Slashdot Mirror

The ACLU takes an active position against the individual-rights interpretation of the Second Amendment.

http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.ht ml

They claim to be neutral, but their officially stated position is not:

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 to assure their own freedom and security against the central government.

But even at that, the ACLU is not against banning advertising commercials 30 days from an election, which is absolutly horrible for democracy, and a complete violation of free speech. While they still might be for protecting some dumb skinhead's right to say hateful things (and cudos for the ACLU for taking that extremly unpopular and controversial stance towards freedom of speech), they would not get involved when the federal government demanded that no advertisements for Faranheit 9/11 30 days before the election (as they support the election advertising ban).

Making stuff up just doesn't work. Someone will eventually check up on what you say... especially when it sounds like bullshit.

Pay particular attention to paragraph 6 below. They don't sound OK with it at all.

from: the the ACLU's website

ACLU Campaign Finance Reform Fact Sheet (2/12/2002)

ACLU Campaign Finance Reform Fact Sheet

Why Should Members of Congress Vote Against H.R. 2356, the Shays-Meehan Bill?

1. Shays/Meehan is patently unconstitutional.

The American Civil Liberties Union believes that key elements of Shays-Meehan violate the First Amendment right to free speech because the legislation contains provisions that would:

* Violate the constitutionally protected right of the people to express their opinions about issues through broadcast advertising if they mention the name of a candidate.
* Restrict soft money contributions and uses of soft money for no constitutionally justifiable reason.
* Chill free expression by redefining it as "coordination" through burdensome reporting requirements and greatly expanded FEC investigative and enforcement authority.

H.R. 2356 would burden and abridge the very speech that the First Amendment was designed to protect: political speech.

2.Shays-Meehan would have a chilling affect on issue advocacy speech that is essential in a democracy. H.R. 2356 contains the harshest and most unconstitutional controls on issue advocacy groups. The bill contains:

* A virtual ban on issue advocacy achieved through redefining express advocacy in an unconstitutionally vague and over-broad manner. The Supreme Court has held that only express advocacy, narrowly defined, can be subject to campaign finance controls. The key to the existing definition of express advocacy is the inclusion of an explicit directive to vote for or vote against a candidate. Minus the explicit directive or so-called "bright-line" test, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) will decide what constitutes express advocacy. Few non-profit issue groups will want to risk their tax status or incur legal expenses to engage in speech that could be interpreted by the FEC to have an influence on the outcome of an election.
* A black-out on broadcast, cable and satellite issue advertising before primary and general elections. The bill's statutory limitations on issue advocacy would force groups that now engage in issue advocacy - including non-profit corporations known as 501(c)(4)s -- to create new institutional entities in order to "legally" speak within 30 days before a congressional primary or runoff and 60 days before a general election. This restriction applies to any ad that "can be received" by 50,000 or more "persons," including minors, within a district -- which covers almost all TV or radio ads, since few persons do not possess TVs and radios. If a group wanted to take out a broadcast, cable or satellite ad during this period they would have to create a PAC where donors would have to be disclosed to the FEC in a way never before sustained by the courts. The opportunities that donors now have to contribute anonymously (a real concern when a cause is unpopular or divisive -- see NAACP v. Alabama) would be eliminated.
*

http://www.aclu.org/pizza/images/screen.swf

Frank Lee Smith, Florida
Convicted 1985; cleared (after death) in 2000

Mr. Smith was convicted of the rape and murder of a child. After the trial and sentencing the chief witness recanted her testimony. But Smith nevertheless was scheduled for execution. He died of cancer in January 2000, while on death row before the completion of the DNA test results that proved his innocence ten months later.

Look, I'm no conspiracy theorist or libertarian nut, and I realize that browsing the news at aljazeera.com probably isn't Gitmo material. But, does anyone here have trouble believing the government might be using some kind of monitoring not unlike bayesian spam filtering, where simply sharing similar browsing patterns to known terrorists (or known residents of Gitmo) lands you on the watch list?

You mean something like this?

The ACLU makes it clear that there are other rights organizations narrowly focused on Amendment 2. As such, they have no particular reason to re-cover that particular base.

Somebody makes this argument every time, and the Slashbot hive-mind always mods it up as though it were true.

If that were true, they would also acknowledge that there are other rights organizations narrowly focused on abortion rights. Yet the ACLU has no problem re-covering that particular base. A lot. And zealously so.

Saying that they don't protect the rights of individual gun owners simply to avoid duplication of effort is a flat out lie. And anyone who believes it is clueless.

