ACLU In The News

[Shammu]

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.

The ACLU and the NY Times, are a danger to this country.  Bill O’Reilly is right on in his assessment, as normal. 

[Soldier4Christ]

ACLU Condemns House Resolution Approving SWIFT Program


Yesterday, the House of Representatives condemned the NY Times and other news sources for leaking classified information about the government tracking international bank transactions in efforts of tracing terror funds.

    Lawmakers expressed their sentiment through a resolution that was approved on a largely party-line 227-to-183 vote after days of harsh criticism by the Bush administration and Congressional Republicans aimed at The New York Times and other newspapers for publishing details of the program, which the government said was limited to following possible terrorist financial trails.

    The vote followed a bitter debate in which Republicans said news accounts had jeopardized the effort, and Democrats accused Republicans of trying to intimidate the press.

    Republicans criticized news organizations, and The Times in particular, saying they had not considered the potential damage of revealing the program. “The recent front-page story in the aforementioned New York Times cut the legs out from under this program,” said the resolution’s author, Representative Michael G. Oxley, Republican of Ohio. “Now the terrorists will be driven further underground.”

The ACLU didn’t like this very much.

    The following can be attributed to Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office:

    “Without the full facts, the House is seeking to condone a controversial Bush program. Instead of passing this resolution, Congress should investigate this White House’s refusal to follow the rule of law. The White House should stop blaming those who have leaked this information and instead end its abuse of power. Congress should be demanding exhaustive hearings determine whether this administration’s program threatens the privacy of Americans.

    “What is becoming clear is that Americans’ sensitive financial information has been opened to the prying eyes of the government for years without any independent review. Instead of targeting the media, Congress should be prioritizing our citizens’ privacy. Congress is not fulfilling its constitutional role of providing the oversight that the American people so desperately need. Our government cannot possibly deem something ’lawful‘ when there has been no clear explanation of the depth and scope of the SWIFT program. Congress should not bless the administration’s flipping through our checkbooks before it investigates.”

Here we go again. They are flipping through every American’s checkbook now. Even though the program is limited to following promising leads which are usually large international transactions, the ACLU has to throw out its scaremongering catch phrases. The IRS already thumbs trough all of our checkbooks anyway, unless the ACLU avoid that somehow. Why are democrats and far left organizations like the ACLU defending the leaking of classified information that puts America at greater danger? Maybe the ACLU should focus on cleaning their own house from prying eyes on their own member’s finances for fundraising purposes. What kind of independent review does that get?

[Soldier4Christ]

ACLU challenges Air Force's efforts to discharge lesbian major


Halting an Air Force nurse's discharge for her relationship with a civilian woman would rightly cripple the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gay service members, civil liberties lawyers said Friday.

Lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union, pointing to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling striking down a Texas sodomy law, are asking a federal judge here to reinstate former Air Force Reserve Maj. Margaret Witt.

Witt, 42, of Spokane, was forced out of her job as a military nurse in late 2004 after an Air Force investigation into her long-term relationship with a civilian woman. She had been assigned to a medical evacuation squadron at McChord Air Force Base near Tacoma.

The Pentagon has a "don't ask, don't tell" policy that prohibits the military from inquiring about the sex lives of service members but requires discharges of those who openly acknowledge being gay.

Government lawyers are asking U.S. District Judge Ronald Leighton to dismiss the case, pointing out that the military's policy on gays has been upheld in the courts. They also argue against the timing of Witt's lawsuit, saying her discharge has not been fully resolved pending a military hearing.

"There is a public interest in having the laws of the land that Congress and the president enacted be applied," Justice Department attorney Peter J. Phipps argued in court. "There is also danger to the public interest when courts interfere with the military chain of command."

But Witt's case undermines the military's policy on gays, because the decorated officer's relationship with a civilian woman couldn't have raised questions of favoritism or fraternization, attorney James Lobsenz argued Friday.

In fact, Witt's suspension and looming discharge have negatively affected her former unit far more, Lobsenz told Leighton.

"Her unit wants her back," Lobsenz said. "Her unit is upset that she hasn't been there for the last 19 months. People have quit and have refused to re-enlist because she can't come back."

After Friday's hearing, Witt, wearing her blue dress uniform, told reporters that the abrupt discharge proceedings after about 19 years in active and reserve service have been chaotic for her personal and professional life.

"It takes away an entire career," she said. "It's almost like you were never there."

The relationship in question lasted from roughly 1997 to 2003.

Witt's attorneys are touting the U.S. Supreme Court's 2003 decision in Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down state statutes criminalizing gay sex as a violation of an individual's constitutional right to sexual privacy.

