroder's campaign. That is about 12% of Schroder's total funds (without accounting for expenditures) and a definite sign that Mr. Schroder stands ready to be influenced by people who do not share in valuing the ideals of Kentucky's average citizens. These attorneys are a bunch of rich liberals who don't live anywhere near Kentucky and usually consider us "flyover country." They think we are idiots and do not really care what we think. They think we are a problem that needs to be solved - so they do what liberals always do whenever they think there is a problem that needs to be solved - they start mailing checks out to people.

Bill Lerach himself was a major left coast Clinton supporter and his legal action has resulted "in recoveries of billions of dollars."

cont'd

[Soldier4Christ]

$1,000 Lerach Coughlin contributor Eric Isaacson is a certified war protestor. Isaacson states in his memoirs of the occasion in which he was arrested, "On that day, I had picked up a flag and joined an antiwar demonstration as it passed by my law offices in downtown San Diego. The demonstration was a noisy but peaceful one." According to Isaacson, during the peaceful protest, "the police suddenly - - and without provocation - - descended upon us and attacked the demonstrators with billy clubs." Sure. Regardless, I do not believe that Kentucky citizens want to elect a Supreme Court Justice who could be influenced by this guy. Isaacson is also President of the San Diego Foundation for Change, which supports numerous radical leftist organizations and events of all types, including the Bisexual Forum, the Project on Youth and Non-military Opportunities, and V.A.G.I.N.A., which "wants to create visibility for the San Diego dyke community."

Another contributor to Wil Schroder's campaign is George Barrett, the ACLU lawyer and senior partner of Barrett, Johnston, & Parsley. Mr. Barrett is currently fighting to permanently remove the Ten Commandments from the Rutherford County, TN courthouse. In 2003, Mr. Barrett began fighting for the ACLU and "reproductive rights" in a suit that would force Tennessee to stop distributing "Choose Life" license plates.

The writing is on the wall, people. Wil Schroder is a liberal and he takes money from liberals. Money, power, and sex are the most important things to these people and they will do anything to further perversify this country's traditional views of those topics by way of judicial activism.

DO NOT LET THEM!! Educate yourselves on your judicial candidates and vote for the right person. As soon as Marcus Carey's suit is ruled favorably, he will be able to draw the distinctions between himself and his opponent. However, the circumstances surrounding this race which I have just laid out are likely not unique in Kentucky this year. I encourage all Kentuckians to investigate their dstricts' candidates and share the news with your fellow voters.

Remember, Kentucky Supreme Court Justices serve for 8 years. That is a long time to be stuck with a judicial activist. Sensible judges in the lower courts will increase judicial efficiency. Ultimately, the coming months could be a continuance of a dark age or the beginning of a new era in Kentucky characterized by unforeseen political knowledge and involvement. We have to be just as relentless in our causes and beliefs as the ACLU is in their attacks.

Carey rebuttal:

After reading recent editorials rebuking the First Amendment suit filed in Frankfort
seeking to clarify Kentucky’s rules of judicial campaign conduct, it is obviously
necessary to explain the true significance and reason for this important litigation.
Because these editorials are erroneous on some points and extremely misleading on
others, it would be a grossly unfair to the readers if these opinions were permitted to stand without rebuttal.

First, the suit does not seek to inject “hot button” issues into judicial races. Kentucky voters, every day, are asking judicial candidates questions regarding their beliefs and values. Unfortunately there is swirling doubt about what the law will allow judicial candidates to say. This suit seeks to clarify that issue for the benefit of all candidates and the public.

Second, many candidates have carefully restricted their conduct so as to comply with
Kentucky’s pronouncements. Conscientious candidates have sought ethics opinions and
politely refused to answer voters’ questions as directed by those ethics opinions. Voters however consistently recoil at a candidate’s refusal to answer questions, regardless how polite the refusal.

While some candidates refuse to answer voter’s questions other candidates, apparently
relying upon recent cases decided by United States Supreme Court have openly
announced their party affiliation and stated their views on a variety of other topics. The American notion of justice tells us that there is something inherently wrong that needs to be fixed in an election process where playing by the rules is a disadvantage.

Third, it is not the goal of the suit to “disintegrate” the public’s faith in the judiciary, but rather to encourage the public to become more fully engaged the selection process. The suit seeks to remove unconstitutional barriers that have for too long prevented valuable information from reaching voters. Such barriers have been labeled “incumbent protection policies,” and stricken down as unconstitutional.