Issues on the ACLU main page that other groups also cover:

      Criminal Justice
      Death Penalty
      Disability Rights
      Drug Policy
      Free Speech
      HIV/AIDS
      Immigrants' Rights
      Human Rights
      Lesbian & Gay Rights
      National Security
      Police Practices
      Prisoners' Rights
      Privacy & Technology
      Racial Justice
      Religion and Belief
      Reproductive Freedom
      Rights of the Poor
      Safe and Free
      StandUp/Youth
      Voting Rights
      Women's Rights

The ACLU makes it clear that there are other rights organizations narrowly focused on Amendment 2. As such, they have no particular reason to re-cover that particular base.

Somebody makes this argument every time, and the Slashbot hive-mind always mods it up as though it were true.

If that were true, they would also acknowledge that there are other rights organizations narrowly focused on abortion rights. Yet the ACLU has no problem re-covering that particular base. A lot. And zealously so.

Saying that they don't protect the rights of individual gun owners simply to avoid duplication of effort is a flat out lie. And anyone who believes it is clueless.

Issues on the ACLU main page that other groups also cover:

      Criminal Justice
      Death Penalty
      Disability Rights
      Drug Policy
      Free Speech
      HIV/AIDS
      Immigrants' Rights
      Human Rights
      Lesbian & Gay Rights
      National Security
      Police Practices
      Prisoners' Rights
      Privacy & Technology
      Racial Justice
      Religion and Belief
      Reproductive Freedom
      Rights of the Poor
      Safe and Free
      StandUp/Youth
      Voting Rights
      Women's Rights

The problem with the ACLU stance on the Second Amendment is that they take an actively-adversarial stance on it. As an organization, they do not believe in any form of a self-defense right, exercised with or without any particular weapons.

Their position on the Second Amendment is an endorsement of the barking-mad Miller decision in which the Supreme Court decided that the Second Amendment was, in contrast to the rest of the Bill of Rights, written to grant power to the government rather than the citizenry.

By explicitly endorsing the idea that an armed state should have a monopoly on the use of force, the ACLU has gone well beyond just leaving the Second Amendment to the NRA to defend. If they actually wanted to remain neutral on the subject, they could have done so without endorsing U.S. versus Miller.

Sorry the police are here to serve and protect, their actions are the actions of thugs who enjoy weilding power. So while I might not be deeply sorry for the kid, I am deeply ashamed of the actions of the law enforcement officials.

The death penalty should be abolished for one simple reason:

Government is not perfect. For christ's sake, government is not even close to perfection and never has been.

To whoever supports the death penalty, I ask you this: Do you honestly think your government is so righteous, so perfect in its judgement of law, that it could never possibly execute an innocent man?

If you do, then admit it. If not, how can you support the death penatly when you know that eventually an innocent man will be executed?

Since 1973, 123 people in 25 states have been released from death row with evidence of their innocence.

That is all we need to know. We don't need to argue about how immoral or hypocritical it is - all of that is quite besides the objective point. If the death penalty exists, innocent men WILL die.

The definition of dictator is a : a person granted absolute emergency power; b : one holding complete autocratic control; c : one ruling absolutely and often oppressively.

While you could argue whether Bush, technically, meets the definition, there is plenty of evidence that he is trying to evade Congressional oversight, elimination of habeas corpus for detainees and immunity for torture, the use of signing statements to effectively nullify legislation, NSA spying on U.S. citizens and so forth that are clearly moves in that direction.

Further, he is definitely claiming power and using it based on a framework of emergency that goes by the label of the "war on terror". He, and especially people under him like Cheney, believe that that the President, as Commander-in-Chief, has the authority to disregard virtually all previously known legal boundaries. That's pretty close to an understanding that believes itself to have absolute emergency power, i.e., a dictatorship - given certain conditions (which in this case are vague).

The ACLU is straightforward in what its position is.

The NRA is less clear, but their position is NOT about the constitutional right to bear arms. It is about the right to own guns.

Regardless of whether the word militia refers to individuals in support of or outside regular army or even just Joe Q. Public, the 2nd amendment does not say "a militia" or "a regulated militia", but "a well regulated militia". The simple fact is, the NRA has no interest in any of these terms except for where it allows an individual to own a gun. From the link above, the NRA is AGAINST "well regulated": they are against registering guns, licensing guns, limiting what guns can be purchased (assult weapons ban), and mandatory training before you can use a gun.