"The question is, does Lawrence demand, compel this court to find an act of Congress ... unconstitutional?" Leighton asked during Friday's hearing. "I think that's where we are."

Lobsenz acknowledged that drawing a distinction between Witt's relationship with a civilian woman and other gay relationships between service members would bring a flurry of challenges to the Pentagon's present policy on gays.

"From where I sit, it would mean virtually the end of 'don't ask, don't tell,'" Leighton said.

A ruling on the two sides' motions could come in the next few weeks, but Leighton hesitated to put a timeline on his decision Friday, citing the complex legal issues.

[Soldier4Christ]

 ACLU Fights 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Policy



Attorneys for an Air Force flight nurse who lost her job under the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy were in federal court in Tacoma Friday.

A lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union seeks to reinstate Major Margaret Witt, a McChord reservist originally from Spokane. Her five-year relationship with another woman ended in 2003. That same year she was awarded the Air Force Commendation Medal.

ACLU attorney Aaron Caplan says Witt has been a role model for other service members:

Aaron Caplan: "We don't think its fair to kick someone out of the military after a long and productive career simply because of her sexual orientation. At a time of war like this when we have a shortage of trained flight nurses its crazy to let our prejudices weaken our military."

Congress enacted the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy in 1993, claiming gay service members could hinder their units' readiness and teamwork.

[Soldier4Christ]

Ten Commandments allowed in courthouses again


As we begin a new month, several new laws take effect in Georgia, and one stems from a controversy in Barrow County regarding the Ten Commandments.

A bill allowing the commandments to be displayed in county courthouses was passed during the 2006 General Assemby's legislative session. The legislation allows the displays only if the commandments are displayed along side other historical documents.

The ACLU filed a federal lawsuit against Barrow County in September 2003 on behalf of ``John Doe,'' an anonymous resident who wanted a Ten Commandments display removed from a breezeway outside the Barrow County Courthouse. The county refused, prompting a nearly two-year legal battle that ended last July with the commandments being removed.

[Soldier4Christ]

Report Clears Leaders In Prison Abuse
Pentagon Concludes No Top Officials Encouraged Detainee Mistreatment

The Pentagon on Friday released a 2005 military review of prisoner interrogation policies that concluded that no uniformed or civilian leaders directed or encouraged the prisoner abuses committed in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

But the report, which was largely disclosed more than a year ago, found there were a number of “missed opportunities” in the development of detainee policies, including the failure to provide commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan with specific and early guidance on interrogation techniques.

Had that guidance been provided earlier, “interrogation policy could have benefited from additional expertise and oversight,” wrote Vice Adm. Albert T. Church in the report.

A declassified version of the review was made public Friday, but its conclusions and other details were released in March 2005, and were the subject of a Congressional hearing.

Church's review also found, in the cases of detainee operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, that the dissemination of approved interrogation policy to commanders in the field was generally poor. And in Iraq in particular it found that compliance with approved policy guidance was also generally poor.

He also suggested that in some cases interrogations that occurred right after an enemy was captured may have been more abusive because troops allowed insurgents' violence to erode their own standards of conduct. In a more specific example, the report said one Army lieutenant colonel, during an interrogation in the field, fired his weapon near a detainee's head to get information about a plot to assassinate U.S. service members.

The report was released under a freedom of information request by the American Civil Liberties Union. ACLU attorney Amrit Singh said Friday that “it's notable that even the Church report said there were missed opportunities and that sufficient guidance was not given.”

Singh added that the ACLU still believes that there should be an independent investigation into whether high-level military officials should be held accountable for detainee abuses.

Church concluded that there was no single explanation for the mistreatment of Iraqi, Afghan and other prisoners under the control of U.S. military personnel.

“The fundamental finding of the report was that there was no policy that condoned or authorized abuse of detainees,” said Lt. Col. Mark Ballesteros, a Pentagon spokesman.

He said the report is one of 12 reviews into detention operations, which have led to nearly 500 recommendations for changes and improvements in the system. The vast majority have been implemented, he said.

The Church probe was among several triggered by disclosures last spring of prisoner abuse at the Abu Ghraib prison complex in Iraq. Church, formerly the Navy's chief investigator, was directed to look at how interrogation policies were developed and implemented from the start of the terror war in the fall of 2001.

Church examined the 187 Pentagon investigations of alleged prisoner abuse that had been completed as of Sept. 30, 2004, of which 70 he counted as having substantiated actual abuse. Six of the 70 involved prisoner deaths. Of the 70, only 20 were related to interrogations; the other 50 were not associated in any way with questioning.

