ACLU In The News

[Soldier4Christ]

ACLU should check the law

Until a few weeks ago most Americans didn't know how to spell "Hazleton," let alone know what it is, where it is or why they should give a hoot.

But all that changed after a Hazleton resident, 29, was shot between the eyes and a young teenager was poised to shoot up a schoolyard. (Well, the spelling thing didn't change. Blame a typo transposing the "E" and "L" during the incorporation of the Pennsylvania city.) Because he strongly believed the suspects were illegals, Mayor Lou Barletta decided to do something about illegal immigrants in Luzerne County's second largest city.

"That's when I had enough," Mr. Barletta said. "I was watching the city being destroyed right before my eyes."

He helped pass an ordinance in July that punishes employers who hire illegals and landlords who rent to them. It also makes English the official language of city government. Ay Caramba.

And that is about the time the American Civil Liberties Union and other apologists for foreigners violating American law had had enough. They filed a lawsuit on Tuesday claiming the law is unconstitutional.

With almost 1,000 letters and 9,500 e-mail messages from supporters nationwide (before the ACLU lawsuit) thanking him, offering moral support and wishing their respective officials would do the same, little wonder Barletta has become a regular guest on cable TV news channels.

His biggest surprise after the new law was in force was how passionately America feels about this issue. "My intent was to protect the people of Hazleton," he said. "I never anticipated the reaction." Barletta says the media contact him daily for interviews or to be a talk show guest.

And there is that domino effect. "Over 30 cities in the nation are in the process of passing similar ordinances or already have done so," he says.

"I think that says something. We just hit a nerve here. The fact I spoke up has caused others to follow what we are doing. The American people cannot wait for the federal government to solve the problem (of illegal immigration). They want action now, especially the small cities."

But Witold Walczak, legal director of the ACLU of Pennsylvania, said in a news release that "You might as well just paint a target on every foreigners' (sic) forehead or a sign saying 'please treat me differently.' " Um, OK. Actually, that sounds like a dandy idea.

"It is patently illegal for a local municipality to usurp the role of the federal government," Mr. Walczak says.

But that is patently absurd.

After Walczak looks up the definition of "usurp" -- as in to take possession of without a strict legal claim, or to seize and hold an office, place, or powers without authorization -- he should read the 1996 Immigration and Nationality Act.

The secretary of Homeland Security is authorized to enter into a written agreement to delegate the authority of enforcing federal immigration laws to a state or political subdivision of a state. And through Immigration and Customs Enforcement, local law enforcement officers can receive immigration enforcement training. The cost for the five-week program is $520 per officer.

Since Hazleton won't back down, it welcomes donations to stand up to the ACLU -- online at www.smalltowndefenders.com or by snail mail at City of Hazleton Legal Defense Fund, City Hall, 40 N. Church St., Hazleton, PA 18201.

"We're not going to be bullied," says Mayor Barletta.

[Soldier4Christ]

ACLU, Lawyers of Choice for Terrorists


I had been wondering about the plaintiffs in the NSA Lawsuit and Debbie Sclussel has the details. From looking at the ACLU lawyer plaintiffs, it looks like the ACLU is simply an agent of Hamas, Hezbollah…….

    Take Noel Saleh. The thrice-disciplined attorney (who was suspended from the practice of law) openly stated at a town hall meeting with federal officials that he has financially contributed to Hezbollah. He heads an Arab welfare agency that gets millions in our tax dollars, yet was raided by the FBI for engaging in Medicaid fraud. The organization also spent thousands in our tax dollars on “job training” (commercial driving lessons and attempts at HazMat hauling certificates) for two men indicted as members of the Detroit Al-Qaeda terror cell. He has represented a number of Islamic terrorists, including Ibrahim Parlak and “former” PFLP terrorist Imad Hamad.

[Soldier4Christ]

Judge Finds NSA Program Unconstitutional




The Associated Press reports via the WaPo:

    DETROIT — A federal judge decision’s to strike down President Bush’s warrantless surveillance program was the first ruling over its legality, but surely not the last.

    U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit ruled Thursday that the program violated the rights to free speech and privacy, as well as the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution

Back in January of 2006, the ACLU filed a lawsuit against the NSA wire tapping program. The ACLU’s lawsuit was on behalf of journalists, lawyers, and others- who said that the NSA program made it hard to do their jobs. I can’t see as how that would be correct; unless they were in contact with terrorists.

The ACLU’s contention was that overseas contacts are likely to be targets of the program. People were outraged that a government program would monitor their phone calls and e-mails. What people seem to forget to mention or include in their diatribes about the NSA wiretapping program is that the phone calls and emails that are monitored to or from the U.S. are those that involve people the government suspects have terrorist links.

Kind of like that inconvenient second part in the establishment clause, isn’t it?

But with the recent publications of Pallywood type photographs coming out of the MSM, pictures of journalists having Thanksgiving with the Taliban, etc., it would seem as though what they’re really objecting to is getting caught red-handed with the enemy and having to pay some type of a price for it or be held accountable for aiding and abetting the enemy.

So what’s the problem? I think they should be held accountable! Part of their feigned objection is that the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act already gave our government enough tools to monitor suspected terrorists, because it set up a ’secret court’ to grant warrants for these types of surveillance.

