ACLU Renews Hatred For America
Posted on February 16, 2006
We have two recent press releases from the ACLU.
1. Gut National Security! We all know about the ACLU’s lawsuit against NSA, its FOIA request over it, and its constant urging of Congress for full disclosure of what should be classified information.
The American Civil Liberties Union today urged the House Judiciary Committee to adopt several resolutions that would formally request any and all documents relating to the illegal National Security Agency domestic spying program authorized by President Bush.
“The need for a comprehensive investigation into the NSA’s domestic surveillance is essential to find out exactly which laws were broken,” said Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. “
Notice that while they use the word “illegal”, and insist that laws were broken, they don’t even know exactly what laws were broken. WTF? I thought that in America that everyone was considered innocent until proven guilty, but all of the sudden per ACLU the government is guilty until proven innocent. The way the program is was explained, according to all lawyers that worked in this field, it is completely legal because it falls under the powers of the Executive branch. The President’s job is to protect the Nation, wage war when appropriate, and in this case approve by Congress when they said, “use any appropriate force necessary.” It is also the Executive branch’s authority to collect international intelligence, and the president does not need Congress’ approval. This comes under the “seperation of powers”, despite the fact that Congress does not like this. This is a never ending battle between the Congress and the Executive branch. Congress thinks that everything has to be run past it. When Congress says that it is the Executive branch that is trying to grab power….think….it is Congress that is actually the one trying to grab power for themselves.
If this were the only government effort to protect Americans that the ACLU opposed, one could easily write it off as a misguided pursuit of an absolutist ideaology of liberty. However, the ACLU seems to have a problem with everything dealing with National Security. They oppose the Patritot Act, airline security measures, searches across the board, and much more.
But lets get down to the real agenda.
To the ACLU, CIA means “Controlling the Intelligence Agencies.” That’s the title they gave to Policy #117. But even that is an understatement of what this particular policy calls for. “Completely undermining the Intelligence Agencies” would be a more appropriate title. It starts out badly and then gets worse.
“Control of our government’s intelligence agencies demands an end to tolerance of “national security” as grounds for the slightest departure from the constitutional boundaries which limit government conduct in other areas.”
Of course, its been obvious for nearly 70 years that protecting America’s national security is certainly not something the ACLU favors.
Here are some of the specific controls called for in Policy #117:
Limit the CIA, under the new name of the Foreign Intelligence Agency, to collecting and evaluatiing foreign intelligence information. Abolish all covert operations.
Limit the FBI to criminal investigations by elimimnating all COINTEL-PRO-type activity and all foreign and domestic intelligence investigations of groups or individuals unrelated to a specific criminal offense.Prohibit entirely wiretaps, tapping of telecommunications and burglaries.
Restrict mail openings, mail covers, inspection of bank records, and inspection of telephone records by requiring a warrant issued on probable cause to believe a crime has been committed.Prohibit all domestic intelligence and political information-gathering. Only investigations of crimes which have been, are being, or are about to be committed may be conducted.
Two former members of the ACLU, Richard and Susan Vigilante, conducted a thorough analysis of the ACLU spelled out by the Union’s Center for National Security Studies.
They wrote:
The ACLU opposes, and has fought in either Congress or the courts, virtually all “covert action,” most “clandestine intelligence” gathering (i.e. spying), and in one case aid to an important U.S. ally with a poor human rights record. The net effect of these efforts has been to hinder U.S. opposition to Communist expansion. The ACLU may, at some point, have undertaken some major initiative that advanced U.S. interests and hindered Communist expansion, but our research never turned one up and no ACLU leader ever mentioned one to us.
In other words, strip the intelligence agencies useless.
2. Enrage America’s enemies. Anything that enrages America’s enemies, the ACLU wants on the front pages of all the MSM’s newspapers.
In response to newly released images of abuse at Abu Ghraib, the American Civil Liberties Union today renewed its call for an independent investigation into widespread and systemic abuse in U.S. detention centers in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay.