[Soldier4Christ]

Troops targeted by ACLU and anti-war media

By Tom Kelly

As a retired military officer with combat experience, I find it disgusting to read every day how badly the Iraq war is progressing and how guilty our service personnel are portrayed in the unjust, uncivilized treatment of captured Islamic Jihad terrorists both in prison camps and in the treatment of terrorist women and children.

Yes, as in Vietnam, Islamic women and children engage and kill our fighting men and women. The press reports center on providing the most sensational events even before they are investigated as to their truthfulness.

Our troops are labeled as being guilty without the completeness of any Article 32 investigations.

Having spent eight months in Iraq as a volunteer to assist the military in security, I can assure your readers that these one-sided, anti-U.S. press releases serve only as an instrument by which radical Arabic news agencies print large bold headlines depicting our service personnel as monsters. I have seen those articles and they are sickening.

Believe it or not, our troops are sick and tired of hearing anti-war rhetoric and pay little attention to those who publish it. These troops know how much their efforts are appreciated by the people of Iraq as they observe it daily in the faces of mothers, children and accomplishments in schools, hospitals, local businesses, etc. Their goals are to assist the Iraqi people form a government which they so desperately desire and deserve.

In time of war, our press should support our troops and the newly-elected Iraqi government by printing articles of successes vice sensationalizing isolated failures. To consistently print anti-war sentiments of those who are in disdain of our position in the Iraq war is wrong. How can one say that they support our troops and yet state that what our troops are doing is immoral, unjustified and that they should be brought home now.

This is balderdash and the troops know it.

It is time to highlight the gross atrocities which these Islamic radical Jihad terrorists practice on a daily basis. The New York Times recently reported that the two U.S. soldiers who were captured were abused. In fact, their bodies were mutilated with their eyes being torn out.

This truth must be reported to leave little doubt as to the difficulty our soldiers face while performing their assigned missions. The consequences we face as a nation if we fail to understand this violent Islamic creed to wage war and destroy those opposed to their mission is alarming. We must defeat these radicals preferably on their territory before they once again reach our own shores.

Many left-wing American Civil Liberties Union members glee with excitement upon receiving press reports highlighting alleged abuses of Iraq citizens. More than 90 percent of these "reports" are untrue and are provided by outside sources including the Jihad terrorist prisons and anti-U.S. Arabic countries such as Syria, Iran and Sudan.

Our Red Cross has an office a few meters from the Gitmo prison detention facility and have substantiated only two possible abuse events which may, repeat may, be cause for appropriate punishment. The ACLU would have one believe that thousands of alleged violations of abuse have occurred and that these reports were provided by our

Naval Investigating Service, FBI and other government agencies.

However, what they fail to tell you are the names and organizations of those who filed these alleged violations; namely, the prisoners themselves or other Arabic news agencies. Do not be misled by ACLU members who have never been in Iraq, never personally witnessed these military abuses and fail to mention or divulge the sources of these so-called tortures.

The media, including the ACLU, tend to report that our troops are guilty of crimes without waiting for the complete investigation by appropriate authorities to determine guilt or innocence. All valid incidents of substantiated "torture" will be investigated by those who are in command to do so and if found guilty, they
will receive appropriate punishment.

The anti-war media, ACLU and peace activists should never forget that those freedoms which they enjoy were provided to them through the sacrifices of millions of American troops. I recall the numerous times our troops would say, "Let those anti-war media, ACLU and peace activists come join us in our convoys and observe firsthand the tortures we face from the terrorists including those who are captured and in prison cells."

The troops are not holding their breath; however, they will be victorious.

Tom Kelly, a resident of Blue Hill, is a retired Navy captain.

[Soldier4Christ]

Sheehan and other war protesters sue again over camping ordinance



Cindy Sheehan and four anti-war protesters filed a lawsuit Friday afternoon asking a state district court judge to halt enforcement of two local laws that hamper their protests near President Bush’s ranch.

The group, which dropped a similar suit in a federal district court last fall, wants McLennan County ordinances against parking and camping along rural roadsides not to apply to their upcoming slate of protests in August.

“It’s wrong to prohibit us from camping there,” Sheehan said.

County commissioners passed two ordinances in September that prohibited parking within four miles of President Bush’s property and restricted people from camping or erecting portable bathrooms in the right-of-way area along county roads.

The plaintiffs’ 32-page suit claims the ordinances violate their rights to free speech and exceeded the county government’s authority.