But…the government argued that the NSA program is well within the president’s powers and said proving that would require revealing state secrets. But that’s not enough for the ACLU.

From the WaPo:

    The ACLU said the state-secrets argument was irrelevant because the Bush administration already had publicly revealed enough information about the program for Taylor to rule. The administration has decried leaks that led to a New York Times report about the existence of the program last year.

Riiight. That was when most of us stood up in disagreement with the ACLU and particularly when the New York Slimes let this out–because it’s letting the enemy know what we’re doing to combat them. It isn’t bad enough that we have the ACLU here within our country fighting against everything we stand for and legislating their agenda through the judiciary branch; but we have the New York Times joining them in aiding and abetting the enemy.

    Taylor, a Carter appointee, said the government appeared to argue that the program is beyond judicial scrutiny.

    “It was never the intent of the framers to give the president such unfettered control, particularly where his actions blatantly disregard the parameters clearly enumerated in the Bill of Rights,” she wrote. “The three separate branches of government were developed as a check and balance for one another.”

Oh bologna. It was never the intent of the framers for judges to ignore the law and the intent of the separation of powers and allow bloviating baffoons to legislate from the bench. There’s a whole branch of government for that and it’s supposed to represent the people: It’s called the Legislative BRANCH.

Problem is, too many people don’t even know how the government is supposed to operate because they don’t learn about how our government is even set up.

That’s obvious when you read the comments from people who think the ACLU is standing up for peoples’ civil rights. All you have to do is do a google search for recent cases having to do with civil rights, and you can see that the majority of people are having those rights stripped away from them in the name of political correctness.

Any way you look at it, this ruling is disgusting. I can’t find a direct link to this editorial that is apparently up at the WaPo, but the following was sent to me through email. Isn’t it interesting what opinions actually get the air play and which are hidden below the fold?

    President Taylor
    A federal judge rewrites the Constitution on war powers.

    Friday, August 18, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

    In our current era of polarized politics, it was probably inevitable that some judge somewhere would strike down the National Security Agency’s warrantless wiretaps as unconstitutional. The temptations to be hailed as Civil Libertarian of the Year are just too great.

    So we suppose a kind of congratulations are due to federal Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, who won her 10 minutes of fame yesterday for declaring that President Bush had taken upon himself “the inherent power to violate not only the laws of the Congress but the First and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution, itself.” Oh, and by the way, the Jimmy Carter appointee also avers that “there are no hereditary Kings in America.” In case you hadn’t heard.

 cont'd

[Soldier4Christ]

   The 44-page decision, which concludes by issuing a permanent injunction against the wiretapping program, will doubtless occasion much rejoicing among the “imperial Presidency” crowd. That may have been part of her point, as, early in the decision, Judge Taylor refers with apparent derision to “the war on terror of this Administration.”

“of this Administration?” Puhleez.

    We can at least be grateful that President Taylor’s judgment won’t be the last on the matter. The Justice Department immediately announced it will appeal and the injunction has been stayed for the moment. But her decision is all the more noteworthy for coming on the heels of the surveillance-driven roll up of the terrorist plot in Britain to blow up U.S.-bound airliners. In this environment, monitoring the communications of our enemies is neither a luxury nor some sinister plot to chill domestic dissent. It is a matter of life and death.

    So let’s set aside the judge’s Star Chamber rhetoric and try to examine her argument, such as it is. Take the Fourth Amendment first. The “unreasonable search and seizure” and warrant requirements of that amendment have their roots in the 18th-century abuses of the British crown. Those abuses involved the search and arrest of the King’s political opponents under general and often secret warrants.

    Judge Taylor sees an analogy here, but she manages to forget or overlook that no one is being denied his liberty and no evidence is being brought in criminal proceedings based on what the NSA might learn through listening to al Qaeda communications. The wiretapping program is an intelligence operation, not a law-enforcement proceeding. Congress was duly informed, and not a single specific domestic abuse of such a wiretap has yet been even alleged, much less found.
    As for the First Amendment, Judge Taylor asserts that the plaintiffs–a group that includes the ACLU and assorted academics, lawyers and journalists who believe their conversations may have been tapped but almost surely weren’t–had their free-speech rights violated because al Qaeda types are now afraid to speak to them on the phone.

    But the wiretapping program is not preventing anyone from speaking on the phone. Quite the opposite–if the terrorists stopped talking on the phone, there would be nothing to wiretap. Perhaps the plaintiffs should have sued the New York Times, as it was that paper’s disclosure of the program that created the “chill” on “free speech” that Judge Taylor laments.

    The real nub of this dispute is the Constitution’s idea of “inherent powers,” although those two pages of her decision are mostly devoted to pouring scorn on the very concept. But jurists of far greater distinction than Judge Taylor have recognized that the Constitution vests the bulk of war-making power with the President. It did so, as the Founders explained in the Federalist Papers, for reasons of energy, dispatch, secrecy and accountability.