My point is not to criticize or applaud the NRA, merely to point out that they are not about the 2nd amendment. They are about removing limits on gun ownership. They are perfectly happy USING the 2nd amendment, though

Well, the NRA, which doesn't care about any other amendment, seems to fill in that gap rather nicely.

or would you prefer the ACLU and not the NRA fought 2nd amendment issues?

Why should this prevent them from taking a pro-choice stance on private gun ownership?

In spite of the existence of Planned Parenthood and NARAL, the ACLU has no problem devoting a lot of resources to abortion rights.

Too bad they don't care as much about certain explicitly enumerated rights.

Sorry, but the "NRA is taking care of it" meme is an oft-repeated lame excuse.

I very quickly summarized the commentary here on why one would move from the US to several flamewars based on a lack of understanding of the culture in various non-US countries to arguments about tax burdens and arguments about what constitutes an addictive drug.

These are side-issues.

The reson one might be interested in leaving the US relates to something that my father shocked me by saying just some weeks ago.

He referred to the current administration in the US, along with their supporters in Congress at fascists.

Now, I respect my father. I'm not just out of his house and I'm not still reacting to the "awful way he treated me" when I "turned insane" shortly after puberty. My father has consistently earned my respect by tending to be right and by letting go of a lot of his own personal garbage. I also know that he lived through a time in which fascism was considered a viable political system in three countries in Europe -- with other countries admiring the "benefits" of a totalitarian regime that gives itself a pass for criminal activity. This is a serious and very shocking statement from a man who watched as the entire world fought against fascism and managed to win.

The US government is fascist due to several factors:

The Military Commissions Act of 2006(PDF Alert), which was signed by Bush on October 17, 2006 suspends the writ of Habeus Corpus in a time that is definitely not a national emergency.

This preserves the "Law-Free Zone" set up in Guantanimo. These detainees are kept in isolation from US Courts who, if there is adequate proof would be all too happy to confirm that these people are dangerous. Camp X-Ray also serves as a zone where the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of Prisoners of War may be utterly ignored. We broke off relations with North Vietnam (and later, Vietnam) due to their treatment of US prisoners in a manner that ignored the Geneva Conventions.

The act also pardons everyone and anyone for all acts that violate the Geneva Conventions, including the procedure of Extraordinary Rendition and backdates that exemption from prosecution to September 11th, 2001.

The President and his Executive Branch are given full reign in defining what an "enemy combatant" is. I recall that Hitler regarded Jewish persons within Germany and the territories acquired by Germany, as well as allied countries as enemies of the state. Also, anyone giving material aid to any enemy was branded with the same. There was no Habeus Corpus in Germany and the courts were puppets of the state.

What I'm saying here is that we have a very serious situation in the US where civil rights have been nullified by a political party that considers self-examination wrong and unpatriotic (there have been no committees in either the House of Representatives or the Senate to examine the conduct of the "war on terror") and are fully prepared to negate the entire Bill of Rights in order to maintain their grip on political power.

Many Americans aren't aware of how their rights have been suspended. Those who are find it hard to continue to live here.

Countries who honor the rights of their citizens and who do not give their executive branch the right to run roughshod over the rights of minorities and persons who hold political beliefs that may differ may look a lot better than the US today for a citizen concerned with our present government.

Oh, I know it happening to friends who didn't know better, but if you want a cited case, I can give you enough without looking to far on google, here's one:

http://www.aclu.org/police/forfeit/14599prs2000112 1.html

Oh, please. I'm either lying or ignorant? I've been to the UK (London and surrounding areas in particular) quite a few times, and there's cameras all over the damn place. Not to mention signs warning you that you're under surveillance. Hell, you even fingerprint schoolkids. Mind you, America is headed that way at the moment, but as long as some of us support certain groups that protect our essential liberties, "this too shall pass".

As for your off-the-cuff, asinine comment about guns, we don't let everyone have a gun. For example, most convicted, serious criminals don't carry guns unless they are keen on going back to the pen. Felons, that is. And pretty much anything short of causing someone (unwarranted) physical harm, serious monetary loss, or repeatedly doing something very stupid is not a felony. But let me tell you something - I would rather have the freedom to defend myself, along with the very real possibility that I might have to do so, than the illusion of safety that you Brits have. Guns are a great social equilizer (the overthrowing-the-government bit is just a particularly sweet perk for me). I don't mind holding my own and risking my own life when it's just me (matter of fact, I love a good bar brawl), but when it comes to the safety of my wife, pets, and family, I'd rather have the assurance that a loaded .45 brings to the table. Or, lemme guess, you don't have any violent crime in the UK, do you?

