Slashdot Mirror

But it seems at every turn the ACLU is cherry-picking the little ones, and not taking on the meaningful ones.

So you're saying that issues like extraordinary rendition, torture and domestic spying are unimportant?

Read the actual decision. (PDF) What the court ruled was that the "gag rule" associated with "National Security Letters" was fundamentally unconstitutional as a First Amendment violation. The issue is that the FBI can't impose a "gag order" on someone without court approval.

The previous issue, issuance of National Security Letters without court approval as a Fourth Amendment violation, was dealt with when Congress revised the Patriot Act last year to allow recipients of a National Security Letter to challenge them in court, like a subpoena.

As a classic rule of First Amendment jurisprudence, when the Court finds a First Amendment violation, they strike down the entire statute, rather than trying to patch it. That's what the court did here. The court also stayed the execution of the order pending an appeal, which is likely.

It's a narrow holding. The FBI can still issue National Security Letters without going to court first, but anyone who receives one is now in a much stronger position to argue about it. As a practical matter, if you work for an ISP or telco and get a National Security Letter, your response is "This has to go through our lawyers."

If you appreciate what the ACLU does, it's worth noting that they could always use your support.

That nothing like this this happened, was a very commendable achievement of the city government.

Absolutely. That is the only possible outcome of political demonstrations. Too bad there wasn't more of this, eh? Sadly, just things like this, this, and this.

So, what you are saying is that, it is perfectly fine to point a finger at another country's human rights violations (etc.) while one's own country's records are dubious at best?

Oh, and I wanted to address this piece of illogic, sense I'm seeing it crop up from other PRC apologists in different threads. The answer is: Yes, as long as you also point the finger at your own country when it fucks up along the same lines. Which I do. A lot. One of the nice things about living in the U.S. is that we don't imprison dissidents until they explicitly threaten or commit violence, no matter how popular they may or may not be.

However, the complaint is against school officials and ONLY seeks to restrict the actions of school officials.

Isn't that a little like saying that George Wallace's actions ONLY sought to restrict the action of police when he prohibited them from permitting Blacks to enter the University of Alabama?

No. Governors and officers of the law are bound to uphold the law and the constitution. Wallace was plainly breaking his oath. The difference here is that the school officials are permitting the school's promotion of religious events, not that they are permitting the events themselves.

If the school administration is prohibited from "permitting... 1) "See You at the Pole", can you not see that SYatP is prohibited, and the students' right to pray is being violated?

"See You At the Pole" is protected, and ACLU defends that right - see the Joint Statement of Current Law on Religion in the Public Schools.

However, in the case of this complaint, the issue is not that students were praying voluntarily on school grounds. The plaintiffs objected to being "proselytized and intimidated...into subscribing and adopting the religious and Christian beliefs of the 'See You at the Pole' group." I think they're calling SYATP for what it is, a transparent way of skirting the prohibition on school-led prayers. These students and teachers aren't simply praying for their own sake - they want to be seen publicly praying by non-participants, which is something else entirely. It's a promotional event. It's proselytizing.

SYATP is a single, organized event. Even if the school were to prohibit SYATP (which won't happen), that in no way translates to "prohibiting voluntary student prayer anywhere, any time on school grounds." Students would still be free to pray as they pleased as long as it didn't interfere with scheduled school activity. They can still hold their events and promote them, as long as do it independently of the school.

I do not believe I have misrepresented their position in any way - I'm quoting their lawsuit directly here

You are over-broadening the impact of the requested action, see above. In doing so, you're claiming the ACLU takes a position which they do not in fact take.

but I suppose that when the law is settled, we'll see whether the students are permitted to pray or not.

Please note that Barack Obama is also opposed to the Real ID, at least according to his voting record. You may or may not agree with him more on other issues.

Please note that Barack Obama is also opposed to the Real ID, at least according to his voting record.

Join. Enough said.

http://action.aclu.org/site/PageServer?pagename=FJ _donationhome

http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/safefree/fisc_order_08162 007.pdf

... but every time I get ready to write a check, I read about them doing something barking-mad like this:

International 'Tribunal' on Hurricanes Katrina and Rita

Second Amendment a 'Collective' right

Translation: The Bush Administration is responsible for Hurricane Katrina, but we still need to give them a monopoly on firearms, because that way, we'll all be safer.