    Before yesterday, no American court had ever ruled that the President lacked the Constitutional right to conduct such wiretaps. President Carter signed the 1978 FISA statute that established the special court to approve domestic wiretaps even as his Administration declared it was not ceding any Constitutional power. And in the 2002 decision In Re: Sealed Case, the very panel of appellate judges that hears FISA appeals noted that in a previous FISA case (U.S. v. Truong), a federal “court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information.” We couldn’t find Judge Taylor’s attempt to grapple with those precedents, perhaps because they’d have interfered with the lilt of her purple prose.

    Unlike Judge Taylor, Presidents are accountable to the voters for their war-making decisions, as the current White House occupant has discovered. Judge Taylor can write her opinion and pose for the cameras–and no one can hold her accountable for any Americans who might die as a result.

Jack Lewis has more on Judge Taylor, who has chosen to ignore the letter of the law before.

TITLE: Judge that ruled against NSA has history of ignoring the law

SUMMARY: It should come as no surprise that the judge who ruled against the NSA’s wiretapping program has a history of ignoring the law when it suits her own person political agenda.

    Judge that ruled against NSA has history of ignoring the law

    From Opinion and Order by Judge Bernard A. Friedman Denying Defendant’s Motion to Designate Gratz v. Michigan and Grutter v. Michigan as Companion Cases, August 17, 1998…

Something is terribly wrong with an ideology that would make it ‘constitutional’ for terrorists to conspire to kill us all. There’s something even more wrong about the ACLU which cheers them on for doing it.

[Soldier4Christ]

Transgendered murderer pushes for state-funded sex-change surgery with help from the ACLU

You may not be able to see it, but his hair in this picture is longer than shoulder length, and he is wearing lipstick and earrings and seems to be working hard on developing his chest–probably with the help of female hormones.

This Jan. 15, 1993 image shows Robert J. Kosilek in Bristol County Superior Court in New Bedford, Mass., where Kosilek was on trial for the May 1990 murder of his wife. Kosilek, now known as Michelle, hopes a federal court will force the state to fund a sex-change operation for him.

I’ve done some research on this guy; he has a way of turning on the tears. The first dramatic demonstration of this when during his arrest when he cried and admitted murdering his wife. Then he cried crocodile tears in court over someone murdering his wife and it wasn’t him, but the jury didn’t believe him so now he’s in prison for murdering his wife and wants a sex change and is still pouring on the crocodile tears.

From the AP:

    Inmates in several other states have sued prison officials for sex-change operations. Like Kosilek, they argued that gender identity disorder is a serious illness that can lead to severe anxiety, depression, suicide attempts and self-castration. They argue that treatment for their condition is a “medical necessity” and denying it would violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment…

    The “Inmate Sex Change Prevention Act” was introduced after Wisconsin inmate Scott Konitzer filed a lawsuit seeking a sex-change operation. The law took effect in January, but is being challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union and Lambda Legal.

    In Colorado, inmate Christopher “Kitty” Grey, who is serving 16 years to life for molesting an 8-year-old girl, is suing the state to provide him with a gender specialist he hopes will determine that he needs a sex-change operation. The state Department of Corrections is already giving Grey female hormones.

    “For all intents and purposes, I am a woman in a man’s prison,” Grey told the Denver Post in an interview earlier this year. “That’s like putting a cat in a dog kennel,” Grey said…

I suggest you read the whole thing; but what I find appalling is the crimes these cretins have committed and how much more taxpayer dollars they’re wasting in terms of time and money for rights that they don’t have. THESE PEOPLE COMMITTED DESPICABLE CRIMES and they SHOULD BE GLAD THEY’RE ALIVE, let alone harrassing people with their ridiculous cries of ‘oppression’–when they’re never going to get out, they’re not going to be rehabilitated, and they want to carry on having their deviant parties like Richard Speck did all the way until he died. And he was trying to grow boobs, too. These guys are in prison–it’s not cruel and unusual punishment to let them remain just exactly as God created them–as men–who are in an environment where they’re somebody’s bitch.

That was their choice when they committed their sickening crimes to begin with. Do the crime, do the time. In this case, I think he should have received a quick dose of Capital Punishment so we don’t have to watch the sickening drama play out in the courts on the money I pay in taxes.

The average cost of keeping an inmate is somewhere around $27,000. I think we could use that money elsewhere and do some good with it.

This Florida death row fact sheet says it costs approximately $72.39 per day to incarcerate a Death Row inmate. I think we have a lot of money we could be saving if we just sent them to their punishment and stopped giving them the opportunity to waste time, resources and money in useless appeals.

We should stop ‘forgiving’ murderers, rapists and child molesters and get it done with. And if they’re going to be on death row for committing a crime, they can sit in their man suit and cry like a girl about their sex change operation. Would he be demanding such a thing from the government if he were a regular guy on the outside? This is ridiculous.

[Soldier4Christ]

Investor’s Business Daily: ACLU compromises national security


IBD: There Is No Right To Aid Terrorists

    The War At Home: The ACLU says the NSA surveillance program makes it difficult for its attorneys to represent its clients. Especially when your attorneys help fund terrorist groups like Hezbollah.