“This is not about the president or politics. It is not even about the war,” said Will Harrell, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas, which supports the suit. “It is about the county commissioners decision to overstep their own authority to restrict the protected activities of a group of protesters and the media.”

An attorney for the county, Mike Dickson, declined comment saying he had not looked at the suit. He has previously said the county ordinances do not restrict free speech by prohibiting people from living in a ditch.

The McLennan County Sheriff’s Office has made 26 arrests related to the ordinances in two separate events staged by war protesters in April and November.

McLennan County District Attorney John Segrest has pressed charges against two protesters.

Sheehan is the only plaintiff who has not been arrested in violation of the camping ordinance. The plaintiffs include Daniel Ellsberg, the former Defense Department analyst who leaked the Pentagon Papers to The New York Times in 1971 during the Vietnam war.

[Soldier4Christ]

Attorney: PERA Could Stop ACLU Profits From Anti-Christian Lawsuits


(AgapePress) - An attorney with the American Family Association Center for Law & Policy (AFA Law Center) says the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has gained windfall profits from its anti-Christian litigation, and it is time for the system that allows this to be changed.

Recently, Rees Lloyd of the American Legion and a former staff attorney with the ACLU testified under oath before Congress about how the organization profits from its lawsuits attacking Christianity. Testifying in favor of Indiana Congressman John Hostettler's Public Expression of Religion Act (PERA), H.R. 2679, Lloyd noted that the ACLU's attacks have been launched primarily against the Christian cross but the liberal litigation group has attacked Judaism's Star of David as well, and has reaped millions of dollars in attorney fees by going after local governments that recognize America's religious heritage in any way.

The ACLU received half a million dollars from the Alabama Ten Commandments case, and $950,000 in attorneys fees in a lawsuit against the Boy Scouts. Steve Crampton, chief counsel with the AFA Law Center and a constitutional law specialist, says the ACLU is able to collect these fees because of an obscure provision of the Civil Rights Act, which PERA is designed to amend.

"It was really just the ACLU and its like organizations on the left that ever benefited from this provision," Crampton contends. He says the clause the ACLU is exploiting to attack religious expressions "was actually first placed into the law before any Christian groups ever existed."

Whenever the ACLU succeeds in one of its attacks on religious expression, the AFA Law Center spokesman notes, its attorneys often recover substantial attorneys fees. He says the threat of these enormous legal expenses has a chilling effect on the exercise of many groups' First Amendment rights. "It results in a situation where a lot of governmental entities refuse even to go to court," he says, "for fear they will then have to pay fees that they don't have the money to cover."

Crampton and other faith and family advocates believe Congressman Hostettler's legislation, if passed, could put an end to ACLU profits from anti-Christian litigation. PERA would do this by amending 42 U.S.C. sections 1983 and 1988 to prevent the use of the legal system in a way that extorts money from state and local governments and inhibits their constitutional actions.

[Soldier4Christ]

Project Proposal For The ACLU


It is the same old story in a different state. The state makes a law to protect children from sex offenders and the ACLU oppose it.

    Sex offenders across Kentucky will be unwelcome neighbors to schools, public playgrounds and day care facilities, under a new state law in effect this week.

    Advocates say new residency boundaries — which prohibit sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of those locations — should help protect children from sexual predators who may stalk them from their nearby homes. Others, however, caution the law may be too restrictive and ban sex offenders from living in large swaths of communities throughout Kentucky.

    Some also worry it may prompt some to live in hiding, under law enforcement’s radar.

    Lili Lutgens, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky, said Kentucky’s new law targets sex offenders whose chances of re-offending are considered low risk while over-regulating those more likely to strike again.

    “It is good for the General Assembly to want to regulate the risk that registered sex offenders pose on the community, but the problem is this doesn’t seem to be a very effective risk management that they’ve created,” Lutgens said. “And it’s going to be the noncompliant offenders who are precisely the ones who will not register.”

I don’t know about you, but it would make me feel a lot safer sending my kid to the playground or school knowing that registered sex offenders, many of which are pedophiles, don’t live right next door. Of course the ACLU see it differently.

I have a proposal for the ACLU of Kentucky. Since you are so concerned about sex offenders having a difficult time finding somewhere to live, why not start a project to house them? You could move them next door to you and your children. Get a membership drive going and call it “Adopt A Sex Offender”. You could appeal to all of your supporters to help a sex offender find a home. It could be kinda like Habitats for Humanity where you take the donations and build them a house except you could build it right next door to you and your loved ones. Maybe after they get settled in you could ask them to babysit one night.