Despite the fact that this is old news recylcled, the ACLU have pushed for more fuel to the hate America crowd’s fire. I say, let’s release the photos, so that those who rioted over simple 4 month old cartoons can completely destroy themselves. Either the ACLU has no concern over anti-American consequences to further release of an incident that took place over a year ago, or they are seeking anti-American rage to increase. Their position on this is at best irresponsible, and at worse prodding an already raging bull.
The ACLU has sued the Department of Defense for withholding photographs and videos depicting abuse at Abu Ghraib and other detention facilities. In September, a federal judge in New York ruled that the government must turn over the Abu Ghraib images, as well as other visual evidence of abuse, noting “the freedoms that we champion are as important to our success in Iraq and Afghanistan as the guns and missiles with which our troops are armed.” The decision is currently on appeal by the government. The ACLU said it does not know whether the new photos aired by the Australian “Dateline” program are the same photos being withheld by the government.
Investigations and punishment for these abuses are something we definitely agree with the ACLU on. However, the release of more gruesome photos to the public, running on front pages of magazines and newspapers does not serve any good, other than to further the hate of our enemies. More than 25 people of both enlisted and commissioned rank were held accountable for criminal acts and other misconduct associated with prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib. Several pictures appear to show U.S. soldier Charles Graner, who was jailed for 10 years for his leading role in the Abu Ghraib abuse. Many of these photos are even suspect of being hoaxes.
The Abu Ghraib abuses were discovered by U.S. troops and were being investigated before any of the photos were leaked to the press. None of this matters to the media and ACLU. Congress members have already seen the additional photos, and investigations and prosecutions have been launched. There is nothing positive about releasing these photos to the public, and no productive purpose other than fanning the flames of hate.
While there is major hypocrisy in the MSM response to the Abu Ghraib photos in comparison to the Danish cartoons, both are protected freedoms. While many called for solidarity with the Danish over freedom of expression, this was in response to the savage reactions of riots, and embassy burnings from Muslims. The release of more photos from Abu Ghraib to the general public serves no such purpose. They reveal nothing new or informative that we have not already seen. They have no significance other than anti-American propaganda purposes.
3. Defend America’s enemies.
The list is endless on this one. They have defended traitors funding Hamas, the PLO, and confessed Al-Qaeda operatives.
They have refused contributions from some of their most loyal donors because of anti-terrorism specifics.
The ACLU, in every position it takes in National Security issues, proves time and again to be against American interests. When you combine all of these things, is there any wonder why so many Americans question who’s side the ACLU is on?
This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay or Gribbit. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 150 blogs already on-board
» Filed Under ACLU, News, War On Terror
Trackback URL
Comments
8 Responses to “ACLU Renews Hatred For America”
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Why are these fifth columnists taken so seriously? They are only a group of lawyers. If they are the American Civil… why are they involved or allowed to be heard on international issues.
The real question is why we have let the enemy into the tent to begin with?
The Government should ignore them and treat them like the petulant children that they are.
when congress said “use any appropriate force necessary.” I’m pretty sure they had the enemy in mind, not US citizens. I’m certain they didn’t mean warrantless wiretaps, especially after they made it legal to obtain the warrants retroactively. Otherwise why bother to mention warrents at all?
It never ceases to astonish me how rabid right-wingers seem so eager to pitch their own rights and protections in the trash. “Wire tap me! I don’t care! Don’t get a warrent to investigate me! Hey, no problem. I don’t even want a jury trial!”
If you don’t like American jurisprudence, there are plenty of places around the world where you can simply be abducted and put in jail for years without even being charged with a crime. Apparently you envy them so deeply you get mad if somebody objects when Bush does it.