    When it’s not busy removing crosses from town seals, trying to force the Boy Scouts to violate their organizing principles or getting sculptures of the Ten Commandments out of Alabama courthouses, the American Civil Liberties Union is busy protecting the free speech rights of terrorists, as in its recent court victory that rendered unconstitutional our ability to connect the dots we need to connect.

    One of the lesser known plaintiffs in the case, Noel Saleh, attorney for the ACLU’s Michigan chapter, said the NSA program made it difficult for him to represent his clients, some of whom the government accuses of terrorist connections.

    Saleh has had a number of terrorist clients, such as Ibrahim Parlak, a member of the PKK, the Kurdish Islamic terrorist group on the State Department’s terror list, who was found responsible for the deaths of two Turkish border police.

    Not to mention Imad Hamad, Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine member.

    Everyone has the right to an attorney, even Osama bin Laden, according to a recent Supreme Court ruling. That’s our system. But not everyone has the right to actively aid terrorist organizations.

    Saleh once openly stated at a town hall meeting with federal officials that he has financially contributed to Hezbollah.

The rest of the piece is a nice rundown of many examples of how the ACLU jumps to the defense of our enemies(nearly every time), how the ACLU has targeted many reasonable (and legal) security measures the administration has attempted to implement, the ACLU’s successful incitement of hundreds of cities to mutiny regarding enforcement of USA Patriot Act provisions and how this crusade puts us all in grave danger.

Strong close:

    Perhaps the ACLU forgets that in our Declaration of Independence, life precedes liberty in the list of our unalienable rights. Patrick Henry once said, “Give me liberty or give me death.”

    If we follow the ACLU’s agenda, we may wind up with both at the same time.

[Soldier4Christ]

There Is No Right To Aid Terrorists

The War At Home: The ACLU says the NSA surveillance program makes it difficult for its attorneys to represent its clients. Especially when your attorneys help fund terrorist groups like Hezbollah.

When it's not busy removing crosses from town seals, trying to force the Boy Scouts to violate their organizing principles or getting sculptures of the Ten Commandments out of Alabama courthouses, the
American Civil Liberties Union is busy protecting the free speech rights of terrorists, as in its recent court victory that rendered unconstitutional our ability to connect the dots we need to connect.

One of the lesser known plaintiffs in the case, Noel Saleh, attorney for the ACLU's Michigan chapter, said the NSA program made it difficult for him to represent his clients, some of whom the government accuses of terrorist connections.

Saleh has had a number of terrorist clients, such as Ibrahim Parlak, a member of the PKK, the Kurdish Islamic terrorist group on the State Department's terror list, who was found responsible for the deaths of two Turkish border police.

Not to mention Imad Hamad, Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine member.

Everyone has the right to an attorney, even
Osama bin Laden, according to a recent Supreme Court ruling. That's our system. But not everyone has the right to actively aid terrorist organizations.

Saleh once openly stated at a town hall meeting with federal officials that he has financially contributed to Hezbollah.

We do not buy the argument by Saleh and the ACLU that their free speech rights are violated because al-Qaida and Hezbollah types are afraid to talk to them on the phone.

The free speech rights of thousands were violated on 9-11 by terrorists whose calls should have been monitored but weren't.

The 9-11 Commission found that two of the hijackers had been communicating from San Diego with al-Qaida operatives overseas.

Had we been able to listen in to their conversations, history might have changed dramatically. The 9-11 attack had a "chilling effect" on thousands of lives.

Since 9-11, the ACLU has led a coalition of civil liberties groups in supporting noncooperation with provisions of the Patriot Act, with at least 400 municipalities and states signing on.

In 2003, the ACLU filed suit against Section 215 of the act, which merely extends to terror investigations the same access to public records accorded criminal investigations.

The ACLU came to the defense of attorney Lynne Stewart, who in February 2005 was convicted on charges that she had illegally "facilitated and concealed communications" between her client, the jailed "blind sheik," Omar Abdel Rahman, and the Islamic Group, an Egyptian terrorist organization.

Rahman masterminded the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center and planned to blow up the Lincoln and Holland tunnels and the George Washington Bridge.

The ACLU also rushed to the defense of University of South Florida professor Sami al-Arian, who once served as the North American head of the terrorist group Palestinian Islamic Jihad. The 120-page Justice Department indictment listed 200 specific acts linking al-Arian to terrorism.

The ACLU opposes the Computer-Assisted Passenger Profiling System used by airlines to check for various passenger characteristics that have historically been associated with terrorist motives.

In a 2002 lawsuit naming Transportation Secretary
Norman Mineta as a defendant, it challenged a policy prohibiting noncitizens from working as airport security screeners.

The ACLU seems to have a fondness for attorneys who send money to terrorists or act as couriers for them and an agenda that opposes any activity that protects the American people from those who would kill them.

Perhaps the ACLU forgets that in our Declaration of Independence, life precedes liberty in the list of our unalienable rights. Patrick Henry once said, "Give me liberty or give me death."

If we follow the ACLU's agenda, we may wind up with both at the same time.

[Soldier4Christ]

Gideons ACLU At Odds Over Scripture Distribution to Public School Students

(AgapePress) - The ACLU is trying to restrict the Gideons from handing out Bibles to fifth-graders at an elementary school in Missouri.