We could just keep them housed behind bars for good. If they are still a danger why are they living among us anyway? The punishment for sex offenders, especially those that violate children, should be much more harsh. There should be mandatory minimum sentences. Of course the ACLU oppose that too.

Just because a sex offender has served their prison term does not mean they are rehabilitated. If we are going to release them back into society, children have the right to be protected from the potential harm they may cause. I really can’t conjure up any sympathy over a convicted sexual criminal having to make a little extra effort to find somewhere to live that is more than 1,000 feet from the local playground or school. It isn’t punishment as the ACLU argue. Why is the ACLU fighting for such a dangerous individual to live right in the middle of temptation, and right next to society’s most vulnerable? I know not every sex offender is a child rapist, but they have done a terrible crime, and one of the consequences of that is a total loss of trust from society. The ACLU doesn’t even want the public to be notified if a sex offender is living next door.

[Soldier4Christ]

Judge to Begin Considering ACLU Case Against NSA Program

A federal judge said Monday that she would begin considering whether to allow a legal challenge to proceed against President George W. Bush's terrorist surveillance program.

U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit gave no indication of when she would rule.

On Monday, Taylor heard arguments about the government's motion to dismiss the case on grounds that litigating it would require revealing state secrets.

It was the second hearing in the case before Taylor, who also heard arguments on June 12.

The case was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union against the National Security Agency. The ACLU is asking for an immediate halt to the program, arguing that it violates the rights to free speech and privacy.

The government argues that the program is well within the president's authority, but proving that would require revealing state secrets.

The ACLU says the state-secrets argument is irrelevant because the Bush administration already has publicly revealed enough information about the program for Taylor to rule.

The White House has acknowledged eavesdropping on Americans' international communications without first seeking court approval. Bush has said the eavesdropping is legal because of a congressional resolution passed after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that authorized him to use force in the fight against terrorism.

The ACLU's clients include journalists, scholars and lawyers, who say the program has hampered their ability to do their jobs because it has made international contacts wary of sharing information over the phone.

[Soldier4Christ]

ACLU Seeks to Intervene in Suit Challenging Medical Marijuana Use

The American Civil Liberties Union, Drug Policy Alliance and Americans for Safe Access moved Friday to be allowed to intervene in a state lawsuit brought by three California counties seeking to overturn Proposition 215, the alliance said Friday in a release.

Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Act — which allows medical use of marijuana upon a doctor’s recommendation — was passed by California voters in 1996.

In the lawsuit, the counties of San Diego, San Bernardino and Merced sued the state and others, claiming that federal laws prohibiting marijuana use preempt state laws such as Proposition 215. The suit cites the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause and a 1961 U.S. treaty with 150 other nations outlawing marijuana.

 

The suit also challenges the state’s Medical Marijuana Program Act, which provides for an identification card program that would allow police to identify legitimate medical marijuana patients.

The groups believe Proposition 215 is not preempted by federal law and seek an order requiring San Diego County to begin issuing medical marijuana identification cards.

Daniel Abrahamson, director of legal affairs for the alliance, said in the release,

“We are confident the court will require the state’s medical marijuana program to be implemented in San Diego, as required by law. Renegade politicians in San Diego are simply postponing the inevitable, while thousands of sick people suffer.”

The groups seek to intervene to represent medical marijuana patients, patients’ groups, caregivers and doctors. “Our motion to intervene will allow the court to recognize the harm done to patients by the county’s frivolous lawsuit,” Abrahamson said.

Wendy Christakes, a medical marijuana user represented by the groups, said in the release, “The county supervisors are playing politics while we struggle to survive. They should be ashamed.”

The groups also represent Dr. Stephen O’Brien, a physician who specializes in HIV/AIDS treatment in Oakland and believes that many of his seriously ill patients benefit from marijuana use, the release said.

San Diego County originally filed the lawsuit in federal court this January, but dismissed it and refiled, along with the other counties, in state court in February.

Last month San Diego Superior Court Judge William R. Nevitt Jr. rejected the State’s contention that counties are precluded from challenging state law, and allowed the case to proceed.

The Washington, D.C.-based Marijuana Policy Project has reported that a January poll of San Diego County voters conducted by Evans/McDonough Company, Inc. showed that 67 percent said they support Proposition 215, while only 30 percent said they oppose it, and 80 percent agreed that the suit “is wasting taxpayers’ money.”

California is one of 11 states which allows the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes.

[Soldier4Christ]

From ACLU's own website. Admittedly consorting with the enemy and reporting supposed human rights violations by the U.S. to the ulimate human rights violaters.

