ACLU In The News

[Soldier4Christ]

ACLU sues sheriff for access
Group says unwritten rules keep inmates away during probe of abuse Garfield County officials haven't commented, but attorneys say those in the jail are being required to name their lawyers before talking to them.


The American Civil Liberties Union is suing Garfield County Sheriff Lou Vallario in federal court, claiming he has hampered its probe into alleged abuse of jail inmates and violations of their constitutional rights.

The lawsuit, filed Wednesday in Denver's federal district court, asks for an emergency order prohibiting Vallario from barring confidential visits between an ACLU attorney and prisoners.

In the midst of the ACLU's visit to the county jail in Glenwood Springs, the Garfield sheriff imposed an unwritten policy requiring inmates to identify their attorneys in order to visit with them, ACLU legal director Mark Silverstein said.

"Neither prisoners nor criminal defense attorneys with years of practice in Glenwood Springs have heard of this policy before," Silverstein said. "I hope this policy was not invented for the purpose of interfering with the ACLU's ability to investigate complaints about the sheriff's treatment of prisoners."

Vallario could not be reached for comment Thursday, and County Attorney Don DeFord was not available, his staff said.

In a June 13 letter to the ACLU about its request for additional space to interview two inmates at a time, Vallario pointed out that the jail has only one room for direct contact between an attorney and a client.

"The privilege is only allowed for visitation between inmates and their retained attorneys," Vallario wrote. "Any other visitation is arranged through our visitation procedure which requires the inmate to initiate. This is done to ensure the safety of the inmates, staff and visitors of the detention center."

Last week, ACLU attorneys spent three days at the Garfield jail investigating allegations against jail staffers that included unjustifiable use of restraint chairs as punishment; abusive and unjustified threats to use "pepper ball" guns, pepper spray and Tasers on prisoners; harsh disciplinary measures for minor infractions; and the unjustifiable delay of medical attention and decontamination of prisoners subjected to pepper spray.

Some inmates also alleged they were strapped into a chair while hit with pepper spray, the lawsuit claims.

During their visit, an ACLU attorney was prevented from speaking with three prisoners who had been interested in the ACLU's legal assistance, Silverstein said. The jail's policy, the attorney was told, was that inmates would be required to name the ACLU as their attorney in order to visit privately.

[Soldier4Christ]

ACLU seeks disclosure of Pentagon files on Haditha

The American Civil Liberties Union filed suit on Thursday demanding that the U.S. Defense Department publicly release its files on the investigation into the deaths of 24 civilians in Haditha, Iraq.

The Freedom of Information Act request also seeks records relating to any killing of civilians by U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan since January 1, 2005, the ACLU said in a statement.

U.S. Marines have been accused of killing 24 unarmed Iraqis in the city of Haditha on November 19 in retaliation for the death of a fellow Marine from a roadside bomb.

The Naval Criminal Investigative Service is investigating but so far no charges have been filed.

Another probe into whether the Marines lied about the killings has been completed and a top commander is reviewing its findings, the U.S. military has said.

"The intentional killing of civilians is a profoundly serious violation of both domestic and international law, and the allegation that senior officers suppressed evidence of this tragic incident is deeply troubling," ACLU attorney Jameel Jaffer said in a statement.

"The request we filed today is meant to encourage an investigation that is credible and comprehensive," he said.

A Defense Department spokesman said he was unaware of the request and declined to comment on the ACLU action.

Attorneys for the Marines have said they would question the authenticity of a videotape at the heart of the case and the credibility of the group that provided it.

A journalism student working through an Iraqi human rights group passed video of bodies and homes from Haditha to Time magazine.

In a separate case, the military on Wednesday charged seven Marines and a Navy medic with premeditated murder and other crimes in the April 26 killing of an Iraqi civilian in a Hamdania, central Iraq, the Marine Corps said.

[Soldier4Christ]

Mayor Goodman fights to remedy Valley's homeless problem

Mayor Oscar Goodman says when it comes to dealing with the homeless camped out in city parks, he's no longer just talk. He's says those found doing something illegal will be arrested.

Within the past few years more and more homeless have moved out of what is called the homeless corridor and they've moved into neighborhoods where they are getting public attention.

The Salvation Army says that public attention is good because it proves that there is a problem.

They're talking about it, reading about it and pretty angry about Mayor Oscar Goodman's latest message to our homeless population.

"I can tell you this - this council will not tolerate our city parks to be utilized in a manner in which the park is being utilized, with the condoms, with the broken glasses of liquor and beer, syringes that could cause deadly disease if a child were to step on it," said Mayor Goodman.

The Mayor says he wants police patrolling places like Circle Park and arresting anyone who breaks the law.

"I was there - the odor of alcohol - I'm an expert on that. The odor of alcohol almost knocked me over when I was talking to these people who claim that the park was their solace," said Mayor Goodman.

While Huntridge Circle Park is what sparked the debate, The Salvation Army says we need to look at the bigger picture.

"I would hate to have homelessness be classified as a crime. Many of the homeless are victims of circumstances that are beyond their control. Many have mental health problems and you know what the mental health system is like in this state - it's deplorable," said Salvation Army William Raihl.

The Salvation Army recently purchased a piece of land from the city for $10. On this land they'll build 78 affordable housing units; Major Raihl says it's a start.