For years the superintendent of the South Iron R-1 School District in Annapolis, Missouri, has permitted various groups to present information to students at district schools. The open access policy in the district has allowed such groups as Red Cross, Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, and Union Pacific Railroad to have access to the students during classroom time. The Gideons International, which annually places and distributes more than 63 million Scriptures worldwide, has had access to schools during a study period.

Now, however, The Gideons has been singled out in a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Eastern Missouri, which claims that last fall two Gideons representatives were permitted to address fifth-graders during class time and then distribute New Testaments to them -- an action the ACLU says is unconstitutional. The lawsuit seeks an injunction prohibiting the South Iron Schools from continuing to allow outside visitors into their classrooms for religious purposes.

Orlando-based Liberty Counsel has joined with conservative author and commentator David Limbaugh in defending South Iron against the lawsuit. Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, says the attacks against the school district are unfounded.

"An open access policy under the First Amendment requires that you treat religious speech equally," Staver explains. "The ACLU may not like the idea that they have to treat religious speech equally, but the fact of the matter is the Constitution demands it. So we're now defending this ACLU lawsuit which we believe, frankly, is frivolous."

Beyond that consideration, Liberty Counsel has added motivation to be involved in the case, says the attorney. "I think it's important to stand up in this particular case because if the ACLU had its way, it would literally shut down religious speech; it would be discriminating intentionally against religious speech, whereas all the other forms of secular expression have their way in the marketplace," says Staver.

Religious viewpoints are protected under the First Amendment, adds the Liberty Counsel founder, but "the ACLU wants to silence [religious] expression. They want all this [other] information to come as a free flow to the students, but not religious information -- in this case, specifically, no Bibles," he comments. "I think it's very important for our religious freedom and certainly for our constitutional liberties to stand up against the bullies of the ACLU."

Two years ago, the ACLU was successful in shutting down The Gideons' scripture distribution in another Missouri school district. In June 2004 the Smithville R-II School District settled a federal lawsuit filed by the ACLU, agreeing that it would not "aid, abet, or assist in the distribution of Bibles to school children on school premises," or "grant permission to any non-student to distribute Bibles on school premises." That lawsuit had been filed by a Catholic father of three. The court-ordered agreement was to remain in effect for as long as the man has children enrolled in Smithville schools.

[Soldier4Christ]

John Assalone thinks a Rhode Island state trooper did the right thing and he's banking on the fact that others do, too.

Assalone, a Coventry consultant, has opened an account under the name of "Trooper Chabot Defense Fund" with Citizens Bank and is working to raise funds for Rhode Island State Trooper Thomas Chabot.
Chabot is currently being investigated by the state police on allegations that he overstepped his bounds when he detained 14 illegal immigrants after pulling them over for failing to signal a lane change on July 11.
Chabot's actions are being investigated because of a complaint filed by the Rhode Island Affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on behalf of 11 of the 14 individuals involved in the incident.
"We filed a complaint on behalf of many individuals stopped in that incident and asked the state police to investigate that complaint," said Steven Brown, executive director of the ACLU's Rhode Island Affiliate. "We believe they've raised legitimate enough questions that warrant a thorough investigation by the state police."
A national debate is raging over what role local law enforcement should play in cracking down on illegal immigrants, which has traditionally been the sole domain of the federal Immigration and Naturalization Service, and since 9/11, the federal Department of Homeland Security.
Assalone said that, when he read about the incident a week ago, he sent Chabot a note that said, "I hope your good instinct will serve you well in the future and I support what you did."
Assalone said he doesn't know Chabot and has never met him.
"When I saw that the ACLU was getting involved, that's when I really cranked things up," he said. "I'm normally supportive of the ACLU and have made small donations in the past because, many times, they are the only hope for people who have their back up against the wall, but, in this case, I think they're going over the top."
Assalone said he was upset about the incident because he feels Chabot was just doing his job, and he's not alone in feeling this way.
"I hope the head of the [police] department comes forward and says, 'We're proud of this guy for doing his job,'" he said. "I'm not alone in this. I have not talked to anyone yet who thought he stepped over the line. Give the guy credit for doing what he's supposed to do. Give him a medal."
Assalone is not only raising funds for a possible attorney that Chabot may have to hire, but he's been talking to attorneys himself.
"My belief is that this young man will need to hire a private attorney and this money will go toward paying for that," he said. "I've already spoken to three attorneys who have signed on and said they will each donate three hours of their time to do legal research. That's well over $1,000 dollars worth of hours pledged to do legal research."
Assalone said he hopes it doesn't go that far.
"I hope he doesn't get hung out to dry but, if he does, I want him to know that there are people out
there who want to help him and others like him," he said.
Assalone said the Trooper Chabot Defense Fund is open and active and already contains $500.
He said that anyone who would like to donate to the fund should make the check out to the Trooper Chabot Defense Fund and send it either to Citizens Bank or to Assalone himself, at 1A Liena Rose Way, Coventry, R.I. 02816.

[Soldier4Christ]

ACLU files brief in Pine Hill dispute


NEWARK - The American Civil Liberties Union today expressed its support of a Pine Hill resident who is fighting in court for his right to videotape public meetings.