_____________________

ACLU Urges U.S. Accountability for Human Rights Violations (7/10/2006)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
CONTACT: media@aclu.org

U.N. Committee Convenes to Evaluate Abysmal U.S. Human Rights Record

NEW YORK -- The American Civil Liberties Union today charged the U.S. government with failure to uphold civil and political rights and expressed grave concerns over serious setbacks in rights protections over the past several years.

An ACLU delegation arrives this week in Geneva to brief the 18 human rights experts of the U.N. Human Rights Committee (HRC) and to monitor the committee's examination of U.S. compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), a major international human rights treaty ratified by the U.S. in 1992.

"Respect for universal human rights begins at home and not though public relations campaigns and programs to promote human rights overseas," said Jamil Dakwar, an attorney with the ACLU Human Rights Program. "The commitment of the U.S. to civil and political rights has proven to be hollow for many American citizens and non-citizens who suffered from U.S. policies and actions in the United States and abroad."

A U.S. delegation will appear before the HRC on July 17 and 18 to answer questions about the implementation of the ICCPR. The session will be based on the official U.S. report that was submitted last October, more than seven years after it was due. The U.S. appearance before the committee will be its second since ratification and the first since the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the beginning of the 'global war on terror.'

In a statement presented at the opening session of the meeting in Geneva, the ACLU repeated its call to hold the U.S. government accountable for human rights violations and demanded that the U.S. government restore respect for cherished civil and political rights particularly those of minority and vulnerable groups.

"In the last decade, and since the last time the United States appeared before this committee, we have witnessed serious setbacks in the protection of civil and political rights within the U.S.," said the ACLU in its formal statement. "We have also witnessed a backlash against human rights in the name of national security which has affected large numbers of persons in the U.S. and abroad."

In June the ACLU submitted a comprehensive report to the HRC 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. Drawing particular attention to some of the most vulnerable members of society, including women, children, minorities, immigrants and the accused, the ACLU offered detailed recommendations to bring the U.S. in line with universally recognized human rights standards.

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.

ACLU affiliates across the country have recognized that human rights begin at home and have embarked on a campaign to educate Americans about their human rights under the ICCPR, to demand U.S. accountability for human rights violations, and to call for the protection and realization of human rights on the local, state and federal level.

To illustrate the impact of many of the U.S. policies, the ACLU and the U.S. Human Rights Network are hosting a panel of victims of U.S. human rights violations in Geneva on Friday July 14, from 12:30 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. at Centre de Conferences de Varembe (CCV), 9 - 11 Rue de Varambe. The panel will consist of Khalid El-Masri, a victim of the CIA's policy of "extraordinary rendition;" Father Roy Bourgeois, who was illegally spied on by the FBI under the guise of a counter-terrorism investigation; Jessica Gonzales, a victim of domestic violence whose estranged husband killed her three young daughters after police failed to enforce a restraining order against him; Marshan Allen, who was incarcerated as a juvenile and is presently being held for life with no opportunity for parole (participating via a taped video statement); Reverend Lois Dejean, a resident of New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina; and Anthony Holmes, a victim of torture at the hands of the Chicago Police Department (participating via a taped video statement).

The ACLU's new Human Rights Program is dedicated to holding the U.S. government accountable to universally recognized human rights principles. The Human Rights Program is charged with incorporating international human rights strategies into ACLU advocacy on issues relating to national security, immigrants' rights, women's rights and racial justice.

The broader ACLU delegation to the HRC includes Dakwar, Ann Beeson, the ACLU Associate Legal Director, Chandra Bhatnagar, an attorney with the ACLU Human Rights Program, Laleh Ispahani, Senior Policy Council at the ACLU, Lenora Lapidus, Director of the ACLU Women's Rights Project, Kary Moss, Executive Director of the ACLU of Michigan, Gary Weber, Legal Director of the ACLU of Georgia, and Nsombi Lambright, Executive Director of the ACLU of Mississippi.

[Soldier4Christ]

The ACLU and Miami's Book 'Ban'


A children's schoolbook titled "Let's Go to Cuba" depicts Castro's fiefdom as a combination Emerald City and Willi Wonka's Chocolate Factory. Some American parents of Cuban heritage noticed it and filed a complaint with the Miami-Dade school board, which voted to remove the book from the public school library.

The ACLU claims to be scandalized and filed suit to retain the book. "Today's precedent, if allowed to stand," said the ACLU attorney, Howard Simon, "opens the door to yank virtually any book off the shelf of a school library at the whim of a single parent and a school board judgment that there is some inaccuracy or omission in a book."