"It sounds wonderful, but that is just a drop in the bucket of what is needed, but it's a step in the right direction," said Raihl.

This time of year we see a peak in the number of homeless people here in Las Vegas. The Salvation Army says many of these people live in the rural communities and in the desert during the winter but because of the summer heat, make their way into town.

[Soldier4Christ]

ACLU rep opposed to APD 'watch sheet'


ASHLAND — The American Civil Liberties Union wants to take a closer look at the Ashland Police Department's watch list of people it claims to have had problems with in the past.

A letter written by Southern Oregon ACLU board member Ralph Temple and delivered to the city expressed "grave concerns" about the 24-person list.

Temple was concerned that APD officials distributed the list only to a small group of citizens at a private meeting on April 17. Present were Mayor John Morrison, members of the Ashland Chamber of Commerce, Peace House and others, according to a memo written by APD Sgt. Teresa Selby.

Apparently, they gathered to discuss "issues we have been having in the downtown area," Selby wrote.

The ACLU finds fault with the APD's vague reasoning for compiling the list. In her memo, Selby described those on the list as "chronic nuisances" and "problem people."

"In addition, it is unclear whether there are any objective criteria for listing, or any due process procedures to challenge listing," Temple wrote. "Some of those on the list have not been convicted of any violations of the law, and others may have convictions of only one or two minor offenses."

According to Oregon court records, eight of the people listed have been convicted of felonies committed in Oregon. Of these, two were convicted of methamphetamine possession; one of selling marijuana; one for manufacture and delivery of a controlled substance; one for third-degree robbery and three for first-degree criminal mischief for vandalizing the fountain in Lithia Park in February.

Among the various misdemeanor convictions was one man who was convicted three times for failing to register as a sex offender. Others listed were convicted for misdemeanors such as resisting arrest, trespassing, criminal mischief, fourth-degree assault and disorderly conduct.

Of the 24 people listed, court records show 10 of them have not been convicted of crimes in Oregon. Out-of-state court records weren't immediately available.

The ACLU is asking the APD provide all the documents pertaining to the watch list. Also, the group is asking the City Council to discuss the matter in a public meeting.

Interim police Chief Ron Goodpaster did not comment on the ACLU's letter. He referred all questions to City Attorney Mike Franell.

Franell said he had not had the chance to discuss the letter with either Morrison, who is in Mexico until next week, or City Administrator Martha Bennett. He said they would most likely meet sometime next week.

"In the past, the city of Ashland has an amicable relationship with the ACLU," Franell said. "If we are doing wrong, we'll correct those things. The city is concerned about civil rights."

Councilman Dave Chapman said he intends on speaking about the list with the Council and mayor.

"Watch lists may be useful for police, but it should be given to the public and not to a small group of people," he added. "I also think it's not as nefarious as some may think."

Temple said he was disturbed that such a list even exists.

"It is not appropriate or lawful for the police to create a list of people they regard as nuisances," he said.

[Soldier4Christ]

Suit says teacher fired for art

Artist says material called too adult

A New Orleans artist who began working as a teacher in Lafayette after Hurricane Katrina filed a free speech lawsuit Thursday against the Lafayette Parish School Board, alleging she was unjustly fired because of adult-oriented art on her Web site.

Heather Weathers, whose Web site features images of partial nudity and declares that her art “addresses stereotypes and taboos about women’s bodies,” is seeking unspecified damages in a lawsuit filed on her behalf by the American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana.

According to the lawsuit, Weathers had been teaching at Comeaux High School one week when Principal Joseph Craig told her that parents had brought the Web site to his attention.

Craig “then informed Weathers that she could not continue to teach at Comeaux or any other Lafayette Parish school,” according to the lawsuit.

ACLU staff attorney Katie Schwartzmann said school officials infringed on the First Amendment when they attempted to control speech made in a forum unrelated to Weathers’ job as a teacher and off school grounds.

“Teachers do not cease to be citizens upon being hired as teachers. Even if school officials find Weathers’ speech offensive, they do not have the ability to censor it,” Schwartzmann said in a written statement.

The attorney said Weathers would not be available for comment.

School Board spokeswoman Justine Sutley said that to her knowledge officials had not seen the lawsuit and would not be able to comment.

Weathers is active in the New Orleans art scene and has previously worked in New Orleans and New York as an art teacher.

Schwartzmann characterized Weathers’ work as political and social satire that emphasizes feminism and women’s rights.

Work exhibited on her Web site spans from performance art, to sculpture, photography, painting and video.

One performance piece detailed on the Web site involves her donning a bikini fashioned out of meat, a statement on objectification of women.

In another performance, she paints her buttocks and then makes impressions of her backside on large sheets of paper to cover a wall with the images.

The lawsuits states that Weathers explained to her students at Comeaux “that she is an artist, but that her art is for adults, not children.”

The lawsuit states that some of the students searched the Internet and found her Web site, which includes a warning on one section that reads:

“You are about to enter the photographic section of this Web site. If you are offended by artistic imagery pertaining to nudity, the naked body, feminism, fake tattoos, or perhaps vegetarianism … we strongly advise you skip these pages and leave now. You must be at least 18 years of age or older to enter this next section.”