The ACLU submitted a friend-of-the-court brief, a document submitted by a non-litigant that offers unsolicited testimony or other information of relevance to the case.

"The right to freedom of speech and of the press includes the right to obtain and document public information," said Jennifer Klear of Drinker, Biddle & Reath, the firm that wrote the brief. "In no arena is that right as important as during meetings of elected officials."

Robert Wayne Tarus, a Pine Hill community activist, is at the center of the dispute.

Tarus' camera was seized by former Pine Hill Police Chief John Welker and he was charged with disorderly conduct after he refused to turn off his camera during an October 2000 meeting.

Officials said the filming violated the privacy of audience members in attendance.

Tarus subsequently was acquitted of all charges in municipal court.

Tarus took his case to U.S. District Court, claiming his civil rights were violated. His lawsuit was dismissed and he unsuccessfully appealed that decision to the Third Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals.

He then went to state court.

A state appeals court in November upheld borough officials' right to bar him from doing so.

The three-judge panel found the public has no right under the state constitution to videotape public proceedings. The panel also said there was no proof Tarus was prevented from expressing his views to council or was denied access to a public meeting.

The matter now is before the state Supreme Court.

[Soldier4Christ]

School Board To Appeal 'Vamos a Cuba' Ruling
5 board members voted to appeal
2 board members voted not to appeal
2 board members were absent

The Miami-Dade County School Board has made another move to try and remove a controversial children’s book about Cuba from school library shelves.

In a 5-to-2 decision, with two members absent, the Board voted to appeal a federal judge’s ruling that forced the district to keep the book “Vamos a Cuba” and 23 other titles on school library shelves.

The board said it wanted to protect the right of the district to determine the content of school libraries, rather than leave it up to a judge.

Board members Frank Bolaños, Agustin Barrera, Perla Tabares Hantman, Ana Rivas Logan and Marta Pérez voted for the appeal.

The appeal to the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta will likely be heard late this fall. Until then, the books must remain on shelves in dozens of schools, mainly elementaries.

Neither Martin Karp nor Solomon Stinson, the two board members who opposed the appeal, spoke during the debate, and two others -- Evelyn Greer and Robert Ingram -- were not at the meeting.

The board voted in June to remove the books, saying they oversimplify the foreign countries they portray for their 5- to 7-year-old target audience.

The ACLU and the Miami-Dade Student Government Association have a lawsuit pending against the school board for pulling the series book off the shelves. Though the content of the other books in the series were not put in question, the school board decided to pull all of the books.

The case has already cost the district more than $123,000 on outside attorney’s to fight the case, and the approval of this appeal to the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta will cost even more.

Virginia Rosen, President of the Greater Miami Chapter of the ACLU, released the following statement after Tuesday’s Miami-Dade School Board meeting. "The ACLU of Florida is extremely disappointed that the Miami-Dade School Board voted today to advocate censorship in the Miami-Dade Public School System. This will be a costly battle for the school district and the ACLU is prepared to continue litigating-we are confident that free speech will prevail at all levels."

Brandon Hensler, Director of Communications for the ACLU of Florida released this statement. “This lawsuit is a senseless waste of taxpayers' dollars which should be spent better educating the children of Miami-Dade County. The ACLU understands that some people in our community may be offended by parts of the book, but these dollars should be spent on providing students with more information, not censoring library books. If we removed every book that offends one person, or even a group of people, our school library shelves would be nearly empty. It is a regrettable decision and a disservice to the community."

_______________________

This needs to be appealed. Our young children of impressionable age do not need to be exposed to such communistic propaganda.

[Soldier4Christ]

No More Bible Classes in New Hanover Schools

After a year of debate, the New Hanover County school system decided to remove Bible classes from county high schools.

The move came after pressure from the ACLU about teacher certification. The instructors for the Bible courses had been supplied by an independent organization. A majority of those instructors do not have teaching certificates.

By law, teachers in North Carolina must be certified or be able to become certified to teach in public schools.

Students can still take the Old and New Testament classes at Cape Fear Community College through a special program beginning in January.

[Soldier4Christ]

ACLU of Washington Defends Free Speech Rights of Lt. Ehren Watada (8/22/2006)


Brief Filed for Soldier Facing Court Martial for Opposition to Iraq War

TACOMA, WA -- In a military justice case that has drawn wide attention, the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington is backing the free speech rights of a soldier facing court martial for refusing to serve in the war in Iraq. The ACLU today submitted a friend-of-the-court brief contending that Lt. Ehren Watada should not be punished for his public statements expressing legal and moral objections to the war in Iraq.

The military is holding a hearing on August 17 to determine whether to go forward with court martial proceedings against Watada. The ACLU takes no position on his challenge to the lawfulness of the orders to report for duty in Iraq.

“Soldiers should not be court-martialed for explaining their views on important political issues when doing so does not adversely affect military functioning. Lt. Watada was exercising his free speech rights as a citizen in a democratic society,” said Kathleen Taylor, Executive Director of the ACLU of Washington.