A little perspective: Between 1990 and 2000, the American Library Association documented more than 6,000 protests against schoolbooks by American parents. For every protest actually recorded, they estimate that four or five go unreported.

The door the learned Mr. Simon so dreads to hear creak open was yanked open long ago. It was propped open with a sturdy doorstop by a Supreme Court ruling in 1982 when (First Amendment fanatic) William Brennan wrote that local school boards had "broad discretion in the management of school affairs," adding that if they removed a book based on its "educational suitability" or because the books were "pervasively vulgar," such actions "would not be unconstitutional."

According to the ALA, over the past two decades, every single year sees between 400 and 600 such schoolbook protests in the U.S., much of it over material considered "racially insensitive," as when "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" was yanked from an Illinois school library.

In brief, attempted "book bannings'" identical to the one in Miami-Dade, have occurred at a rate of over one a day for the last two and half decades, from sea to shining sea. In most of these incidents the ACLU and the mainstream media have been conspicuously mum.

But just let those insufferable Cuban-Americans try it! Then the ACLU promptly blasts its bugles, its media cronies affect grave frowns, the teachers unions get on their high horse, and cries of "Censorship!" and "Book banning!" flood the airwaves and headlines. "Miami-Dade School Board Bans Cuba Book," headlined the New York Times on June 15.

Lest anyone forget, school boards are elected by their communities. They have no power to ban or censor anything on the national – or even a regional – stage, screen, or print. That same asinine book potentially "banned" at the urging of Cuban-American parents can be stacked in the windows of a bookstore next door to the school library.

Indeed, dozens of books 20 times as asinine, from Che Guevara's "Guerrilla War: A Method" (from someone who never fought in a guerrilla war) to Fidel Castro's own "History Will Absolve Me" (from modern history's most shameless liar), already blanket the literary landscape and overwhelmingly influence America's and most of the world's academic and media depictions of Cuba, hence their almost uniform absurdity.

Heaven knows, Castro gets enough free publicity and soft-soaping from the worldwide media-academia axis as it is. So some Miami-Dade taxpayers have simply balked at subsidizing any more of this malignant idiocy, as millions of taxpayers throughout the U.S. for decades have balked at subsidizing everything from "Heather Has Two Mommies" to "Huckleberry Finn" to 'Little Black Sambo" to "Harry Potter" – all without major objection from the ACLU and the New York Times – indeed, often with their accolades.

How the Miami parents' objections amount to a vile and unprecedented lust to "Censor!" and "Ban!" while all the others amount to spreading "tolerance" and "sensitivity" and "upholding community values" might be best explained by George Orwell, who coined the term "Newspeak."

"Stalin tortured," wrote Arthur Koestler, "not to force you to reveal a fact, but to force you to collude in a fiction." Ditto for his Cuban understudy, Fidel Castro. For refusing to renounce principles, a man (or woman – Castro is an equal opportunity jailer/murderer) was jailed and tortured for 10, 20, or even 30 years – the longest terms of political incarceration and torture in modern history, almost three times as long as Stalin himself tortured his victims.

Now in a wheelchair from the tortures, this U.S. citizen notices his granddaughter being taught that the regime that tortured him, that murdered his brother and cousin without trial, that stole his life's savings, that jailed more people than Stalin's, that trained and harbored terrorists for decades, and that craved to incinerate his adopted country with nuclear blasts – this regime is being depicted in her schoolbooks as wise and kindly.

The depiction is outrageous enough, and the teaching of it to primary-graders is doubly outrageous. But that's not his objection. He understands perfectly well that his adopted country's Constitution defends a book espousing idiocies (as did the one in his native country pre-Castro, by the way).

Fine. But should this torture victim (and U.S. citizen) also be forced to subsidize the idiocies? Is his resistance to this subsidizing a dastardly deed while a black father's yanking of "Huckleberry Finn" from his son's school library using the identical means a laudable and conscientious deed?

Is the latter an upright "concerned parent" – or even better, an "involved parent" – while the former is a "censor" and bigoted "book banner"?

You'd certainly think so from reading the mainstream media.

The U.S. taxpayers being scolded by the ACLU and the teachers unions for balking at subsidizing Castroite propaganda include, among them, the world's longest-suffering political prisoners, jailed and tortured by Castro. A former political prisoner, in fact, brought the book to the attention of the school board in the first place and asked for its removal from the public school library (not its "banning"). He urged this not because the book was "insensitive" or "violated community standards," but simply because it was wrong – because it sought to teach falsehoods.