Fourth, this suit does not seek permission for any candidate to “prejudge” cases. The suit does however seek permission for the public to prejudge would be judges. The suit very clearly empowers those whom our founding fathers intended to be the best judge of their own future, the public. And this suit reaffirms our faith that the public will not only make wise choices about the values of candidates for judicial office but also about his/her ability to remain independent and impartial from the influences of special interests. Keeping the public in the dark is not consistent with the American election process. And despite recently developed local traditions, the Supreme Court of the United States agrees.

The goals of this suit seek to promote the highest duties of a Supreme Court Justice –a constitutionalist who trusts the public to decide matters for themselves and commits to apply the law as the people have written it. It would seem that for a candidate to this high office to sponsor, advocate for, or abide by anything less would be a violation of the candidate’s solemn oath as an office of the court, to be faithful and true to the Constitution. There is no room in a nation ruled by law to discourage liberty for the sake of preserving unlawful traditions.

This suit will clarify and establish the rules all candidates will have to live by. And regardless which side prevails, and in contrast to other nations in the world, the very fact that this suit has been brought will reaffirm our faith in our ability to resolve disputes through the peaceful and orderly application of law and through our American system of civil Justice.

[Soldier4Christ]

ACLU expands profiling lawsuit

 The American Civil Liberties Union has taken legal action on behalf of 10 citizens who contend they have been unfairly detained, searched and harassed as they return to this country from trips abroad.

Travelers--mostly those of Middle Eastern and South Asian descent--can often find themselves unnecessarily caught up in security, the ACLU argues.

"We've been receiving complaints from all over the country," said Harvey Grossman of the ACLU of Illinois. "It's apparent that the judiciary needs to review what's going on."

The plaintiffs say that since the terrorist attacks of 2001, innocent civilians have been routinely harassed by federal officials during security questioning. They are calling for changes in policy at the FBI's Terrorist Screening Center and at U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

"We've taken a lot of time to bring together a broad array of plaintiffs from all over the country who have been stopped at every major airport and border crossing," Grossman said. "They are doctors, a pharmacist, businessmen."

The plaintiffs allege their civil rights have been violated through what they call "highly punitive detentions" and harassment.

"These recurring, unconscionable, and unconstitutional border detentions include unjustified body searches, handcuffing, seizure of personal and business records, the use of handguns as a display of force" and other measures, the suit says.

The treatment stems from the inclusion of some U.S. citizens in the Terrorist Screening Database, according to the document. Bill Carter, a spokesman for the FBI in Washington, said there would be no comment because of the pending litigation.

According to the ACLU complaint, many citizens are put on the terror-watch database without any explanation. Others are misidentified because their names are similar to those on the list.

The filing amends a lawsuit filed by the ACLU in federal court in Chicago last year against the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, Customs and U.S. Immigration and Custom Enforcement, on behalf of Akif Rahman, 34, and his wife, Masooda, of Wheaton. Rahman contended he was stopped by border guards in Detroit after a trip to Canada in May 2005, handcuffed to a chair and questioned for hours while his family waited.

Joining the complaint Monday were Niaz Anwar of the Boston area; Khalid Bhatti, a New York physician; Shimrote Ishaque, a Seattle pharmacist; Elie Khoury, a Detroit physician, and his wife, Farideh; Sammy Rehman, a Chicago area radiologist, and his wife, Riffat; and Oussama Jammal, a video producer also from the Chicago suburbs.

The ACLU contends the alleged conduct not only violates the civil rights of the defendants, it keeps agents from spending time on actual threats.

[Soldier4Christ]

‘John Doe’ witnesses pull out of meth case

The ACLU had planned to bolster its claim that “Operation Meth Merchant" targeted South Asians.

The last-minute refusals of two anonymous witnesses to testify and a judge’s subsequent refusal to hear from a third witness Monday left American Civil Liberties Union attorneys without evidence to present at a hearing for “Operation Meth Merchant” defendants in U.S. District Court in Rome.

The ACLU had planned to call to the stand two men cited only as John Doe 1 and John Doe 2 in a motion to dismiss charges based on allegations of racial targeting in “Meth Merchant.” But after conferring with court-appointed counsel and possibly with each other, said ACLU attorney Graham Boyd, both decided to invoke their Fifth Amendment rights.

Doe 2 is one of the confidential informants the government used to perform controlled buys during the “Meth Merchant” investigation, which last year led to charges against 49 Northwest Georgia convenience store owners and operators — including 44 of South Asian descent and 33 bearing the common last name Patel — accused of selling items they allegedly knew would be used to make methamphetamines. He was the first to decide not to testify, Boyd said.