Ehren Watada enlisted in the army after finishing college because he wanted to aid his country after the September 11 terrorist attacks.  He has been deployed in Afghanistan and Korea, and has received good reviews for his service.  Lt. Watada became convinced that the war in Iraq is unlawful and that he has a duty as an officer not to participate in it. When he learned that his unit was to be deployed to Iraq, he made requests to be transferred elsewhere, but they were denied. In early June, he discussed his views on the war publicly, holding a press conference and speaking to individual reporters.  On June 22, he refused to board the bus for his deployment to Iraq.

In addition to charges against Lt. Watada for refusal to report to duty, the military is seeking to penalize Lt. Watada for statements he made to reporters expressing his objections to the United States’ involvement in the war in Iraq (see below). He is being charged with violating two articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice: Article 88, which prohibits use of “contemptuous words” against the President and other top governmental officials; and Article 133, which prohibits “conduct unbecoming an officer” – that is, behavior which dishonors or disgraces an officer or “seriously compromises the officer’s character as a gentleman.”

The purpose of Lt. Watada’s public remarks was to explain the motivations for his actions. While one may disagree with Lt. Watada’s opinions on the war’s legality, the ACLU said in legal papers, his expression of those opinions reflected his deeply felt beliefs and showed a seriousness of purpose and high moral character. In speaking his mind, Lt. Watada expressed sharp disagreement with government policies and the actions of the President, but he did not use contemptuous language and did not behave in a dishonorable manner.

The following are the statements for which Lt. Watada is facing court martial:

Statement 1:  “I could never conceive of our leader betraying the trust we had in him …. As I read about the level of deception the Bush administration used to initiate and process this war, I was shocked.  I became ashamed of wearing the uniform.  How can we wear something with such a time-honored tradition, knowing we waged war based on a misrepresentation and lies?  It was a betrayal of the trust of the American people.  And these lies were a betrayal of the trust of the military and the Soldiers….But I felt there was nothing to be done, and this administration was just continually violating the law to serve their purpose, and there was nothing to stop them….Realizing the President is taking us into a war that he misled us about has broken that bond of trust that we had.  If the President can betray my trust, it’s time for me to evaluate what he’s telling me to do.”

Statement 2:  “I was shocked and at the same time ashamed that Bush had planned to invade Iraq before the 9/11 attacks.  How could I wear this [honorable] uniform now knowing we invaded a country for a lie?”

Statement 3:  “It is my conclusion as an officer of the Armed Forces that the war in Iraq is not only morally wrong but a horrible breach of American law….As the order to take part in an illegal act is ultimately unlawful as well, I must as an officer of honor and integrity refuse that order….The wholesale slaughter and mistreatment of Iraqis is not only a terrible and moral injustice, but it’s a contradiction to the Army’s own law of land warfare.  My participation would make me party to war crimes.”

The Army charges that the Statements 1 and 2 violated Art. 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (“Contempt Toward Officials”) and that all three statements violated Art. 133 (“Conduct Unbecoming an Officer and Gentleman”). 

______________________

This is about as ridiculus as it gets. :et's everybody in the Military decide which orders we are going to obey and which ones we aren't.    I can see the chaos this will cause if the ACLU wins this case. When a person joins the Military they agree to obey all lawful orders given them and they don't get to choose which ones are lawful and which ones aren't.

[Soldier4Christ]

Acquiescing to leftists

Judge Taylor's ruling is both perverse and dangerous

By striking down the Terrorists Surveillance Program, Judge Anna Diggs Taylor has, one hopes, opened the eyes of the American public to the leftist political insurgency that is undermining the United States' ability to defend itself against future terrorist attacks.

In a ruling that many legal experts are broadly agreeing is poorly reasoned, Judge Taylor, a federal district judge for Eastern Michigan appointed by Jimmy Carter, has ruled that the TSP violates the First and Fourth amendments of the U.S. Constitution, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, Title III and the Separation of Powers Doctrine.

The lawsuit was filed by the ACLU on behalf of scholars, lawyers, journalists and nonprofit groups that communicate with people in the Middle East that they fear might be targets for surveillance. Given that the TSP is only conducting surveillance on individuals and groups that have ties to Islamic terrorist groups, it raises some suspicion that the ACLU and the groups they represented in the suit might be communicating with people whose mission is to kill and maim as many American men, women, and children as they can.

It's reasonable to believe most people would expect to have their phone calls monitored by the government if they were talking with extremists that have taken a vow to destroy our country. And the vast majority of Americans would also expect our government to constantly monitor the conversations and activities of suspected terrorists in this country and around the world.

Prior to Taylor's ruling, no American court had ever ruled that a U.S. president did not have the authority to conduct such surveillance programs. Even though not a single specific abuse of the TSP has been found, and despite the fact that it has proven successful in helping to stop terrorist attacks, Taylor took the unprecedented step to terminate the program.

Aside from the national security implications of the ruling, from a scholarly legal perspective, Taylor's ruling is an embarrassment.

While there is no way to hold Judge Taylor or any other liberal activist federal judge accountable to the voters, the voters can hold the politicians and parties accountable for putting them in the federal courts. It may turn out that this ruling makes millions of voters acutely aware that it matters who they elect to appoint and confirm federal judges and how vitally important the November elections will be in this regard.