Or something.

maybe they should try doing so before school anyway!

Too late, I discovered while doing a little research for an acquaintance that the ACLU has filed suit to prohibit voluntary student prayer anywhere, anytime on public school grounds - even before school.

Bullshit. Unless you have a specific case number to cite, I am inclined to think you've been listening to too much conservative talk radio.

Not talk radio (I'm more of an editorial person, and read Ted Rall to William F. Buckley, and everyone in between), but I do Internet searches. ;-) I'm also not anti-ACLU - they do a lot of good work in many areas, as my political leanings tend toward Libertarian. Like every good organization, however, I feel they sometimes get carried away in their enthusiasm.

The case reference is Doe v. The Wilson County School System, and you can download an image of the complaint and associated exhibits at http://www.aclu-tn.org/currentdocket.htm#religious freedom/. Note that this is an ACLU website, so I'm fairly certain it's not tainted. The lawsuit contains a wealth of allegations, which may or may not be true (I don't live in Wilson county), but it's the requested Injunctive Relief sought by the ACLU that caught my eye and supports my assertion.

The legal documents themselves are images, so I'll retype the key paragraph and add emphasis. Please excuse the inevitable typos, and I encourage you to verify with the ACLU's original image:

111. Plaintiffs seek a preliminary and, in due course, a permanent injunction pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which enjoins Defendants, their successors, employees and agents, from permitting, authorizing, encouraging, and acquiescing in delivering of: 1) "See You at the Pole", 2) Praying Parents activities, 3) the "National Day of Prayer", 4) Christian themes and songs at the Christmas program, 5) Classroom prayers.

I would certainly interpret an injunction requiring that school officials not permit "See You at the Pole" as prohibiting voluntary student-led prayer before school. (The lawsuit itself alleges, among other things, that the school permitted SYatP to be advertised during school to the same extent that secular events were advertised, and that this violates the Establishment Clause; and that students wearing "I Prayed" stickers at school constituted harassment of other students. I disagree with those positions, although some of the other actions alleged by the ACLU I would consider potential violations if true. The proposed remedy, that is, requiring the school to be actively hostile to voluntary student-led prayer on school grounds outside of school hours, is overreaching IMHO.)

Here are a few other random references on various websites / blogs, to give you a flavor of the position of both sides; feel free to search on your own terms. As far as I know, the case has not been adjudicated yet, so both pro and anti positions are just allegations at this point, and I don't claim to know which are true and which are (ahem) less true. My point is limited to the ACLU's brief paragraph 111, and it's request that SYatP be prohibited at Wilson County schools.

• ACLU Ref: http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/26946prs20060 927.html/
• Opposing Ref: http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/story.aspx ?cid=3959/
• Opposing Ref: http://www.goofigure.com/UserGoofigureDetail.asp?g ooID=7358/

I appreciate the ACLU quote, by the way, and the relative lack

maybe they should try doing so before school anyway!

Too late, I discovered while doing a little research for an acquaintance that the ACLU has filed suit to prohibit voluntary student prayer anywhere, anytime on public school grounds - even before school.

Bullshit. Unless you have a specific case number to cite, I am inclined to think you've been listening to too much conservative talk radio.

The ACLU defends students' First Amendment rights, including the "free exercise" clause. Here is a quote direct from the ACLU web site:

The ACLU defends students' free speech rights in the public schools and defends students' rights to pray in the schools... Public schools themselves should not, however, be in the business of promoting particular religious beliefs or religious activities. While it is permissible for public schools to teach about religion, it is not permissible to promote particular religious beliefs. While public schools should not be leading children in prayers or religious ceremonies, they should be respectful of the religious beliefs of students.

Do they really need to spend thousands of dollars analyzing data to determine there's more crime around check-cashing stores on paydays?

Exactly. Apparently they aren't bright enough to follow the money without computer guidance, even when it is actual cash used in predictably occuring/recuring transactions right in front of their noses. But then again, there's little profit motive for the police themselves to stake out check cashing shops on paydays. That doesn't line their own coffers nearly as much as making gestapo-style drug raids that net them cash, cars, homes, and boats via asset forfeiture and seizure. Nor does it provide a steady cash flow like a bunch of speed traps that nick motorists a few hundred bucks for trivial violations of absurdly low speed limits.