"The Soviet Union has already created liberties far greater than exist elsewhere in the world," rhapsodized the ACLU's founder, Roger Baldwin, about the Soviet Union. "Today I saw fresh, vigorous expressions of free living by workers and peasants all over the land."

But that was early in the game, you say. Nobody knew how Bolshevism would play out. It was an honest mistake. Come on, cut the guy some slack.

Actually, Baldwin wrote this in 1934. He greatly admired Stalin's Russia. And not because of blinders or a Potemkin tour. He seemed to recognize the repression – and to excuse it:

"No champion of a socialist society could fail to see that some suppression was necessary to achieve it. It could not all be done by persuasion. When that power of the working class is once achieved, as it has been only in the Soviet Union, I am for maintaining it by any means whatever. Dictatorship is the obvious means in a world of enemies at home and abroad."

Small wonder the book "Let's Go To Cuba" has such sentimental value for the ACLU. It gushes about Stalinist Cuba exactly the way Roger Baldwin gushed about Stalinist Russia. The ACLU seems to recognize who picked up the torch from their founder's hero.

Cuban-Americans' proud and unflinching status means the ACLU has a special beef with them. They remain the most vocal and unashamed anti-communists. Enlightened opinion regards them as quaint and musty museum pieces at best; at worst, raving maniacs hell-bent on imposing another McCarthyite dark age.

Because they fought it alone, outnumbered and bare-fisted, on the beaches of the Bay of Pigs and for half a decade in Cuba's hills, because many spent the longest political-prison terms in modern history for spitting in the face of their torturers, because their life savings and dreams were abolished by armed communists, who tried to ram an insane worldview down their throats – for all of these perfectly valid reasons, Cuban-Americans gag at the ACLU founder's prescription for a better world.

"Baldwin, sir," assert Cuban-Americans with their every public act," you were either a scoundrel, an ignoramus, or a jackass – probably all three." The ACLU cannot let them get away with that.

Typically, Frank Bolanos, the Cuban-American school board member who urges the "book banning," understands and appreciates the U.S. Constitution better than most of his native-born journalistic and legal opponents, with all their multifarious and glittering LLD degrees.

"This is not a First Amendment issue," Bolanos wrote. "Censorship occurs when government refuses to allow people to purchase material, not when it refuses to provide that material at no charge."

Mr. Bolanos – again, unlike his illustrious and mega-credentialed native-born foes – understands and reveres America's founding fathers. Thus he quotes Thomas Jefferson: "To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."

Alas, by bringing up Thomas Jefferson in attempting to influence the ACLU and the teachers unions, Mr. Bolanos erred grievously. The ACLU's founder and guiding light seemed to prefer Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin. And the teachers unions probably think Thomas Jefferson was the latest runner-up on "American Idol."

[Soldier4Christ]

ACLU Action On Prisoners, Can Cause An Unplanned Reaction


Today, the ACLU attacked the Department of Defense and by default all uniformed members of the military of using “abusive interrogation practices” on prisoners taken in the Global War on Terror:

    “It is the Defense Department’s responsibility to ensure that prisoners are treated humanely, as the Geneva Conventions require,” said Jameel Jaffer, an ACLU attorney ( also take note that he is a Muslim and is a huge supporter of CAIR and many terrorists ). “But as these documents show, the Defense Department allowed abusive interrogation practices to flourish.”

Ralph Peters of The New York Post has put in print, what no doubt is on the minds of many that are deployed in the Global War on Terror:

    “Violent Islamist extremists must be killed on the battlefield. Only in the rarest cases should they be taken prisoner. Few have serious intelligence value. And, once captured, there’s no way to dispose of them.

    Killing terrorists during a conflict isn’t barbaric or immoral - or even illegal. We’ve imposed rules upon ourselves that have no historical or judicial precedent. We haven’t been stymied by others, but by ourselves.

    The oft-cited, seldom-read Geneva and Hague Conventions define legal combatants as those who visibly identify themselves by wearing uniforms or distinguishing insignia (the latter provision covers honorable partisans - but no badges or armbands, no protection). Those who wear civilian clothes to ambush soldiers or collect intelligence are assassins and spies - beyond the pale of law.

    Traditionally, those who masquerade as civilians in order to kill legal combatants have been executed promptly, without trial. Severity, not sloppy leftist pandering, kept warfare within some decent bounds at least part of the time. But we have reached a point at which the rules apply only to us, while our enemies are permitted unrestricted freedom. “

The ACLU needs to understand that “for every action there is a reaction.”