Unfortunately, this ruling puts liberal political interests above protecting the lives of American citizens from future terrorist attacks. It is perhaps the worst example of the political wars that are being waged by radical leftists blinded by their hatred of President Bush.

[Soldier4Christ]

ACLU To Defend War Deserter, Lt. Ehren Watada

When thousands of Fort Lewis troops prepared to deploy to Iraq this man refused to obey his orders and the anti-war groups rallied around him.

A little flashback from the Seattle Times:

    1st Lt. Ehren Watada’s Stryker brigade is scheduled to make its first deployment to Iraq this month. His refusal to accompany these troops puts him at risk of court-martial and years of prison time.
    “I feel that we have been lied to and betrayed by this administration,” Watada said Tuesday in a telephone interview from Fort Lewis. “It is the duty, the obligation of every soldier, and specifically the officers, to evaluate the legality, the truth behind every order — including the order to go to war.”

    In making his decision, Watada has reached out to peace groups, including clergy, students, some veterans opposed to Iraq and others. Some war critics are raising money for his legal defense as they seek to galvanize broader opposition to Bush administration policy in Iraq.

Well it looks like the defense team has assembled and it is non other than the ACLU of Washington. No suprise here.

    In a military justice case that has drawn wide attention, the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington is backing the free speech rights of a soldier facing court martial for refusing to serve in the war in Iraq. The ACLU today submitted a friend-of-the-court brief contending that Lt. Ehren Watada should not be punished for his public statements expressing legal and moral objections to the war in Iraq.

    The military is holding a hearing on August 17 to determine whether to go forward with court martial proceedings against Watada. The ACLU takes no position on his challenge to the lawfulness of the orders to report for duty in Iraq.

    “Soldiers should not be court-martialed for explaining their views on important political issues when doing so does not adversely affect military functioning. Lt. Watada was exercising his free speech rights as a citizen in a democratic society,” said Kathleen Taylor, Executive Director of the ACLU of Washington.

I think the ACLU is barking up the wrong tree on this one. The fact is that this man is a deserter who not only defied his orders but made himself into a public spectacle over it. Watada claims that the current war in Iraq is illegal. Interestingly, he joined the Army in June 2003, after we had invaded Iraq. Michelle Malkin has links to a lot of research on him and his proud anti-war father. It would not be a stretch of the imagination for one to think this entire episode was planned from the beggining. If it could be shown that he did this with the intent of encouraging other soldiers to do the same he could be charged with much more including Mutiny. Watada did not seek conscientious objector status because he does not oppose all war, just the one in Iraq. How he has concluded that this war is illegal is beyond me when it was authorized by Congress and the United Nations Security Council.

While he is entitled to his opinion the bottom line is that he disobeyed his orders. However this is not the charge the ACLU is focused on.

    In addition to charges against Lt. Watada for refusal to report to duty, the military is seeking to penalize Lt. Watada for statements he made to reporters expressing his objections to the United States’ involvement in the war in Iraq (see below). He is being charged with violating two articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice: Article 88, which prohibits use of “contemptuous words” against the President and other top governmental officials; and Article 133, which prohibits “conduct unbecoming an officer” – that is, behavior which dishonors or disgraces an officer or “seriously compromises the officer’s character as a gentleman.”

    The purpose of Lt. Watada’s public remarks was to explain the motivations for his actions. While one may disagree with Lt. Watada’s opinions on the war’s legality, the ACLU said in legal papers, his expression of those opinions reflected his deeply felt beliefs and showed a seriousness of purpose and high moral character. In speaking his mind, Lt. Watada expressed sharp disagreement with government policies and the actions of the President, but he did not use contemptuous language and did not behave in a dishonorable manner.

The ACLU include three of his statements that are at the base of the charges against him.

    The Army charges that the Statements 1 and 2 violated Art. 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (“Contempt Toward Officials”) and that all three statements violated Art. 133 (“Conduct Unbecoming an Officer and Gentleman”).

Read the statements yourself and come to your own conclusions, but I am in agreement with the Army. There is much more to Watada’s actions than just refusing his orders. He reached out to anti-war groups and media and made a spectacle of the entire thing. These are the actions that most definitely fall under “Conduct Unbecoming of an Officer and Gentleman”. When one enters into the military it is understood that our political speech is limited. Watada definitely crossed this boundary. If a military member feels that they are being asked to follow an illegal order they should work it up the chain of command. If that fails they should get their Congressman involved, not hold a “coordinated news conference” about it.

Watada’s actions reflect badly on the military and I think they should throw everything in the book at him. The ACLU has an uphill battle with this one. They may get one or two charges dropped, but this guy is going down. I wonder if he will try to refuse Leavenworth too? The sad thing is that no matter what happens to this guy he will be hailed a hero by the anti-war left.

Blue Crab Boulevard:

    The ACLU knows full well their brief is total bull. As an officer and a gentleman, Watada did not have complete freedom of speech and the UCMJ is very specific indeed about that. I read his statements (included in the ACLU press release) as extremely contemptuous of the president. And a refusal to lead his unit most assuredly effects military functioning (although his former unit is much better off without the likes of him, frankly).