No, I'm waiting to find out how the police are really utilizing data mining technology to skin an extra few bucks off of their vict^H^H^H^Hemployers, the ordinary taxpaying citizens.

"There seems to be a lot of ignorance and hyperbole on slashdot regarding FISA.

First, the basics of "FISA". FISA is a statue meant to govern how and when government agencies may gather FOREIGN intelligence. FISA warrants are warrants issued by FISA-established courts authorizing the government to wiretap or survey individuals or phone numbers. A FISA warrant cannot be issued on domestic communications, since American residents and citizens are (yes, still) covered by the United States Constitution's protection against unreasonable search and seizure."

Yes there is, and sellouts like you are peddling an awful lot of it.

I'm sorry, but given the choice I'm going to have to stand with the ACLU on this, and I would encourage others to do the same http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspying/31144res200 70731.html.

It's also interesting that this is Mr. Nessunolmp's first post on Slashdot.

Yeah, they were really out of line here:

After ACLU Intervention on Behalf of Christian Valedictorian, Michigan High School Agrees to Stop Censoring Religious Yearbook Entries

http://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/expression/1284 5prs20040511.html

Wrong. That is not what the ACLU says. Here is what they say:

We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias

You can read if for yourself here.

The ACLU and the NRA are on opposite sides of this issue.

I'm surprised by the way this system works.

I implemented a system that does basically this, as custom development for a police department in a small American city. It's worked fantastically well, but they had a lot of specific restrictions.

Examples:
They didn't want fully automated scanning, because apparently it causes all sorts of legal troubles if you run some plates (undercovers, celebrities, people who are later stalked/attacked).

Also, they didn't want to geotag the searches (even though all of the data was available) because they specifically didn't want to build a database of people's locations outside their duties.

And lastly, they didn't want permanent data storage of *anything*. They wanted two years, to comply with various regulations and to allow time for investigation into abuses, but no more. After that, they wanted it gone forever.

As such, I find it very surprising that a police department would even have interest in building a tool that is so incredibly ripe for abuse, when it is likely to open them to all sorts of litigation, as evidenced by the ACLU lawsuit.

And as to the tools who claim the ACLU is just interested in freeing criminals, I'd remind you that the ACLU simply cares about rights, even though sometimes that's unpopular. They're willing to fight to let you quote the Bible in your yearbook, to prevent 13 year olds from being arrested for writing on their desks and as this article notes, they are also against recorded surveillance of innocent drivers.

It's telling that nearly all of the right-wingers in this thread have distorted the ACLU's actual complaint (that surveillance databases are being built against innocent drivers) and have replaced it with a claim that somehow the ACLU is against running plates altogether or direct claims that the ACLU is pro-criminal.

I'm surprised by the way this system works.

I implemented a system that does basically this, as custom development for a police department in a small American city. It's worked fantastically well, but they had a lot of specific restrictions.

Examples:
They didn't want fully automated scanning, because apparently it causes all sorts of legal troubles if you run some plates (undercovers, celebrities, people who are later stalked/attacked).

Also, they didn't want to geotag the searches (even though all of the data was available) because they specifically didn't want to build a database of people's locations outside their duties.

And lastly, they didn't want permanent data storage of *anything*. They wanted two years, to comply with various regulations and to allow time for investigation into abuses, but no more. After that, they wanted it gone forever.

As such, I find it very surprising that a police department would even have interest in building a tool that is so incredibly ripe for abuse, when it is likely to open them to all sorts of litigation, as evidenced by the ACLU lawsuit.

And as to the tools who claim the ACLU is just interested in freeing criminals, I'd remind you that the ACLU simply cares about rights, even though sometimes that's unpopular. They're willing to fight to let you quote the Bible in your yearbook, to prevent 13 year olds from being arrested for writing on their desks and as this article notes, they are also against recorded surveillance of innocent drivers.

It's telling that nearly all of the right-wingers in this thread have distorted the ACLU's actual complaint (that surveillance databases are being built against innocent drivers) and have replaced it with a claim that somehow the ACLU is against running plates altogether or direct claims that the ACLU is pro-criminal.

Hypocrisy is lashing out accusations while being willfully ignorant of the actual facts. The ACLU takes no position on gun control. Why should they? Their already exists a massively influential and well-funded organization to protect that particular constitutional right.