Doe 1 was not utilized during “Meth Merchant,” Boyd said, but did have knowledge of which stores authorities were told were suppliers for methamphetamine manufacturers.

He was planning to testify as of 45 minutes prior to the 10 a.m. hearing Monday but changed his mind after spending time with Doe 2 in a holding cell, Boyd said.

Testimony from the Does was expected to indicate investigators conducting “Meth Merchant” both ignored information about sales at white-owned stores and specifically directed informants to target South Asian-owned stores because of the clerks’ limited fluency in English.

When neither anonymous witness would take the stand, Boyd asked U.S. District Court Judge Harold L. Murphy for permission to examine one of their cousins. The cousin, he said, was ready and willing to testify Monday morning to information that would “fit squarely within the four corners of that John Doe affidavit” cited in the ACLU’s motion for dismissal.

“He’s practically the same person, except he’s willing to testify,” Boyd told Murphy.

But Murphy denied the request after Assistant U.S. Attorney Lisa Tarvin said she hadn’t prepared to cross-examine the surprise witness. “I hate to use the word ‘unfair,’” Tarvin said, “but this is exactly the same kind of thing they would complain about themselves if we tried to pull this.”

Murphy had issued a ruling June 2 outlining the substance of Monday’s hearing, which was to include direct and cross examination of Does 1 and 2 only. Noting this fact, he told Boyd he would allow the new witness to come forward — but not until 10 a.m. Thursday.

Both the U.S. Attorney’s office and ACLU attorneys declined to comment, though Boyd raised concerns during open court that delaying the testimony might “have the same effect” on his new witness as on the Does. “It’s just human that they’re going to get nervous, they’re going to get cold feet,” he said.

Deepali Gokhale, organizer of the Racial Justice Campaign Against Operation Meth Merchant, helped stage a prayer vigil outside the courthouse Monday on behalf of “Meth Merchant” defendants. Gokhale said she was disappointed not to hear from the Does on Monday but felt their absence — or the absence of the Doe cousin, should he decide not to testify either — will not have a negative impact on the ACLU’s case.

“I think the ACLU has enough evidence that, with or without the informants, this case is going to stand on its own,” she said. “I’m still very optimistic about that.”

[Soldier4Christ]

Supreme Court approves using 911 calls at trial

The decision based partly on a Redondo Beach case should help in abuse cases where victims can't, or won't, testify against their attacker.


Statements made to 911 operators during a domestic violence emergency can be admitted as evidence at trial when the victim is unavailable or unwilling to testify, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday in a highly anticipated unanimous opinion.

However, the justices voted 8-1 that statements made to police officers after the danger has passed cannot be used in place of a live witness at trial.

The pair of rulings leave it to further interpretation when an emergency response ends and a criminal investigation begins.

"They appropriately left the door open for things to be examined on a case-by-case basis," said Aaron Caplan, a staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington state.

The ACLU and some criminal defense organizations filed briefs in the cases asking the Supreme Court to exclude such evidence because it violates a defendant's constitutionally guaranteed rights to confront witnesses against them.

Ruling pleases prosecutors

Prosecutors, backed by women's and children's advocacy groups, hoped the 911 recordings and police statements would be admissible because these emotionally charged cases are often put in jeopardy when victims are unable or unwilling to testify -- either because they fear the defendant, love him or rely on him financially.

Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney Michael Gargiulo, who now heads the elder abuse unit but was in charge of the Torrance branch's special victims unit, said he was "heartened" that 911 calls can be used in court.

"I think a lot of what we do involves distraught victims calling in," Gargiulo said.

Scalia warns defendants

The opinion, penned by Justice Antonin Scalia, addressed the problems that arise with witness cooperation in these types of prosecutions and warned that a defendant who "seeks to undermine the judicial process" by procuring or forcing a witness' silence forfeits the right to confrontation.

The high court had tackled the two cases at once in an effort to clarify a 2004 opinion that left open for interpretation the meaning of "testimonial" statements -- those gathered during an investigation and subject to confrontation and cross-examination by a defendant.

The first case upholds the conviction of Adrian Davis for violating a domestic violence order against him. The Washington state man's former girlfriend called 911 on Feb. 1, 2001, but hung up the phone. The operator returned her call.

Michelle McCottry told the operator about Davis: "He's here jumpin' on me again," and said he was using his fists on her. McCottry disappeared and did not testify at Davis' trial despite a subpoena, but the 911 tape was played for the jury.

Scalia noted that McCottry was speaking about events as they happened, not about past events, and it was "plainly a call for help against a bona fide physical threat."