Some sections of the Web site include no such warning.

The lawsuit names as defendants the School Board, Craig and Superintendent James Easton.

Neither Craig nor Easton could be reached for comment Thursday afternoon.

[Soldier4Christ]

Whose side are they on?

by Bryan

The boss is vexed, and not because I’m still fidgeting with the next Vent: The NY Times has blown yet another anti-terror tool’s cover:

    Under a secret Bush administration program initiated weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks, counterterrorism officials have gained access to financial records from a vast international database and examined banking transactions involving thousands of Americans and others in the United States, according to government and industry officials.

    The program is limited, government officials say, to tracing transactions of people suspected of having ties to Al Qaeda by reviewing records from the nerve center of the global banking industry, a Belgian cooperative that routes about $6 trillion daily between banks, brokerages, stock exchanges and other institutions. The records mostly involve wire transfers and other methods of moving money overseas and into and out of the United States. Most routine financial transactions confined to this country are not in the database.

It’s the same duo that blew the cover off the NSA’s effort to figure out who inside the US was getting phone calls from al Qaeda. The Times’ excuse to publicize this perfectly legal program is the “public interest.”

Call me crazy, but since the program is legal and since the administration argues it has helped stop terror attacks, isn’t the weight of the public’s interest in this story on the side of keeping the program under wraps so that it can continue to stop terrorists?

When the terrorists finally do succeed, will the Times rush out with an apology for having outed two major anti-terror programs that just might have helped stop it–if they had remained secret? Of course not. We all know what the Times will do–blame Bush.

Speaking of terrorists, Allah’s all over the big story of the night out of Miami. The other big terrorism story of the week had to do with what al Qaeda thugs did to our two captured troops. So what’s got the ACLU hot and bothered this night? Haditha. The ACLU is launching a massive fishing expedition aimed pretty squarely at destroying the US military’s ability to defend itself from any scurrilous attack in realm of ideas. Stop the ACLU has the goods:

    The American Civil Liberties Union today filed a Freedom of Information Act request demanding that the Defense Department publicly disclose investigative files relating to the alleged killing of 24 civilians by U.S. Marines in Haditha, Iraq.

The actual FOIA demand is a great deal broader than that:

    Specifically, the request seeks the release of all records relating to the killing of civilians by U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan since January 1, 2005, including death certificates, autopsy reports, investigative files, documents related to criminal and administrative proceedings, witness interviews, statistics, policy documents (including “rules of engagement”), paperwork for compensatory payments to relatives of victims, photographs, and videos.

I’m curious as to the relevance of events in Afghanistan to what may or may not have happened in Haditha. I’m also curious about that date: Haditha happened on November 19, 2005. Dates as far back as January 1, 2005 are irrelevant if the ACLU is truly only interested in examining the Haditha case. The only motive that ties both Iraq and Afghanistan together with such a wide date selection would be a search for policy that goes above the respective theaters of war; namely, whether Bush administration policies have played a role in any civilian deaths in either country.

One would think the fact that terrorists have been trained to make up allegations of crimes against our troops would be relevant, as would be the source of the lone Haditha video. But the ACLU is uninterested where those are concerned.

The ACLU will do what this data what it did with the last set of data it FOIAed out of the government–use the most salacious bits to paint a picture that’s a lie. In that case, the ACLU has used uncorroborated tales of terrorist abuse at Gitmo to fool Andrew Sullivan and his gullible ilk into thinking that we’re a torture country. They’ll fool him again, only this time we’ll be a murdering country. Watch for it. If the ACLU gets this information, it will feed months and years of press hysteria. St. Andrew of the Sacred Heart-Ache may have an aneurism an hour.

So you have on the one side, the NY Times outing a legal program organized to stop terrorists, and the only beneficiaries of outing this program turn out to be the terrorists who are now warned and the reporters who stand to gain from book deals, Pulitzers and the adulation of their increasingly disgusting peers. On another side, you have the ACLU joined at the hip to Hamas-linked CAIR launching its own freelance investigations into US practices while uttering nary a peep about anything terrorists actually do to harm the civil liberties of Americans and other non-terrorists.

Americans are likely to die because of the actions of these two, the NY Times and the ACLU.

Update: Goldstein wonders what instructions the Moonbat Signal (formerly known by the code-name “Townhouse”) carried in the wake of the NYT story. Patterico rages against the Times.

Me? I’m looking for a clip of the end of Planet of the Apes. Charleton Heston’s final lines pretty much sum up what I think of Rosen, his partner in treason and his employer.

Update: The Times’ they are a-hangin’ together. Both the NY and the LA Times are flogging the Swift story. Both Times have published this leak that helps terrorists dodge the law “in the public interest.” By which they actually mean, in their own and in the terrorists’ interest. The public gains nothing from the disclosure of this program other than increased political acrimony and increase anxiety over the rising possibility of losing this war thanks to the treasonous Times. Both of them.

Walter Duranty would be soooo proud.

It’s interesting that both papers have had access to someone in the know. Which means to find the toad or toads who leaked the existence of this program, find out who knew about it and has recently been in contact with reporters from both papers. This leaker needs to hang. And I’m not talking in metaphors or code language. They need to hang, as in with a rope.