Well, fewer and fewer conservatives are comfortable with that. Too many of them commit crimes and get caught for it. They want to keep the right to a lawyer and a trial. They don’t want to chuck those rights just because Bush finds them inconvenient.
http://www.getusout.org
“I’m pretty sure they had the enemy in mind, not US citizens.”
I am getting real tired of hearing this crap!
How hard is it for you to comprehend that “U.S. citizens” as pertains to this, is Al Queda who have acquired citizenship for constitutional protections and are in this country to do it harm?
“U.S. citizen” as refered to here is someone with citizenship, aiding and abetting the enemy and do not enjoy the same protections you and I do.
Are you trying to tell us that citizens that have been on the recieving end of a wiretap are innocent citizens by virtue of their “citizenship”?
You are ignorant or you are spinning.
loboinok:
““U.S. citizen” as refered to here is someone with citizenship, aiding and abetting the enemy and do not enjoy the same protections you and I do.”
yes, they do. They absolutely must.
“Are you trying to tell us that citizens that have been on the recieving end of a wiretap are innocent citizens by virtue of their “citizenship”?
no. I’m saying you are not stripped of your constitutional rights because somebody somewhere suspects you of something. We aren’t talking about convictions here. Warrantless wiretaps are not even admissible in court, so convictions for treason or whatever would be impossible. Even a bad lawyer would have them walking out the door scot free.
I’m talking about the CIA or whoever being the final authority over whether or not YOU are a citizen with constititonal protections.
If you are a legal citizen of this country, all the legal rights and protections apply. It doesn’t matter a damn where your parents came from or even where you were born. If those things can be stripped from the bad guys they can just as easily be stripped from you and me.
Your constitutional rights and protections as a citizen of the US should not be something you pitch out the window lightly. If you don’t want rights, there are lots of countries out there where you can live without them. *I* want to keep them!
““Wire tap me! I don’t care! Don’t get a warrent to investigate me! Hey, no problem. I don’t even want a jury trial!”
I’m not a terrorist, so I have nothing to worry about, my phone isn’t tapped.
“Well, fewer and fewer conservatives are comfortable with that. Too many of them commit crimes and get caught for it.”
Actually, the majority of Americans could care less, as most polls show. Also, conservatives are not committing crimes and getting caught as your irresponsible comment implies. Unless of course you have evidence that Congress does not.
” yes, they do. They absolutely must.”
No, they absolutely must not. First, a legal citizen of the U.S. that aids the enemy has committed treason, and the only right that person has at that point is to die a quick death. Second, the fact that you libs think that the government is arbitrarily tapping whatever phones they want proves that your tin foil hat is on too tight again. It has yet to be proven that Bush did anything illegal.
“I am not a terrorist, so I have nothing to worry about, my phone isn’t tapped.”
Okay so some terroist in the US has a phone number that’s 1 digit off from yours. Their terrorist buddies call you three times in one week and just hang up when they hear your voice.
All of a sudden you have no rights as an American citizen. You can be wiretapped without a warrant. You can be abducted and held without a lawyer or charges for literally years. You can be tortured. That’s ironic because there’s nothing you could divulge, even in principle, to get them to stop.
“First, a legal citizen of the U.S. that aids the enemy has committed treason, and the only right that person has at that point is to die a quick death.”
You should actually read the Constituion sometime. It can be very entertaining.
“Clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”
In other words there MUST be a trial. The format of trials are carefully spelled out in the Constitution. There has to be a lawyer and a jury. So an American citizen accused of treason has several constitutional rights that neither you nor George Bush have a right to take away.
And that’s for your own protection. If you don’t want protection, fine. I do.
“Okay so some terroist in the US has a phone number that’s 1 digit off from yours. Their terrorist buddies call you three times in one week and just hang up when they hear your voice.”
You should write movies for Hollywood. That’s about the only place that scenario would play out. Do you have evidence of this happening?
“If you don’t want protection, fine. I do.”
I do want protection. I want protection from Al Quada and every other terrorist organization out there, including the ACLU.