"McCottry's frantic answers were provided over the phone, in an environment that was not tranquil, or even (as far as any reasonable 911 operator could make out) safe," Scalia wrote. "She was simply not acting as a witness; she was not testifying."

In contrast, the victim in the other case gave statements to police officers after the emergency had passed, the majority opined.

Statements fail Scalia test

On Feb. 26, 2003, police officers responded to the Indiana home of Amy and Hershel Hammon for a domestic disturbance call. Mrs. Hammon met them on the front porch and told them that "nothing was the matter."

The officers went inside and attempted to talk to the couple separately. Both said they had an argument but it was over, and Mrs. Hammon told the officer her husband broke their furnace and shoved her on the floor into broken glass before hitting her in the chest, tearing up her van so she couldn't leave and attacking their daughter.

A judge found Hammon guilty of domestic battery and a probation violation following a trial at which Mrs. Hammon did not testify, but the officers did.

Scalia wrote that it is clear the statements were part of an investigation and there was no emergency in progress. Therefore, it can be reasonable to expect that the information was given to further a possible prosecution, and is susceptible to confrontation.

Justice Clarence Thomas dissented on the Hammon portion of the opinion, writing that there is no way to know if the abusive behavior -- which ceased in the presence of the officers -- could have continued after they left, transforming the situation from "past conduct" to "ongoing emergency."

[Soldier4Christ]

Camp Pendelton 8 to Be Charged With Murder, Civil Liberties For Terrorists But Not For Troops


    The Marine Corps on Wednesday planned to charge seven Marines and one sailor with murder in connection with the April death of an Iraqi civilian, a defense official said.
    At Camp Pendleton, Calif., where the eight accused service members have been held in a military brig since late May, officials announced that a news conference would be held later Wednesday concerning the alleged killing of the Iraqi in the village of Hamdania. The announcement did not mention murder or other charges.

    The official who disclosed the Marine plans asked not to be identified publicly because the official announcement was still pending.

    The allegation is that Marines pulled an unarmed Iraqi man from his home on April 26 and shot him to death without provocation. Seven Marines and one Navy corpsman from the Pendleton-based 3rd Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment were taken out of Iraq and put in the brig pending the filing of any charges against them.

    Jane Siegel, an attorney representing one of the accused Marines, Pfc. John Jodka, 20, said she had not yet been given a copy of the charges.”It’s just amazing and a little bit horrifying that they have decided to play this to the media before they have talked to counsel,”she said.



California Conservative points us to this excerpt from Front Page Magazine to put things in perspective.

Civil Liberties for Terrorists But Not for American Troops

    In recent years the ranks of alleged victims championed by civil libertarians on the political Left have swollen to include everyone from the terrorist detainees at Guantanamo Bay, to anti-American radicals, to environmentalist ultras and illegal immigrants. But there’s at least one group ineligible for victim status under the legal Left’s guidelines: American troops.

    This seems to be the lesson of the “Camp Pendleton Eight.” A group of seven Marines and one Navy corpsman, they are currently being held–reportedly under excessively harsh conditions–at the Camp Pendleton Marine Corps base in southern California on suspicion of kidnapping and killing an innocent Iraqi man in the town of Hamdania, west of Baghdad, on April 26. Charges have not yet been filed, but investigators in the case have reportedly used a variety of coercive methods–including threatening the soldiers with the death penalty, interrogating them for upward of eight hours without water or toilet breaks, and keeping them shackled at the hands, waist and ankles–that, one might assume, would stir furor among those groups, such as the ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights and the National Lawyers Guild, who relentlessly profess themselves guardians of American civil liberties and constitutional standards. Instead, as inquiries to these organizations by FrontPageMag.com revealed, these groups have responded to the soldiers’ plight with collective indifference.

    As far as the ACLU seems to be concerned, the case does not exist. This is not because the ACLU is reluctant to take a stand on the war on terror. In the past few years, the organization has taken several stands. When not cheerleading for illegal immigration under the guise of promoting “civil liberties,” the ACLU has sided with convicted Palestinian Islamic Jihad leader Sami al-Arian. In court briefs, the ACLU even attempted to undermine the government’s case against al-Arian by declaring inadmissible evidence collected in an FBI investigation, on the dubious grounds that the search warrants used by investigators were too broad. Taking a different tack, Howard Simon, the executive director of the Florida ACLU, cited unconfirmed allegations that al-Arian was allowed to change his underwear only once a week and his prison jumpsuit every two weeks and portrayed al-Arian as the victim of “the disgusting raw exercise of power by John Ashcroft.” (Prison officials dismissed the claims.)