As for convincing one another, I don't have to convince you of anything, nor do I really even give a shit whether you carry a gun or not. I don't give a flying fuck whether anyone other than myself, my family, and my friends carries a gun, as long as they don't infringe on my right to carry one. I noticed you said you consider an unarmed populace a benefit. Good, I hope you enjoy the shit out of living in the UK. As long as you keep it over there, and don't expect me to give a rat's ass what kind of resolutions the bitch-ass U.N. passes, I think we can get along just fine.

Having said that, I didn't see the rest of the thread because I was reading through at a relatively high threshold. I just couldn't bite my tongue when I see blatantly false crap posted. And I gotta love your bit about having been through all the arguments over firearms. What a cheapshit way to try to get the last word - "nope!heard it all before! not listening! got my fingers in my ears...nyah-nyah!".

Any governing body, given insufficient oversight, will subvert its charter - usually not to the benefit of the governed. Without the checks and balances of the law, we would be subject to the very conditions which kindled the American Revolution. Are you really saying that as a Canadian, you're happy with writs of assistance and their abuses?

Police are expected to pursue their duties with great zeal. There must be irrefutable parameters from which within they operate. Otherwise, this same zeal will lead them to unintentional abuse of the very people they are charged with protecting.

"It is better to allow 99 guilty men go free than to convict 1 innocent man". Then again, it appears that habeas corpus may no longer apply. :-(

Enjoy your rights now boys, 'cause they're running out quick...

For those who saw my post yesterday about the Senate torture/habeas corpus bill... An amendment toning the bill down was rejected early in the day, and then the bill in its full-strength, scary form was passed and will be signed into law by the President shortly:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi -0609290178sep29,1,1387725.story?coll=chi-newsnati onworld-hed
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/detention/26947prs200 60928.html

So, a bill legalizing wiretapping would just be par for the course for this government.

Oh, and welcome to the police state . You may not notice any difference at first... but sooner or later it's probably safe to say that you will.

In particular, a reasonable reading of the Second Amendment. From the ACLU web site:

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 to assure their own freedom and security against the central government.

Putting aside their incorrect interpretation of the term "militia" (which has a very specific definition in Federal law) for the moment, let's look at the Bill of Rights. The first eight Amendments have to do with the people, and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments are specific limitations on Congress' power. The ACLU maintains that all of the first eight Amendments, save the Second, deal with individual rights. Why then do they consider the Second does not deal with individual rights as the others do? If, as they say, it's proper for the state to license and regulate the bearing of arms, why then would it not be proper for the state to license and regulate speech as well? After all, they're not eliminating it, right? Why then did the ACLU get so bent out of shape regarding the ridiculous "free speech zones" established when the President visits? If it's proper to license and regulate one civil right, why not another? The ACLU makes the ridiculous statement "If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns.", while apparently failing to note that unlike arms, cars are not mentioned in the Constitution.

It doesn't make sense, and I believe it's a deliberate misreading of the intent of the document to fit in line with the politics of its founders.

Amercian Civil Liberties Union
Electronic Frontier Foundation

Donate $10 if you haven't this month. There are people looking out for us, they need MONEY.

Wow, what HP's doing sounds amazingly familiar.

Here's an article on a bill immunizing the Bush Administration from prosecution for basically doing the same thing. Too bad HP can't call him up and ask to be included on the bill.

BTW, here's another article, this one by the ACLU on exactly what the Cheney-Specter bill does.

From the article: "Specter has moved to have his bill voted upon next week by voice vote, called a unanimous consent motion, according to the ACLU's Graves. Such a procedure would leave no record of who voted for or against the bill." It sure gives me a warm fuzzy feeling to know that "freedom-loving Americans" are spreading their open and accountable flavour of democracy arould the world - not!

According to the US Constition's 4th Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Now is the time to start helping the ACLU and EFF to bring this unconstitutional fascism before a federal court ASAP!

Except in my stupid ass state of California. Not long after the three strikes thing went into effect, some guy with one conviction behind him went into a store and bagged a few videotapes. He took them to his car, then went back in for a few more. He got nabbed and they counted the two enter-exit cycles as two separate offenses -- automatic second and third strikes within a few minutes.

By other accounts, he was charged separately per videotape so as to get the count up.

Citation: http://www.aclu.org/crimjustice/sentencing/10196pr s20030305.html

The ACLU national office and its California affiliates served as co-counsel in one of the cases decided today, Lockyer v. Andrade, 01-1127. The case dealt with a man who was sentenced to a minimum of 50 years in prison under the law for stealing $153 worth of children's videotape.