[Soldier4Christ]

State can hire nonresidents
The attorney general plans to appeal, after a federal judge bans the residency rule


A law that prohibits nonresidents from applying for state jobs is unconstitutional, a federal judge has ruled.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge David Ezra says the law is discriminatory and violates a person's right to move from state to state.

Ezra's ruling, issued last week, makes permanent a preliminary injunction granted to the plaintiffs in February.

Attorney General Mark Bennett said the ruling was not surprising, given Ezra's previous decision on the preliminary injunction. He said the state plans to appeal.

"Basically, he reiterated what he already ruled," Bennett said. "It was our expectation that he wasn't going to change his mind."

The American Civil Liberties Union sued the state last year on behalf of two Florida men whose applications for various public jobs were rejected solely because they were not Hawaii residents when they applied. The plaintiffs were joined later by a New Jersey man and a Massachusetts woman.

"Hawaii's employers can now welcome nonresident job applicants with the same aloha spirit it bestows to resident job applicants," said Steven Annarelli, the New Jersey man, in a statement released by the ACLU.

The pre-employment residency requirement was enacted in the 1970s under then-Gov. George Ariyoshi and later adopted by the counties. It was aimed at discouraging people from moving to the islands at a time when officials feared new residents would deplete state resources.

Bennett previously argued that the state expends a lot of resources and training, and should have the right to reserve employment to those who commit to becoming residents before they can receive public money or employment.

In his 17-page ruling, Ezra noted that Hawaii courts consistently have ruled against other statutes that imposed residency requirements.

The ACLU estimates there are about 450 vacant state jobs, many at correctional facilities, hospitals and other agencies that provide public services.

Lois Perrin, attorney for the ACLU in Hawaii, applauded Ezra's ruling, saying it should help fill those jobs.

"It means that nonresidents throughout the United States may apply for any government job in the state of Hawaii," Perrin said. "By broadening the applicant base for public employment, we are hopeful that long-standing vacancies will be filled with qualified individuals."

A proposal to amend the state law and remove the requirement advanced in the House this year but was not granted a hearing in the Senate.

Bennett said it was too early to say whether similar legislation would be introduced next year.

[Soldier4Christ]

From ACLU's web site:


ACLU of Massachusetts Blasts Governor’s Plan to Use State Police as Federal Immigration Agents


Plan Will Undermine Public Safety and Civil Liberties, Says ACLU

BOSTON -- A plan by Governor Mitt Romney to use state police as federal immigration agents will undermine public safety by diverting scarce police resources away from real crime fighting and deterring residents from reporting crimes, while increasing the risk of illegal racial and ethnic profiling, said lawyers with the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts.

“Requiring state police to do the work of federal immigration authorities diverts scarce law enforcement resources away from the work of preventing and investigating real crimes taking place in our communities,” said Carol Rose, Executive Director of the ACLU of Massachusetts. “By undermining community policing efforts, the governor’s proposal will make our communities less safe, while increasing the chances that citizens and legal residents will be subject to illegal racial and ethnic profiling.”

Governor Romney’s plan is based on a 1996 law that permits the state to deputize certain members of the state police to detain and arrest residents for civil immigration violations, even if no state law has been violated.

“Police chiefs in Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, Miami, New York City, Philadelphia, Seattle, Washington, DC and elsewhere have spoken out against commandeering local police to do the work of federal immigration agents,” said Rose. “They know that using local or state police to do the work of the federal immigration authorities undermines the efforts - and successes - of state and local police who often work together to solve crimes. As word spreads in newcomer communities that police are acting as immigration agents, immigrants and their family members will be afraid to report crimes. Crimes will go unsolved and the safety of the entire community will be compromised.”

The governor’s plan has been criticized by victims’ rights groups, who fear that both witnesses and victims of crime will avoid going to the police if doing so will put them or someone in their family in the cross-hairs of federal immigration authorities.

There are nearly 11 million naturalized U.S. citizens and more than 25 million native-born citizens of Latin American and Asian descent.  In 2000, immigrants made up 12.2 percent of the Massachusetts population, up from 9.5 percent in 1990. The immigrant population in the Bay State grew by 35 percent over the course of the decade, reaching 773,000 in 2000.

“One in seven Massachusetts residents was born in another country,” said Rose.  “Romney’s plan increases the danger that some officers will detain people based on their race or ethnicity, leading to violations of the rights of U.S. citizens and legal residents whose only ‘offense’ is looking foreign.”

The ACLU will join a press conference with advocates for immigrants’ rights, victims’ rights, and other groups outside the governor’s office today, Thursday, June 22, at 1:00 p.m.

[Soldier4Christ]

ACLU Says Government Spying on Bank Records is Further Abuse of Power


We could see this one coming from a mile away! From the ACLU Website.

    The ACLU today condemned the U.S. government for gaining access to vast troves of international financial data with no judicial or Congressional oversight nor definition of how the information is being used.

    The program, revealed this morning by multiple news outlets, outlines how the government received the cooperation of the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, more commonly referred to as Swift, to monitor financial transactions. Swift is a Brussels-based consortium that serves as a clearinghouse for transactions worldwide. It was reported this morning that tens of thousands of records gathered by Swift have been turned over to the CIA, the FBI and the Treasury Department at the request of the U.S. government.