    No such sympathy seems forthcoming for the troops. Neither Simon nor his ACLU colleagues have had anything to say about the fact that U.S. soldiers, who, as noted, have not yet been charged with a crime, are kept in shackles and were, until recently, held under maximum pretrial confinement. Apathy to prison conditions cannot explain the ACLU’s silence. This May, the organization filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of women prisoners in Wisconsin, charging that the state’s prison system provides “far inferior mental health treatment” to women as opposed to men. To date, however, the ACLU has issued not a single statement on the far more prominent case of the Camp Pendleton Eight.

Now that they have been charged, who thinks the ACLU will be defending them? Maybe if they convert to Islam, and become conscientious objectors the ACLU might get interested. Tell me again why they are called “American” Civil Liberties Union.

[Soldier4Christ]

ACLU Accuses U.S. Of Human Rights Violations


Yesterday, the ACLU released a report to the U.N. Human Rights Committee condemning the U.S. government for failing to comply with its treaty obligations to protect and preserve a range of human rights protections at home and abroad.

    The report, Dimming the Beacon of Freedom: U.S. Violations of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, documents the U.S. record on human rights in five areas: national security, women’s rights, racial justice, immigrants rights and religious freedom.

    The Human Rights Committee is the U.N. body of experts charged with monitoring countries compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the primary human rights treaty. The United States ratified the treaty in 1992. The committee will review the official submission of the U.S. government on July 17 and 18 in Geneva. The ACLU will send a delegation to present the report and monitor the proceedings.

    Dimming the Beacon of Freedom provides a detailed description of human rights violations in the United States. In addition to the impact of these rights violations on other vulnerable groups in the U.S., the report highlights how in the wake on September 11, 2001, Arabs, Muslims and South Asians, and to some extent all immigrants, were victims of discriminatory targeting by the government. It draws attention to the erosion of the right to privacy, discussing expanded surveillance and the government’s growing use of the states secret privilege to avoid accountability for abuses.

The ACLU goes on to list their recommendations to the UN to urge the United States on. The list includes trials or “judicial remedies” for all persons detained in the war on terror. Andrew McCarthy discusses this very issue today in his column. He also discusses how the Geneva Conventions do not apply to Al Qaeda.

    Well, the treaty’s provisions call for protecting civilians and civilian infrastructure. Al Qaeda targets civilians for mass murder and intentionally destroys civilian infrastructure.

    The provisions call for membership in a regular military force which carries its arms openly. Al Qaeda’s idea of a weapon in open view is a hijacked jumbo jet in the seconds before it crashes into a building. Otherwise, it favors roadside bombs or high explosives concealed in vans burrowed in underground garages beneath bustling civilian skyscrapers.

    The provisions call for wearing uniforms in order to distinguish members as authentic soldiers. Al Qaeda’s jihadists dress and conduct themselves ostensibly as civilians — the better to hide from real armies and lull actual civilians to their deaths.

    The provisions call for treating captured enemy soldiers with the dignity and respect accorded to honorable prisoners of war: accounting for them, keeping them safe, allowing the International Committee of the Red Cross access to ensure their proper treatment.

    Al Qaeda tortures and slaughters them.

    When it comes to the prisoners they capture, al Qaeda doesn’t much care about the Geneva Conventions, the approbation of the ICRC, or Kofi Annan’s latest grandiloquence on the post-sovereign alchemy of international law.

    All it cares about is “the verdict of the Islamic court.” It was that verdict, and no other, that the Mujahedeen Shura Council — Iraq’s thugs-in-chief — announced had been “carried out” against our fallen heroes by their new Zarqawi, Abu Hamza al-Muhajer. Needless to say, the deed was done “with God Almighty’s blessing.”

The list also includes putting a stop to the current NSA surveillance program, curtailing secrecy, and to end secret prisons which the ACLU have no evidence even exist. So the big question is why are these organizations set out against America so much in this war? Why are all of these Human Rights groups so silent on the many violations from the other side? Michelle Malkin calls the silence deafening and points us to Jeff Emanuel who tackles the topic.

    Privates First Class Kristian Menchaca and Thomas Tucker were members of the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault)’s “Strike” Brigade, based at Fort Campbell, Kentucky. Both Menchaca and Tucker volunteered to be members of the US Army. Both volunteered to be infantrymen. Both knew, as do all members of the US Armed Forces, that they could end up in harm’s way as a result of their volunteering—doubly so since both initially enlisted well after the Iraq War (and postwar process) had begun. In a written statement, Tucker’s family said that their son had joined the military in part out of a desire to “do something positive.” They also released to the press the text of a message he left on their answering machine less than a week before his capture, in which he reaffirmed his commitment to, and belief in, his mission. “I’m defending my country,” he said, and he asked his mother to be proud of him.

