ACLU To Ask Court To Void Anti-Terror Oaths
Posted on April 14, 2006
Via Ohio.com
A civil liberties group is challenging part of a new state law after an attorney was told he wouldn’t be assigned court-appointed cases unless he signed a questionnaire stating he is not a terrorist and does not support terrorism.
The law requires applicants under final consideration for a government job, contract or license to complete and sign questionnaires to determine if they have supported organizations on a federal list of terrorists.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio planned to ask the Ohio Supreme Court on Friday, the day the law takes effect, to exempt court-appointed lawyers from that portion of the statute. The ACLU is arguing that only the Supreme Court - not the Legislature - has jurisdiction over Ohio’s courts.
Actually this isn’t suprising.
In October of 2004, the ACLU turned down $1.15 million in funding from the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations because they objected to promising that none of the funds would be used to engage in any activity that promotes violence, terrorism, bigotry, or the destruction of any state. They got the provision scrapped after a long and vigorous fight, then accepted the funds.
It isn’t difficult to understand why the ACLU would object to such terms, after all they are defending numerous terrorists, including an individual that participated in a 15-year conspiracy to finance the group Hamas, laundering millions of dollars, some of which went to buy weapons. With the help of CAIR, they are also defending an admitted agent of Al Qaeda that has confessed to attending jihad camps in Afghanistan, and is being charged with lying to the FBI about his terror ties and activities.
Gov. Bob Taft signed the bill Jan. 11 after the Legislature overwhelmingly approved it.
The ACLU is acting on behalf of a lawyer in Bellefontaine who sought appointed cases from the city’s municipal court, said Jeff Gamso, the ACLU’s Ohio legal director. The lawyer refuses to do so, Gamso said.
“What the municipal court has said is that in order to practice law as a court-appointed counsel, you have to do this thing that the Legislature cooked up,” Gamso said.
State Sen. Jeff Jacobson, a suburban Dayton Republican who sponsored the bill, said the ACLU would fail to persuade the Supreme Court.
“It’s an argument that’s absurd on its face,” Jacobson said. “They’re saying that this interferes with the Supreme Court. All we’re doing is regulating who can be paid by the state.”
I don’t see what the problem is. The State doesn’t want its money going to individuals that might support terror. What problem does the ACLU have with not supporting terror? Why don’t they just come out and say that they do support it? What is absurd is that no one is investigating the ACLU for terror ties. Start out with one or two of its employees, and go from there.
» Filed Under ACLU, News, War On Terror
Trackback URL
Comments
12 Responses to “ACLU To Ask Court To Void Anti-Terror Oaths”
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Advertise
Donate
Steal Me
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
“It isn’t difficult to understand why the ACLU would object to such terms, after all they are defending numerous terrorists, including an individual that participated in a 15-year conspiracy to finance the group Hamas, laundering millions of dollars, some of which went to buy weapons.”
Exactly. Important civil liberties precedents are set in criminal prosecutions. People who defend civil liberties need to be able to defend criminals.
4th amendment case law, for example, comes mostly from the criminal context. In order for people to fight for good fourth amendment precedent, they may have to make arguments in a case with a criminal/ terrorist party.
Ashqar is not a U.S. citizen, and therefore is not protected under the Constitution as having any kind of civil liberty issue. What the ACLU are trying to do is use international law standards to supercede the constitution, which is a very dangerous thing. The point is that an investigation needs to take place. If an attorney makes the decision to defend a terrorist, then he can use money from his own pocket, and not the State’s. And in case you didn’t read the whole thing, follow a few of the links and explain to me an excuse for hiring terrorists, and individuals with terror ties.
“Ashqar is not a U.S. citizen, and therefore is not protected under the Constitution as having any kind of civil liberty issue. ”
No. And even if wingnutty dreams of resident aliens not having constitutional rights were true, there are still matters of statutory interpretation which would apply to foreigners as well as citizens.
What exactly do they hope to accomplish with these oaths? It seems to me that anyone who’s evil enough to be a terrorist would be evil enough to lie on the questionnaire. It’s one of those stupid empty gestures that some people do just to make themselves feel morally superior.
“What exactly do they hope to accomplish with these oaths?”
At the very least, it shows the character of the individual who swears an oath or refuses to do so.
It also compels one to tell the truth under penalty of perjury which in some cases are greater than the penalty for the offense.
“It’s one of those stupid empty gestures that some people do just to make themselves feel morally superior.”
Only to those who lack character, integrity and any sense of truth.
Those unable to swear by anything greater than themselves, also seem to have a problem with oaths.
For those interested… http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/o027.htm
“No. And even if wingnutty dreams of resident aliens not having constitutional rights were true, there are still matters of statutory interpretation which would apply to foreigners as well as citizens.”
Its not a wingnutty dream gfactor, its the truth, unless you can’t point to the clause in the Constitution that says foreigners have the same U.S. rights U.S. citizens do. Thanks for coming out.
“It’s one of those stupid empty gestures that some people do just to make themselves feel morally superior.”
Yeah, that’s what it is. Or, just for the fun of it, we could pretend its to measure the character of the attorney. As Lobo rightly states, those who lack character WOULD oppose these oaths.
Lawyers already take a constitutional oath. If they violate this terrorist oath they have violated their constitutional oath. I question what good the oath does since lawyers are constantly violating their constitutional oath anyways.
“Its not a wingnutty dream gfactor, its the truth, unless you can’t point to the clause in the Constitution that says foreigners have the same U.S. rights U.S. citizens do. Thanks for coming out.”
Sure. 1st amendment says ‘congress shall make no law.’ No distinction between citizens and others. The 6th amendment says ‘in all criminal prosecutions.’ No distinction between citizens or non. Amendment 7 is about ’suits in common law.’ No distinction, again. Others refer to ‘the people,’ with no mention of citizenship.
Also, the 14th amendment talks about the ‘privileges and immunities’ of citizens, but then also says that ‘any person’ is entitled to due process and equal protection. A quite explicit distinction.
Or it could be that the Framers allowed for common sense, something apparantly lost to the left. Any moron could figure out American law is for Americans. Its funny how liberals don’t want us pushing our goverment on other countries but then want all foreigners to be protected under our laws. Incredible.
“. Any moron could figure out American law is for Americans.”
That’s where they used the word ‘citizen.’ Elsewhere, they used different words. Any moron can read the words they used. Sorry if this doesn’t fit into your exclusivist dreams.
The law doesn’t go far enough. What’s the point making someone swear an oath that they can renounce the next day?
We should ask people to get a permanent tattoo declaring that they aren’t terrorists. I’m thinking maybe two copies; one on the right hand and one on the forehead.
If someone doesn’t want to get the tattoo, then that’s OK, but obviously they’d be forbidden to hold government jobs or to go to public marketplaces.
This might seem a little draconian, but, really, it’s the only way we can be safe.