It isn’t suprising that the ACLU would be against this, after all it is has been a successful tool in helping us catch terrorists. What government program has America implemented that the ACLU has not been against? The answer is none. From metal detectors and random searches to the Patriot Act and the NSA, the ACLU have been there to oppose it.

We have been told on numerous occassions that one of the main fronts in the war on terror is to freeze terrorist financial assets. This is most likely one of the most effective means of fighting the terrorist, cutting right to the heart of what provides them with the means to hurt us.

Check out this overexaggerated paranoia!

    The following statement can be attributed to Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU:

    “The revelation of the CIA’s financial spying program is another example of the Bush administration’s abuse of power. The invasion of our personal financial information, without notification or judicial review, is contrary to the fundamental American value of privacy and must be stopped now. It seems the administration feels entitled to flip through all of our checkbooks. How many other secret spying programs has the Bush administration enacted without Congress, the courts or the public knowing? We need a full accounting of what information has been demanded by the U.S. government, how they have used it, with whom it was shared, and how they intend to repair this grave breech of trust. This program is a glaring example of how this government thinks nothing of widespread abuse of power.

Yes, the government is now flipping through everyone’s individual checkbooks! Doesn’t the IRS already do this? Don Surber is excited about this new right the ACLU have invented in order to oppose our government’s efforts to fight terror.

    So take that, IRS! I don’t have to tell you nothing. Ditto Social Security. The ACLU said so. I have this right to privacy over all my financial transactions. I no longer have to report my income to the IRS or Social Security. That will save me lots of money.

    Thank you, ACLU. Your pathological hatred for George W. Bush may not destroy the nation’s security, but it sure as heck can cost it a couple of trillion dollars in taxes each year. Keep minting those rights.

There is probably no other time that a proper balance between civil liberties and national security becomes more important than in wartime. During times of war, sometimes unusual responses are implemented, often requiring suspension of certain liberties. Of course war opens the opportunity for abuse by governments, and the ACLU are right to watch for them. However, the ACLU in its absolutist perception of freedom, only worries about one side of the equation, civil liberties. It pays no attention to the national security side of things, not only ignoring it, but working against it.

One of the most revealing occurances towards the ACLU’s absolutist position on national security and its recent evolution can be seen in the action the board of directors took at its Oct 1989 meeting: It dropped section (a) from its policy, “Wartime Sedition Act.” Before, the ACLU held that it “would not participate (save for fundamental due process violations) in defense of any person believed to be “cooperating” with or acting on behalf of the enemy.” This policy was based on the recognition that “our own military enemies are now using techniques of propaganda which may involve an attempt to prevent the Bill of Rights to serve the enemy rather than the people of the United States.” In making its determination as to whether someone were cooperating with the enemy, “the Union will consider such matters as past activities and associations, sources of financial support, relations with enemy agents, the particular words and conduct involved, and all other relevant factors for informed judgement.” Source

All of this is now omitted from the Official ACLU policy!

As these policy changes indicate, balancing national security interests and civil liberties is not a goal of the ACLU. Its only goal is the absolute pursuit of unlimited civil liberties, with no regard to any consequence or negative impact upon our security. Not only does it ignore the issue of national security, but there are many examples I have shown where they actually work against it, even to the point of defending the enemy. The absolute tragedy is that it is not only the nations’s security the ACLU’s absolutist philosophy puts in danger, but the very cause of liberty itself.

Captain’s Quarters chimes in with this fire.

    Actually, it gets worse than that. The ACLU enjoys a large membership of attorneys, many of whom work in specific Constitutional law regarding civil liberties. They have a vast wealth of talent from which to call for in-depth analyses. And yet, in reviewing their statement alleging criminality and abuse of power against the government, the ACLU cannot cite any statute or regulation violated by the Swift project. Not one. Why? Because, as the New York Times report explicitly states, it doesn’t violate any laws at all.

    Not only that, but anyone operating within the US banking system — at least at those facilities insured by the FDIC and FSLIC — the government has access to data on individual banking customers whenever it wants to access it. Any institution insured by the federal government has to give federal regulators access to their records during any extensive examination. Not only that, but since most accounts pay interest, the IRS also gets all of the information on these accounts, including taxpayer numbers and other private information.

    However, in this case, the Swift project targeted only those people already indentified as terrorists or terrorist financiers, and the focus was on international transactions. The government brought in outside auditors to ensure that the information requested remained within the boundaries of their power. Most of all, George Bush told us on a number of occasions that the United States would track these transactions around the world to find terrorists and their enablers. The project itself has never been a secret; only the methods used remained clandestine.

    At least they remained clandestine until now. The New York Times and its two reporters have sold out our national security to sell a few papers, and in this case told us absolutely nothing we haven’t known for five years except the specific methods used. That information only helps one set of people: the terrorists we want to catch and stop before they can kill more people, Americans or otherwise. And the ACLU, instead of actually reading the article and determining that the Times had its head up Bill Keller’s backside, sends out its typical knee-jerk jeremiad accusing Washington of stomping its jackbooted feet on our civil liberties but somehow cannot be bothered to explain what laws they claim have been broken.

    I wonder how the ACLU’s board will deal with this criticism. Of course, we won’t know, because the ACLU is about to impose a ban on public criticism of the organization by its board members. Some civil liberties are more precious than others at the ACLU, after all.