    Interestingly silent on this and other atrocities carried out by the insurgents in Iraq are the “human rights” groups who seem to spend every day accusing the United States of torture, war crimes, and various human rights violations. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan has called the Iraq war “illegal,” and John Pace, former UN chief of Human Rights for Iraq, has said that human rights conditions are “as bad now as they were under Saddam,” but was it America that filled mass graves with hundreds of thousands of murdered Iraqi civilians? Last month, Human Rights Watch again accused the US of “brutalizing Muslim suspects in the name of the war on terror,” but how many times have Americans strapped bombs to their own chests and purposely detonated themselves in a large crowd of civilians? Amnesty International’s website highlights America’s use of “torture or other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment” against terrorist captives, but how many prisoners—Muslim or otherwise—have Americans brutally beheaded?

Indeed, the silence speaks volumes. These very groups that are so quick to accuse America are the same ones that defend the terrorists from even worse accusations and attrocities.

Update: Amnesty International breaks the silence. Still no word from the ACLU.

[Soldier4Christ]

Arab-Americans Sue U.S. Over Re-entry Procedures
by kender on 06-20-06 @ 5:27 pm Filed under ACLU, News

The ACLU; Enemies of the State?

That is the conlusion I draw when the ACLU tries to get our government from performing their most important job, protecting the citizenry.

From the NYT comes this little tidbit about the ACLU once again using activism in the courts to get their way and make us less safe.

    A group of Muslim and Arab-Americans, frustrated by what they say is the climate of suspicion and fear that dogs their re-entry into the United States from trips abroad, sued the Department of Homeland Security and the F.B.I. yesterday, demanding that the courts protect their civil rights.

    The seven main plaintiffs in the class action suit assert that both the United States Congress and the federal government are ignoring the plight of innocent Americans harassed repeatedly because of problems with the terrorist watch list.

    The lawsuit, filed in Federal District Court in Chicago by the American Civil Liberties Union, contends that the courts alone can ensure that antiterrorism policies do not repeatedly subject ordinary Americans to detention, questioning, fingerprinting and the like.

Your civil rights? What about our right to be safe from terrorist attacks? In case you numbskulls haven’t noticed, we are in a war with a group of people that are largely Muslim Males. It makes sense from a security standpoint to scrutinize those people that fall into the demographic of our enemy, or do you not understand this concept?

    “These are law-abiding citizens, and it is too extreme, too offensive,” said Harvey Grossman, the legal director for the A.C.L.U.’s Illinois branch, saying that repeated complaints to Homeland Security as well as senators or congressmen barely get a response. “The court is the only forum where these people have a chance to get a hearing.”

(emphasis mine)

So you are offended when our government rightly puts you through procedures to make certain that you are not some terrorist that may pose a danger to the citizens of this country?

Are you insane or just stupid, achmed? It is our governments primary responsibility to protect us in just this manner. Their primary job is to PROTECT AND SECURE THE BORDERS!!!

Bill Anthony, the senior public affairs spokesman for United States Customs and Border Protection has the right idea regarding this situation:

    “We will not let anybody into the country until we are sure they are not going to do harm to our citizens and violate our laws; it is that simple.”

The bottom line is that our government has put in place a system to try to protect the citizens of the nation. It isn’t perfect, and won’t be anytime soon, but an inconvenience for a few is better than missing a terrorist and getting attacked again.

The ACLU is wrong on this one, but don’t expect them to back down either. Our safety is less important to them than the travel ease of a small number of people.

On the other hand, if they do manage to get screening processes cut down, and someone slips in and pulls off another attack, maybe we can sue the ACLU for it.

[Soldier4Christ]

ACLU challenges Miami school book ban

The American Civil Liberties Union has filed suit against the Miami-Dade School Board after the board banned 24 books, including one about Cuba.

The school board approved the ban last Wednesday, sparked by a parent`s concern over the book, 'A Visit to Cuba.'

Juan Amador Rodriguez -- a former political prisoner in Cuba and father of an elementary school student -- complained that the book ignores food shortages and human rights abuses in Cuba, the Miami Herald reports.

The school board decision wasn`t popular within the district. Its own lawyer warned of a possibly expensive ACLU suit -- and the suit was filed Wednesday morning in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

Two district review committees said banning the books was censorship and may violate a U.S. Supreme Court ruling against politically-motivated removal of books from libraries.