The problem being, the Republican party in general, and the Bush family in particular, have very questionable records with regard to drugs and drug policy and the U.S. relationship with China. The ability to ignore human rights abuses really crosses all political lines. Clinton doesn't really compare to the Carlyle Group as far as enriching themselves through government policy. It is sadly not new. As a marine, you may be familiar with Major General Smedley Butler, if not you may find his perspective interesting.

You don't really need to rely on "initial reports", the DOD has actually released documents since then. If you need pictures, I believe there were pictures of some of the people who were beaten and choked to death. I'm sure the Internet can provide them. And those were people in direct U.S. custody, not including programs like extraordinary rendition, or the various C.I.A. prisons. You must be living or working a spin machine of your own to be basing your thoughts on "initial reports". I'm personally puzzled by the fact that the U.S. considers Syria a sponsor of terrorism, won't engage them diplomatically on Iraq or Lebanon, yet sends "terror suspects" there to be interrogated.

The problems with the U.S. engaging in these tactics are numerous and profound.

Not sure about the 'no more torture' bit.

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/12/21/usint9925.h tm
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/17606prs20050 307.html

The latest round of investigative files released to the American Civil Liberties Union document an ongoing pattern of widespread abuses of detainees by military forces in Iraq, and describe shootings of unarmed civilians at checkpoints, the ACLU said today.

Yeah, at first I thought it applied only to stuff IN IRAQ. But it is about the United States. It's about HERE. Bascially it says that anyone who is "undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq" can have their assets frozen. Naturally, the "war" in Iraq is one of those efforts. So if you try to "undermine" it, which could mean protest, or could mean physically blocking it, they can freeze your assets. This is likely to be tested in court, and likely to procede to the Supreme Court. In the meantime, any threat will be neutralized. It's the classic time gambit. You can get a lot done breaking the law if you have 5 or 10 years before any judgement will be made on your actions. I've always thought the executive order was far to broad. It would be a good power if used for good and not evil, but when you are corrupt (documented corrupt, such as those videos of Bush addressing the rich people) the power has the ability to destroy freedom. We're paying the price for complacency.

People, please donate to the ACLU. Put your money where your mouth is, and give it to the people whose job it is to question this stuff full time.

Oh thanks for clearing that up for me. I'm so relieved.

Oh thanks for clearing that up for me. I'm so relieved.

Actually, if they go through their records -- they might be able to determine if they are affected... http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/30298prs200 70628.html As anyone been denied enterence to a Bush actvity after sending email or talking on the phone?

For one thing, nebulous arguments about "government" like this are always weak. "Government" is rarely a single person or institution operating executively (and when it is, that's usually an abuse of the intended system of representation that needs to be fixed for a whole host of other reasons anyway).

Rarely? A single FBI agent can demand records with one of these, with no judicial oversight.

If this is still too nebulous, here are some numbers: "An internal FBI audit found that the bureau violated the rules more than 1000 times in an audit of 10% of its national investigations between 2002 and 2007. Over 20 of these involved requests by agents for information that US law did not permit them to have." Assuming the audit examined a random sampling of reuqests, that means there were ten thousand rule violations and two hundred illegal requests over that five-year period.

As long as we have a culture where both businesses and governments follow this basic principle (because they are required to by law and that law is effectively enforced), ...

Business culture? AT&T volunteered to help the NSA spy on their customers. They even have a secret routing center of some sort just for this task. eBay goes out of their way to help law enforcement. Verizon hands over customer data to the NSA and outrageously tries to claim free speech protection to do so.

The government and its laws? Go read about the National Security Letters linked above, learn about the USA PATRIOT Act, read about the 2,176 secret warrants were issued in 2006, ...just for starters. The law itself authorizes most of these abuses.

I actually have no problem with my ISP and the hosts at Slashdot keeping sufficient records to identify me in combination as the author of this post, as long as there are sufficient safeguards such as not releasing it without proper legal requirement to do so and only keeping it for a reasonable period of time.