[Soldier4Christ]

 ACLU wants boys allowed in high school cheer tourney

The American Civil Liberties Union wants the state's governing body for high school athletics to reconsider a policy keeping boys out of the postseason tournament for
competitive cheerleading.

But the Michigan High School Athletic Association questioned the timing of the ACLU's request yesterday. The MHSAA notes that the rules about boys in competitive cheer tournaments were changed in December 2003.

When Michigan high schools start the next school year in August, boys no longer will be able to participate in the competitive cheerleading postseason tournament.

The ACLU says that violates federal law.

[Soldier4Christ]

Rutherford Institute to Defend Brittany McComb and Sue Nevada High School


Via The Rutherford Institute

    Attorneys for The Rutherford Institute have agreed to represent a high school senior whose microphone was unplugged by school officials after she began to speak about her Christian beliefs during her valedictory address. When Foothill High School valedictorian Brittany McComb began reading a speech that contained Bible verses and references to God and her faith in Jesus Christ during her commencement speech on June 15, 2006, officials with the Clark County School District unplugged the microphone. Institute attorneys plan to file a First Amendment lawsuit against the school district for having violated Brittany’s constitutional right to free speech and equal protection under the law.

    “This is yet another example of a politically correct culture silencing Christians in order to not offend those of other beliefs,” said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. “Brittany McComb worked hard to earn the right to address her classmates as valedictorian and she has a constitutional right-like any other student-to freely speak about the factors that contributed to her success, whether they be a supportive family, friends or her faith in Jesus Christ.”

Isn’t it ironic that it was probably the fear of a lawsuit that prompted the school to censor Brittany’s speech in the first place? It is sad that our culture, including many Christians, have bought into the politically correct culture and allow this censorship to go on. It has gotten to the point that our First Amendment has been turned on its head by activist lawyers like the ACLU. This should be a clear cut case of violating the First Amendment, yet our culture has accepted the insane secularist theories that the First Amendment means the opposite of what it was intended to mean. The old cliche that it is “freedom OF religion not freedom FROM religion” are appropiate words of wisdom in our day and age.

    Rutherford Institute attorneys plan to file suit in federal district court in defense of Brittany’s First Amendment right to free speech and Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection under the law.

We wish Brittany and the Rutherford Institute the best of luck with this case.

[Soldier4Christ]

FBI Says ACLU’s Victory Claim Disingenuous


At the ACLU’s website we are hearing the shouts of “victory” over the FBI!

    The American Civil Liberties Union today declared victory in their legal battle with the FBI over a Connecticut library group’s right to keep patron records private. After dropping their vehement defense of the gag provision accompanying the request, the FBI has now abandoned the demand all together.

    “First the government abandoned the gag order that would have silenced four librarians for the rest of their lives, and now they’ve abandoned their demand for library records entirely,” said Ann Beeson, Associate Legal Director of the ACLU. “While the government’s real motives in this case have been questionable from the beginning, their decision to back down is a victory not just for librarians but for all Americans who value their privacy.”

To the ACLU this is a victory for that precious “right” to privacy for the ACLU against the “questionable” motives of the FBI. That is the way those that live in ACLU land see things. Of course there is always more than one perspective to the story. Here’s is how the FBI responded.

    In May of 2005, the FBI issued a National Security Letter (NSL) to “The Library Connection”. The Library Connection is a consortium that provides back office support to a group of Connecticut libraries. The NSL requested information relating to a single computer that had been used to send information about a potential terrorist threat. The NSL states that the FBI was seeking specific information on any subscriber of billing information relating to a specific computer used within the 45 minute time period on the day the threat information was transmitted from a library’s computer. It is important to note that the information sought had nothing to do with obtaining reading lists of library patrons or any other information that would be reasonably considered intrusive upon any individual’s rights as a library patron. Obtaining information that could lead to the identity of the person who used a specific computer, at a specific time, to transmit threat information would have helped the FBI more efficiently investigate and evaluate an alleged threat involving terrorism. Under the law in effect in June 2005, the NSL was the most logical prescribed investigative tool to use in seeking electronic subscriber information in a counterterrorism investigation. Since then, Congress has changed the law as it relates to the secrecy requirements of an NSL in certain cases. That and the fact that the investigation is now complete allow us to engage in this important discussion.

    Ultimately, the FBI was able to investigate and over time, discount the threat that was transmitted over this computer that was part of the Library Connection’s network. Conducting that investigation was less efficient because of the failure of the Library Connection to comply with the NSL. In this case, because the threat ultimately was without merit, that delay came at no cost other than slowing the pace of the investigation. In another case, where the threat may be real, the delays incurred in this investigation could have increased the danger of terrorists succeeding. Protecting the rights of Americans against unlawful search and seizure is sacred trust to the men and women of the FBI. Protecting Americans from the threat of terrorism and doing so within the law is our highest priority. It is disingenuous for the ACLU to suggest that preventing the FBI from obtaining information about who used a computer to send information about a potential terrorist threat during a 45 minute period constitutes “a victory not just for librarians but for all Americans who value their privacy.”