[Soldier4Christ]

ACLU Promotes Censorship — When It’s Good For Them
.

    MIAMI (Reuters) - The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit against Miami’s public school system on Wednesday, saying its ban on a children’s book about travel to Cuba was unconstitutional.

Howard Simon, the executive director of ACLU Florida responded:

    “We can appreciate that the book might be found to be offensive by some parents, but censorship is a cure that is worse than the disease.”


While I cannot disagree with the Simon’s anti-censorship position, I also cannot keep from enjoying the irony in light of their own internal censorship scandal. The Miami lawsuit comes just days after Jay commented on the ACLU censoring their directors from publicly disagreeing with national board members and staff:

    One of the provisions said, “a director may publicly disagree with an A.C.L.U. policy position, but may not criticize the A.C.L.U. board and staff.”

    Another said, “Where an individual director disagrees with a board position on matters of civil liberties policy, the director should refrain from publicly highlighting the fact of such disagreement.”

    The provisions have attracted criticism from several newspaper editorial boards, members and donors, who said they clashed with the A.C.L.U.’s historic defense of free speech.


Nice. Do As I Say and Not As I Do. If the ACLU really practiced what they preached, the directors would not only be criticizing board members, but they would also be filing weekly lawsuits against the national organization. That is — after all — what the ACLU really means when they say “free speech.”

[Soldier4Christ]

ACLU Fights To Keep Communist Propaganda In School Library

    The American Civil Liberties Union asked a federal judge to stop the Miami-Dade County school district from removing a series of children’s books from its libraries, including a volume about Cuba which depicts smiling kids in communist uniforms.

    The ACLU and the Miami-Dade County Student Government Association argued in a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Miami on Wednesday that the school board should add materials with alternate viewpoints rather than remove books that could be offensive.

    Last week, the board voted 6-3 to remove “Vamos a Cuba” and its English-language version, “A Visit to Cuba” from 33 schools, stating the books were inappropriate for young readers because of inaccuracies and omissions about life in the communist nation.

    The book, by Alta Schreier, targets students ages 5 to 7 and contains images of smiling children wearing uniforms of Cuba’s communist youth group and a carnival celebrating the 1959 Cuban revolution. The district owns 49 copies of the book in Spanish and English.

To the ACLU it doesn’t seem to matter that the books are misleading, inaccurate, and inappropriate for this age group. It doesn’t matter to the ACLU that the book is pure propaganda. To the ACLU it is a book ban. It just so happens that the message portrayed in the book seems to go along with their founder’s beliefs.

    “I have been to Europe several times, mostly in connection with international radical activities…and have traveled in the United States to areas of conflict over workers rights to strike and organize. My chief aversion is the system of greed, private profit, privilege and violence which makes up the control of the world today, and which has brought it to the tragic crisis of unprecedented hunger and unemployment…Therefore, I am for Socialism, disarmament and ultimately, for the abolishing of the State itself…I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.”

~ Roger Baldwin-founder of the ACLU~

Here is another one from Mr. Baldwin.

    “Do steer away from making it look like a Socialist enterprise…We want also to look like patriots in everything we do. We want to get a good lot of flags, talk a good deal about the Constitution and what our forefathers wanted to make of this country, and to show that we are really the folks that really stand for the spirit of our institutions.”-Baldwin’s advice in 1917 to Louis Lochner of the socialist People’s Council in Minnesota.

I’m sure the ACLU’s founder would be proud of the ACLU’s move to protect the propaganda of his ideology. The ACLU’s main point of argument is that banning one point of view is the wrong way to deal with the situation is lost when it is five year olds potentially being exposed to this crap. To the ACLU this is nothing more than a book ban, and they are asking the school to include more alternative views instead of banning unpopular ones. No one has to ask if they would fight this hard to keep a Bible in the school library, or whether their strength would be focused on getting rid of it. Take this however you want, but the ACLU has never strayed very far from its founding principles.

[Soldier4Christ]

Monroe Official Responds to ACLU Letter

Monroe County commissioners are refining their policy on videotaping meetings, Commissioner Gary Hudson said Wednesday following receipt of a letter from the American Civil Liberties Union claiming the commission’s ban on the act is illegal.

“Believe it or not, we’ve been discussing this issue since it happened” during a May 8 meeting, Hudson said. “We never got a letter from the ACLU. I called at 11:45 (Wednesday morning) at our office, and the clerk said we’d never received it.”

Hudson said he contacted the ACLU Wednesday and got the letter by fax.

Hudson said the commission’s ban on videotaping meetings was not meant to be obstructionist.

He pointed out that minutes and audiotapes of meetings were available to the public.