As I hope you can see now, there aren't. One FBI agent can demand data from Slashdot under the authority of an NSL and can get your IP, then he can go over to your ISP and demand your name and address under another NSL. A third request under CALEA to your ISP or their upstream, and your every online move is being monitored for whatever he's looking for. And who knows how long businesses keep IP data around? There are currently no data retention laws in the US -- and if the government ever passes any, I assure you that they won't be to protect you by demanding businesses delete data after n months, they'll be to surveille you by demanding businesses keep data for at least n months. And if a businesses has it, and the government demands it, they have to yield it up.

In other words, the above means of identifying someone only works if all the parties involved are in countries where the law is compatible on these concerns.

Oh, you think being in Canada or the Netherlands or something is going to protect you from all this? That hole has been plugged, too.

It looks like the ACLU's position is that random, ad-hoc videotaping of police interactions by citizens is of a different nature than 24/7 videotaping of particular locations by the police. The specifics on the ACLU's concerns about public video surveillance are given in this summary:

http://www.aclu.org/privacy/spying/14863res2002022 5.html

Glancing through this article, I don't see that any of the points they raise would apply to citizens with video cameras on the lookout for police misconduct. I can't think of any legitimate downsides to the practice, but if anyone can, I'd be very interested to hear about them.

Why guess?

Here's what the ACLU says about it.

I don't see what's "selective" about that. While any particular person (including me) may disagree with the philosophy behind it, this is a very well reasoned stance... there is ambiguity in what the constitution says and means on this issue, the ACLU protects constitutional rights when such rights are clear.

I'm pro-gun and pro-ACLU, just to name my own bias.

Currently, the US intelligence infrastructure seems to have new missions.

It gathers intelligence from and about the American people.
It makes justifications for actions of the current administration.
I thinking that we should a lot more information about the amount of our taxes that are being used for these purposes, don't you?

"Please direct us to the court proceedings and rulings that deemed that his actions and directives were and are illegal."

"This program" has been FOUND ILLEGAL IN COURT OF LAW. This finding may ultimately not stand, and its order to stop the program (but no its finding) has been temporary stayed, or it may be overturned and suppressed on national security or state secrets grounds, but as of now "this program" has been found to be illegal in court of law.
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspying/26489prs200 60817.html

What other programs are out there other than "this program"? Well, we're having a hard time finding out. It certainly appears that AT&T at the direction of the NSA has engaged in the wholesale interception of the internet and telephone communications of ordinary Americans without a warrant. Of course it will probably be 50 years before we know for sure, if ever, because we can not have a fair hearing before the courts because the administration invokes the state secrets privilege.

Given that it seems the administration will continue to use this strategy of delay and suppression at every attempt to uncover and expose their misdeeds, our only recourse IS the Congress. The administration effectively holds the Judicial branch in check.

That means contempt of congress and impeachment.

I guess every president since Carter should have been impeached (These have been going on at least since then).

Carter complied with FISA, in fact the very executive letter that is used to "prove" he did unauthorized wiretaps was in fact the letter required by FISA to authorize his AG to conduct FISA-compliant taps. Whereas Bush did not comply with FISA, he has not claimed he has complied with FISA, and his own former Attorney General John Ashcroft, whose name I can't believe I'm bringing up in a positive light, said that Bush's program was not legal. I know it's only been all over the news for a couple weeks, so you may have missed it.

No court has deemed the wiretaps illegal.

Incorrect.

What about Clinton? ... I bet none of you think he should have been impeached.

Actually, I do. I love people who assume everyone else is as partisan as they are. As if only a Clinton lover could think Bush deserves to be impeached. I laugh.

Why should George Bush, who hasn't been charged with a crime let alone convincted of one even be considered for impeachment.

Because impeachment hearings would be the best chance to get Bush to testify under oath and for the criminality of his actions to be determined. It is absolutely clear that Bush has not complied with the law, seeing as he admits as much. The only question of legality is whether he's right that being "The Decider" trumps the law. That's the only legal theory posited by the administration to explain why these taps aren't criminal.

Given the tenuous and frankly dictatorial nature of his legal claim, I'd say investigation is absolutely warranted, Bush testifying under oath is warranted, and if in the end the worst thing that we can find him guilty of is lying under oath... perfect.

Don't get me wrong, I don't like a lot of Bush's politics... but he is not a criminal.

Legally, no. Legally, OJ isn't a criminal. Legally, someone who is seen by a million people in Times Square beating the shit out of grannies is not a criminal until they are convicted of the crime in a court of law. But the evidence suggesting that they were criminals was sufficient to warrant prosecution.