    John Miller
    Assistant Director
    Federal Bureau of Investigation

So there you have it. Two sides to the same story. Its up to you to decide whether this was a victory. For the record I don’t think the ACLU was disingenuous. I think they sincerely believe that the “right” to privacy trumps any efforts by the government to stop terror plots. So, is making it more difficult for the FBI to conduct terror investigations a victory? It seems the ACLU think so.

[Soldier4Christ]

WA State Supremes To Decide Felon Voting Rights

The Washington state Supreme Court heard arguments in a case involving released felons and voting. The court is being asked to restore the voting rights to released felons who have fulfilled all the requirements of their release with the exception of fines.

    “What this case is about is whether the state, once it decides to restore the vote to former felons, can make the right to vote turn on whether particular felons are wealthy enough to pay financial obligations immediately,” said Peter Danelo attorney for the ACLU.

The state is arguing that the fines are part of the sentence and should remain a requirement to be completed before voting rights are restored.

    “They’re required to complete all terms of their sentence,” said State Attorney General Rob McKenna. “Just as a rich person would have to serve all of his time in jail even if he paid his financial obligations immediately upon conviction, all felons are required to pay their legal financial obligations.”

Here is another example of the ACLU running to the judiciary when they know they cannot get their way in the legislature which is where this debate actually belongs. What I can’t believe is that the courts took this case knowing that its actual place is in the state legislature.

    The ACLU of Washington’s lawsuit was filed on behalf of three convicted felons: Daniel Madison of King County, Beverly DuBois of Spokane County and Dannielle Garner of Snohomish County.

    All three were making regular monthly payments to the courts but were indigent and unable to pay off their fines, Danelo said.

    Danelo said that indigent felons can’t be punished because they can’t immediately pay their fines. SOURCE

The ACLU is again trying to push a liberal agenda knowing that most released felons would vote for a Democratic candidate. This is the same argument being made by Hillary Clinton when she speaks about restoring felons’ voting rights nation wide. The Dems know that they cannot win the Presidency and likely will not win control of the House and Senate in November because they do not have the legitimate votes to do so.

They have to resort to registering their dogs, cats, dead people, illegal aliens, and felons in order to manipulate the numbers to get their candidates elected. This is a scam that has been put forth for a long time.

It was a subject of pride for the mob during the Kennedy Administration and the worst kept secret that they had influenced the election in Illinois which is what won JFK the Presidency. Rumors of stuffing ballot boxes are no secret in Chicago politics, home of the “smoky back room.”

The House Democratic Caucus is attempting to use the “culture of corruption” referring to the GOP in their quest to recapture the House and install Nancy Pelosi on the throne of Speaker of the House. But as we have seen time and time again, the opposite is actually the truth.

The ACLU knows that the only way for them to have their way in Washington is to take it to the courts. So they did. Let us hope that the Supremes in Washington have the sense to reject their petition and force them to take it to the legislature where it belongs. The whole nation is watching the outcome of this case.

Should the ACLU prevail in this very liberal state, I see a new crop of cases being brought nation wide.

[Soldier4Christ]

ACLU sues school
over Jesus picture
Classic portrait has hung
in hallway for 30 years

A picture depicting Jesus Christ that has hung in a West Virginia high school's halls for 30 years is the target of a lawsuit by an attorney and former teacher.

Harold Sklar, parent of a former student at Bridgeport High School in Clarksburg, W.Va., petitioned the Harrison County Board of Education to have the portrait removed, contending it violates the so-called separation of church and state in the U.S. Constitution, reports the West Virginia Record legal journal.

Following a tie-vote by the school board June 6 that determined the picture would stay, Sklar filed the lawsuit Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Clarksburg against the district board, Harrison Superintendent Carl Friebel, Jr. and Bridgeport Principal Lindy Bennett.

Sklar is represented by Washington-based public-interest group Americans United for Separation of Church and State. The American Civil Liberties Union of West Virginia also is a party in the suit.

"Any portrait of Jesus in a public high school sends the unmistakable message that that school is endorsing Christianity as the official religion of that school,'' said Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United.

The lawsuit says: "The Jesus portrait has engendered conflict within the Bridgeport community for years, as school district officials have refused to remove the display and have instead resolutely retained it despite repeated complaints."

The portrait is the familiar "Head of Christ," created by Warner Sallman in 1941.

Sklar says he received no response from school officials after his first complaint was filed in 1996.

"The Jesus portrait, which the Harrison County School District displays alone and without any broader context, is a devotional work that constitutes unconstitutional religious expression by the district," the lawsuit says. "The expenditure of public funds to maintain the Jesus portrait is unconstitutional."

School officials defend their position on the basis of freedom of speech.

But school board President Sally Cann said the school didn't have to keep the painting to profess its Christian values. She wanted it removed because she expected a lawsuit, the Charleston Gazette reported.

The Charleston paper said debate over the painting has cause unrest in the community.

[Soldier4Christ]

ACLU Against Brain Scans on Suspected Terrorists


If it is a tool we use in the fight against terror one can bet that the ACLU will be against it. When the NY Times revealed classified information that we are trying to track international phone calls of suspected terrorists, the ACLU took that ball and are still running with it. When the NY Times leaked classified information that we are trying to track international bank transactions in order to catch terrorists the ACLU jumped on board with that too. If the NY Times doesn’t leak it to everyone, the ACLU will do its best by filing freedom of Information Act requests.