He said his concern — and the concern of Commission President Francis “Sonny” Block — was that the presence of a video camera would discourage would-be participants from attending meetings or voicing their opinions and concerns.

Commissioner Mark Forni voted against the ban.

According to the text of the ACLU’s letter, Monroe County resident Ed Vargo filed a complaint with the group. The resident who set up the camera at the May 8 meeting said he wanted to record the meeting for those unable to attend.

“I might add that Mr. Vargo has gotten several of those audiotapes,” Hudson said.

The letter was signed by Jeffery Gamso, director of the Ohio ACLU. In it, Gamso states, “The office of the Ohio Attorney General has made it abundantly clear that ‘audio and video recording (of public meetings) may not be prohibited.’ Moreover, Ohio courts have repeatedly held that, under Ohio’s Open Meetings Act, ... a public body cannot make a blanket prohibition on recording a public meeting.”

Gamso said although commissioners could require that recording devices may not be noisy or disruptive, commissioners are legally prevented from banning video altogether.

Aside from Ohio case law that supports the ACLU’s claims, the Ohio Attorney General issued an opinion on the issue in 1988 that agrees with the ACLU’s assertion about the Monroe County Commission’s May resolution.

Hudson said the commissioners are currently working to refine their policy concerning videotaping meetings and plan to discuss the issue at their meeting at 9 a.m. Monday at the courthouse in Woodsfield.

[Soldier4Christ]

Checking student data for sex offenders stirs debate

RICHMOND, Va. A new law that requires Virginia colleges to give student information to police for cross-checking with sex offender lists is raising some eyebrows.
Privacy watchdogs and education leaders are debating the law that takes effect July 1st.

It requires the state's public and private colleges to send state police the names, Social Security numbers and birth dates of all students who are accepted at their schools.

Privacy law experts believe it's the first time a state has ever imposed such a requirement.

Proponents say the law will help protect students from sex offenders, and state police are confident the personal information will be secure. But others are raising concerns about privacy rights and risks that the data could be misused or stolen.

Kent Willis is executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union in Virginia. He says while the law may NOT technically violate federal law, it does violate its spirit.

The new requirement is part of changes to Virginia's sex offender laws. Those include tougher punishments and better monitoring of offenders once they're released from prison.

[Soldier4Christ]

New Law for Georgia Sex Offenders Challenged

Two civil liberties groups have filed a federal class-action lawsuit, challenging a new Georgia law designed to crack down on people convicted of sexually abusing children.

The Southern Center for Human Rights and the American Civil Liberties Union take issue with the part of the law that would prevent convicted offenders from living or working within 1,000 feet of school bus stops, churches and other places where children congregate.

The groups say the law's overall effect is to punish people who have already been punished, by driving them from their homes and jobs.

The Georgia lawmaker who sponsored the bill this spring says he strongly disagrees.

[Soldier4Christ]

Inside, the ACLU shows hypocrisy


ACLU President Nadine Strossen's letter disingenuously defends proposed restrictions on board members' public speech about "internal" issues under the guise of her concern about proper governance processes and director responsibilities ("ACLU's internal issues don't hurt mission," Letters, Tuesday).

But Strossen did not reveal how such restrictions have interfered with the board's oversight and governance of the American Civil Liberties Union, or how they conflict with the ACLU's own bylaws that now encourage "unity without uniformity."

Strossen also didn't respond to what commentary writer Nat Hentoff reported in terms of the censorship underway, much less reveal the additional information that directors are obliged to refer all media calls they get to the ACLU press office, whose staff decides which board members speak to the news media and are provided "talking points" ("Muzzled at the ACLU," The Forum, June 14).

Nor does Strossen say directors may not even ask questions of Executive Director Anthony Romero without a vote of the executive committee as to whether the director's questions are suitable.

And, of course, Strossen does not share that Romero, supposedly concerned about leaks to the news media, also announced a policy of monitoring employees' e-mails, and he tried to impose on all employees an official secrets policy that swept far beyond the ordinary duty of care for truly classified information. Neither did she say she and Romero have repeatedly either delayed or kept from directors altogether critical information that they need to govern.

She forgot to say that Romero informs all committee appointments, including the composition of the committee Strossen appointed that has proposed further restrictions on board members' public and internal speech, or that neither she nor Romero ever voiced disagreement with the committee's proposals when they were vetted at the group's executive committee meeting last January.

How can censorship — criticized by the ACLU when practiced by government — be anything other than hypocrisy on its part and a detriment to the ACLU's mission as a champion and guardian of free speech and liberty?