You are basically suggesting that we should wait until after Bush is convicted of a crime before we prosecute. That's ridiculous.

been posted elsewhere in the discussion, but here ya go:
DETROIT -- In an American Civil Liberties Union case, a federal court today ruled that the Bush administration's program to monitor the phone calls and e-mails of Americans without warrants is unconstitutional and must be stopped. This is the first ruling by a federal court to strike down the controversial National Security Agency surveillance program.
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspying/26489prs200 60817.html

Ahem... It was declared illegal last year by a district court judge.

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspying/26489prs200 60817.html

It is flat-out wrong to call them overtly politically motivated and not to call them illegal.

Incidentally, I am a registered Republican and I am incensed that Bush and Gonzales call themselves Republicans.

Correct up until the last sentense(sic). FISA requires a warrant. The oversight process is different and in emergencies, the government can get a warrant in retrospect,

FISA (presently) allows wiretapping first, with up to 48 hours before a warrant has to be applied for. This is ass-backwards. Warrant first, then security violation. That is what the bill of rights allows for. Not the other way around. So the sentence you were concerned with was, and is, 100% correct. FISA is absolutely unconstitutional.

That is bad enough — but they are actually threatening to make it worse.

The Department of Justice's proposed Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act amendments, section 405, extends the duration of emergency wiretap orders that allow the government to surveil suspects without prior judicial review from 72 hours to one week. Section 410 extends the period of emergency trap and trace orders from 48 hours to one week. The initial position of 48 hours is already completely out of line; broadening it to one week just adds insult (to the constitution and the people) to injury (to the constitution and the people.)

...and if any of the readers of this post think that is bad:

Section 409 of the proposed changes allows the attorney general more leeway to authorize physical searches in the absence of a warrant. It expands the period of time the attorney general has to search a home without judicial approval from three days to a full week. Nice, eh? Search first, warrant later. Un-bloody-constitutional. Period. But wait! There's more! Section 409 allows the attorney general to share information obtained in warrantless searches of your home even when the court later finds that the search was wrongly conducted. How do you like those bananas, folks? Yessir, your government at work, destroying key elements of the bill of rights, and using your tax dollars to do so.

...if the police believe that a crime is imminant(sic), and that getting a warrant may take time that may cost someone his or her life, they can enter premises without such a warrant

And this is also 100% unconstitutional. If (and that is a huge if) such capabilities need be given the constitution can be changed. If our society feels that such changes are worth more than the problems they cause, they will survive as amendments. Otherwise, as now, there is no authority to do any such thing — only power. And I maintain that a serious problem with most US citizens is that they confuse authority with power. The government has very little of the former, and has absconded with far too much of the latter.

The measure will prohibit state implementation of the REAL ID Act, unless the federal government fully funds it and provides stronger protections for the privacy of Washington drivers. The measure (SB 5087) passed both chambers of the legislature with bipartisan support, including an overwhelming 95-2 vote in the House. Senator Mary Margaret Haugen (D-Camano Island) was the bill's prime sponsor, and Senators Dan Swecker (R-Rochester) and Ed Murray (D-Seattle) were cosponsors.

You don't get arrested in the US for peacefully marching against Bush.

Actually, you might get arrested for peacefully protesting against Bush.

From the link:

• Kalamazoo, Michigan - ... When the protester refused to enter the protest zone, but insisted on standing where other people had been allowed to gather, he was arrested. ...
• St. Louis, Missouri - ... Two protesters carrying signs critical of the President's policy on Iraq were ordered into a "protest zone" approximately one-quarter mile away, a location completely out of sight of the building. When the protesters refused, they were arrested. ...
• Neville Island, Pennsylvania - ... But when retired steelworker Bill Neel refused to enter the protest zone and insisted on being allowed to stand where the President's supporters were standing, he was arrested for disorderly conduct and detained until the President had departed. ...
• Columbia, South Carolina - ... When Bursey insisted on being allowed to remain where other members of the public stood, he was arrested on state and federal criminal charges. ...

Here are the Census Bureau's lists of the most common first and last names.