    In the face of suspicions that the government is using cutting-edge brain-scanning technologies on suspected terrorists being held overseas or at home, the American Civil Liberties Union today announced that it has filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests with all the primary American security agencies.

    “There are certain things that have such powerful implications for our society — and for humanity at large — that we have a right to know how they are being used so that we can grapple with them as a democratic society,” said Barry Steinhardt, Director of the ACLU’s Technology and Liberty Project. “These brain-scanning technologies are far from ready for forensic uses and if deployed will inevitably be misused and misunderstood.”

I know that the ACLU claim to be the experts on rights, but I’m not sure where they found this “right to know” every secret government program used in a time of war. This must be one of those rights the ACLU made up out of thin air. Furthermore the ACLU’s leap that it would be inevitable that the program would be misused and misunderstood is pure biased opinion on their part.

Here is a brief description of the program.

    FMRI is a technique for determining which parts of the brain are activated by different types of physical sensation or activity, such as sight, sound or the movement of a subject’s fingers. This “brain mapping” is achieved by setting up an advanced MRI scanner in a special way so that the increased blood flow to the activated areas of the brain shows up on Functional MRI scans. (See here for a description of the physiology of the BOLD response.) The whole FMRI process will now be briefly described.

    The subject in a typical experiment will lie in the magnet and a particular form of stimulation will be set up. For example, the subject may wear special glasses so that pictures can be shown during the experiment. Then, MRI images of the subject’s brain are taken. Firstly, a high resolution single scan is taken. This is used later as a background for highlighting the brain areas which were activated by the stimulus. Next, a series of low resolution scans are taken over time, for example, 150 scans, one every 5 seconds. For some of these scans, the stimulus (in this case the moving picture) will be presented, and for some of the scans, the stimulus will be absent. The low resolution brain images in the two cases can be compared, to see which parts of the brain were activated by the stimulus.

    After the experiment has finished, the set of images is analyzed. Firstly, the raw input images from the MRI scanner require mathematical transformation (Fourier transformation, a kind of spatial “inversion”) to reconstruct the images into “real space”, so that the images look like brains. The rest of the analysis is done using a series of tools which correct for distortions in the images, remove the effect of the subject moving their head during the experiment, and compare the low resolution images taken when the stimulus was off with those taken when it was on. The final statistical image shows up bright in those parts of the brain which were activated by this experiment. These activated areas are then shown as coloured blobs on top of the original high resolution scan, for interpretation of the experiment. This combined activation image can be rendered in 3D, and the rendering can be calculated from any angle. (See here for a brief overview of GLM analysis.)

Now why would the public need to know about this and debate it? This kind of information is for our elected officials to decide, and our enemies don’t need to know about it.

Back to the ACLU…

    The most likely technology to be used for anti-terrorism purposes is Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI), which can produce live, real-time images of people’s brains as they answer questions, view images, listen to sounds, and respond to other stimuli. Two private companies have announced that they will begin to offer “lie detection” services using fMRI as early as this summer. These companies are marketing their services to federal government agencies, including the Department of Defense, Department of Justice, the National Security Agency and the CIA, and to state and local police departments.

    “This technology must not be deployed until it is proven effective — and we are a long way away from that point, according to scientists in the field,” said Steinhardt. “What we don’t want is to open our newspapers and find that another innocent person has been thrown into Guantánamo because interrogators have jumped to conclusions based on a technology no one understands very well.”

Who does the effectiveness of the program have to be proven to? If it has to be proven to the ACLU it would never happen. If the companies that have developed the technology are providing this service to the government as a useful means they are staking their reputation on its effectiveness. The ACLU admit that they don’t understand it well. Who would better understand it than those that developed it?

    The ACLU’s FOIA requests were filed yesterday with the Pentagon, NSA, CIA, FBI and Department of Homeland Security.

    “These brain-scanning technologies have potentially far-reaching implications, yet uncertain results and effectiveness,” said Steinhardt. “And we are still in our infancy when it comes to understanding the underlying processes of the brain that the scanners have begun to reveal. We do not want to see our government yet again deploying a potentially momentous technology unilaterally and in secret, before Americans have had a chance to figure out how it fits in with our values as a nation.”

The Uncooperative Blogger says:

    I say let’s experiment on terrorist, what better testing ground can you ask for? The ACLU has become just plain ridiculous, and they are not working in the best interest of our country. The New York Times, the leakers and the ACLU, who I refer to as the American Communist Liberation Union, are killing us in the war on terror!

    So, what are we going to learn from an FOIA request? That they are using what I just told you about? Gee, that will be very helpful to the American people won’t it?

I’d just like to know how the ACLU would have us handle the war on terror. It seems they want us to fight the killers with kid gloves. If someone can name me one anti-terrorist program our government has implemented that the ACLU has approved of we might have a debate. I can’t think of one. If we are to fight the war on terror the way the ACLU wants we might as well just go ahead and surrender.

Bill O’Reilly is right on target.

    The anti-Bush crew, led by The New York Times and the ACLU want civilian trials for terrorists, no coerced interrogation, no rendition for terrorists to other countries, no war in Iraq, and on and on. As I opine, The Times and other committed left media believe the Bush administration — and not the terrorists — is the primary danger to this country.