It's fun to do the math. Remember when a "David Nelson"- one criminal of concern- was on the No Fly List (Perhaps he still is)? His being there put all the 5,000 other David Nelsons on the list. Assuming that each David Nelson flies just twice a year, then well over a year's worth of person-hours were wasted- each time they flew, over and over again- on confirming that the 5,000 weren't the one guy. Time lost to security, and time lost to the Nelsons- who also had the pleasure of being treated like a potential criminal in front of family, friends and fellow passengers.

But at least with flying there's a defined process known to the limited number of players (airlines, TSA) for dealing with a match. If the airline follows it, then they're clear, end of problem, no liability.

In contrast, with the Treasury list, if a match shows up, how can the business know it's really done everything it needs to do? The easy-out for 10's of millions of businesses might be to just not deal with the person at all.

So, this U.S. Treasury list:
"Maria Gonzalez"-- there's likely at least 4,000 in the US (probably far more- I used overall percentages multiplied rather than Prob(firstname) given (lastname))
"Jose Gonzalez" -- 3,200.
"Oscar Hernandez"--700
"Manual Diaz" or "Rosa Diaz" --500 each
And then the list seems to have plenty of the most common Chinese surnames.

The ACLU has challenged the NSLs in federal court on behalf of "John Doe" clients - see http://www.aclu.org/nsl

Actually citizens can challenge unconstitutional laws through the court system by filing a lawsuit and pursuing it through the court system, and that is what the ACLU has done - http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nationalsecuritylette rs/index.html

"The ACLU filed the case in April 2004 on behalf of an Internet Service Provider that had received an NSL and was prohibited from disclosing that the FBI had sought information from it. In September 2004, the district court struck down the NSL provision as unconstitutional, with Judge Victor Marrero writing that "democracy abhors undue secrecy." In his landmark ruling, Judge Marrero held that indefinite gag orders imposed under the NSL law violate free speech rights protected by the First Amendment."

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nationalsecuritylette rs/26404prs20060807.html

Those librarians were the second challenge to the NSLs.

The original challenge to the NSLs was from an Internet Service Provider ( http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nationalsecuritylette rs/22023res20051130.html )

The only reason the Librarians got released from the gag order was because the government made a mistake in redacting a document that was posted online and accidentally revealed their identities

This reminds me of the case (again, near Atlanta) of a vegan being arrested and sent to jail for writing down the license plate number of an unmarked cop car that Homeland Security sent to photograph the protester.

Fortunately the ACLU took up the case .

Don't be shocked as the tyrants find more ways to increase their power of tyranny. They are not here to help you, there are not here to protect you -- there are there to protect their own incomes and pensions, and you are powerless to stop...

To show the truth of this, and to point out the absurdity, anyone who is engaged in political protest is targeted in an effort to intimidate -- even the police themselves. When the police publicly protested the slow pace of their contract talks with the city, they too were videotaped, photographed, and harassed . They were very surprised, because they were police themselves.

If you look at that situation in terms of the system being mostly in maintaining itself, then it would be natural for the system to fear and harass anyone pushing for change, even the police themselves.

Hopefully the "new media" of blogs and other internet information will help become an effective counterweight to the immense power of the authoritarian elements of our government. Meanwhile, don't be too surprised at finding other examples of creeping authoritarianism in our country. A grandmother in Atlanta was shot and killed by plainclothes police when they invaded her home no-knock raid at night . She thought they were robbers trying to break in when she wounded three of them and was killed by return fire. All they found in her house was a small amount of marijuana. They tried to get an informant to lie and say that he told them that drugs were being sold there after the whole affair becam a public relations nightmare.

Well, that would be true if individuals actually had a federal constitutional right to bear arms, but the truth is they don't. The ACLU interprets the US Supreme Court ruling of U.S. v. Miller (1939) in the popular way, stating that the second amendment applies only to state regulated militias.

So, you are right, the ACLU takes a neutral position on the second amendment because they agree with the Supreme Court's ruling in US v. Miller. That and they do not find any real civil liberty issues with gun control.

Even if they did want to take up second amendment cases they would have a hard time, the one and only time the Supreme Court granted cert to a second amendment case was U.S. v. Miller. They regularly deny cert for second amendment cases.

This has actually been informative for me, I had actually thought the ACLU had argued second amendment (or at least state constitution) cases in the past. I stand corrected, though I agree with the ACLU's stance.

-Eric

Right. A point which was reflected in my post when I wrote "certain types of paid political speech."

Obviously what the bill was attempting to deal with is what is known here as "astroturfing," but it is still political speech and I'm not comfortable with the gov't placing restrictions upon it, no matter how dishonest or obnoxious it is. And BTW, neither is the ACLU, who said "Section 220, entitled 'Disclosure of Paid Efforts to Stimulate Grassroots Lobbying' imposes onerous reporting requirements that will chill constitutionally protected activity."

Talk about violating civil liberties! (And, natch, in every single case the ACLU was behind it 100%.)

I keep on seeing others say the ACLU was all for these bans but I have yet to see any evidence the ACLU in fact did support them. Searching ACLU's website I found this:

Isn't this creating a right to smoke?
No. The A.C.L.U. does not oppose smoking bans in public buildings, in the workplace, or in other locations where non-smokers may be subjected to sidestream smoke.We object only to bans on smoking (or beer or junk food) in a person's own home.

Further down on the page is this:

The city of North Miami, however, recently adopted an ordinance barring smokers from any municipal employment. The Florida A.C.L.U. has challenged this policy in court, 8 and the result will shed much light upon the extent to which public employees are already protected.

Here the Florida ACLU fought against a smoking ban. Again on the same page:

1. Prohibit Discrimination Based on Off-Duty Smoking
This is the most limited form of protection. While it protects one of the largest groups of victims, it leaves many unprotected. It also lends credence to the charge that the legislation is about smoking rather than autonomy and privacy. Its only real benefit is that its impact is limited and clearly defined. This can reduce, or even eliminate, opposition from organized business.

It continues on with more on smoking and with one exception they are about protecting smokers with nothing about the ACLU supporting smoking bans, the one exception is where it says "The A.C.L.U. does not oppose smoking bans in public buildings, in the workplace, or in other locations where non-smokers may be subjected to sidestream smoke.We object only to bans on smoking (or beer or junk food) in a person's own home." The only conclusion I can come to is that either are against smoking bans as well as against the ACLU or they're blowing smoke out of their ass. I hope I'm wrong and someone will correct me.

The government should be no more able to criminalize smoking a joint than it is able to prohibit an individual from drinking a martini or eating too many fatty foods. [also see "Why Marijuana Law Reform Should Matter to You," by Ira Glasser]

And "smoking" returned this:

Q: Isn't this creating a "civil right" to drink and smoke?

A: Not at all. The ACLU does not oppose smoking bans in public buildings, in the workplace or in locations where non-smokers may be subjected to secondary smoke. We object only to bans on smoking, drinking, diet and hobbies in a person's own home.

So yes, if you're blowing smoke in people's faces, the ACLU supports bans on that. But your alarmist attitude towards the ACLU, while commonplace among the right, is based on either ignorance or dishonesty. It's true that they don't support the 2nd amendment as well as they might, but hell, that makes them 900% (9/10 vs 1/10) as supportive of the Bill of Rights as the NRA. I'll take that.

The government should be no more able to criminalize smoking a joint than it is able to prohibit an individual from drinking a martini or eating too many fatty foods. [also see "Why Marijuana Law Reform Should Matter to You," by Ira Glasser]

And "smoking" returned this:

Q: Isn't this creating a "civil right" to drink and smoke?

A: Not at all. The ACLU does not oppose smoking bans in public buildings, in the workplace or in locations where non-smokers may be subjected to secondary smoke. We object only to bans on smoking, drinking, diet and hobbies in a person's own home.

So yes, if you're blowing smoke in people's faces, the ACLU supports bans on that. But your alarmist attitude towards the ACLU, while commonplace among the right, is based on either ignorance or dishonesty. It's true that they don't support the 2nd amendment as well as they might, but hell, that makes them 900% (9/10 vs 1/10) as supportive of the Bill of Rights as the NRA. I'll take that.

The ACLU believes that the breadth of the prohibition on tobacco advertisements far exceeds constitutional boundaries, and, if enacted, will most likely fail to withstand constitutional challenge. Moreover, we believe the enactment of the proposed tobacco advertising restrictions would drastically curtail commercial speech and could have a chilling effect on the right of the public and businesses to engage in free speech about controversial subjects.