The other case decided today, Ewing v. California, 01-6978, dealt with a man who received 25 years to life for stealing $1,200 worth of golf clubs.

Not so fast.

WASHINGTON (08/04/2006)- The American Civil Liberties Union today expressed its disappointment with the Senate's ratification of the "Council of Europe Cybercrime Convention," or Cybercrime Treaty. That international agreement was signed by President Bush in late 2003 and now requires the American government to enforce foreign laws that may violate the rights and liberties of Americans.

Full article is at http://www.aclu.org/privacy/gen/26394prs20060804.h tml

Brief quote from the article:

Even laws in other countries respectful of civil rights could pose problems if they were enforced in America. For example, France and Germany have laws prohibiting discussion of Nazi philosophy, an activity protected here under the First Amendment. Under the treaty, these countries could demand assistance from the United States to investigate and prosecute individuals for speech that is constitutionally protected in this country.

Actually the "War on Terror/ists/ism/whatever we don't like" DOES spend a lot of energy on folks like PETA, Greenpeace, ALF, and the American Friends Service Commitee. Read here http://www.aclu.org/safefree/spying/23124prs200512 20.html amoung other places.
The home grown terrorists who don't get much FBI attention are covered here http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/hate.js.
The interesting thing is that ALF, etc have never actually hurt anybody (at least there are no police records indicating they have) or called for the overthrow of the US government, while various Christian Identity and Nazi organizations definately have. We will leave the "Pro-life" Murderers out of this as we are trying to have a rational discussion.
My point is not to defend what was done here. It sucks, is immoral and constitutes a criminal enterprise which should be smashed with all due speed. But to say these folks are "terrorists" who are getting a "free ride" from "the authorities" or "the media" because they are "liberal" or "leftist" is to use all the words in quotes WAY outside thier proper definition.

P.S. I would have more sympathy for the moral high ground these folks tend to claim if they were doing civil disobedience; that is, when the Police arrive at a vandalized lab there are a bunch of people sitting there saying "We did this, please take us to jail and trial."

Just ask the ACLU

daveschroeder writes: "....In this case, the father (the dead man) was probably the one legally responsible for the internet connection and was likely also a legal guardian of his stepson. Whether you agree with it or not, there can certainly be legal culpability on the part of someone who is legally responsible for a particular item (such as an internet connection). I have literally no idea how this holds up in the context of music sharing; just pointing out that fact."

I think you may be a victim, possibly subliminally, of RIAA propaganda.

You happen to be incorrect on both points. Neither (a) being the person who pays for the home's internet access account, nor (b) being a legal guardian of someone who might have committed a copyright infringement, makes one "responsible", under the law. (By the way he was not the guardian of the stepson, the stepson is an adult.).

The RIAA has done much to create the impression that you are operating under, that parents are automatically liable for copyright infringements which might take place through the internet access account they pay for; but this is not the law.

I would recommend that you read the brief submitted by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, ACLU, and others, in Capitol v. Foster, where they discuss how the RIAA has, in a calculated way, attempted to give you that impression.

"We want to protect our intellectual property."

Isn't that what SCO's been saying for the last few years? Whatever amazon plans to do with this (I promise you they DO have plans), probably won't be good for anybody. Best case scenerio, they'll charge up the ass for someone that wants to do something useful with the data. More likely, it'll be used for really intrusive and annoying "services", or possibly another horrendous secret government-corporation collaboration to "protect" us from "terrorists". Worst, case... nevermind, I don't want to think about it.

Watch Ordering pizza (turn on your speakers!)

Although this film was made in response the the U.S. Information Awareness Office program, it is equally relevant here.

The problem is that it's against the law in many STATES to forment revolution on the government.

Obviously you can challenge this in court by preemptively suing the government before you attempt the revolt. Might actually be effective, actually. This is probably something the ACLU or EFF would want to tackle. That's why I donate to them (ACLU, EFF, Impeach Bush).

Think about all the money you spend on Starbucks or Coke or organic vegtables or whatever it is you consume. I figure I spend $20 a week on starbucks. Surely I can afford $10/month to assure my personal freedoms. So I give $120 per year to each organization. I know there are plenty of other people on here (slashdot) who have also. If you haven't, just do it. It's fast, and don't be all paranoid about them having your credit card number... you can send cash ;)

Indeed, what about police? Can they be blamed?

I understand that this article is talking about the UK, but I am going to reply to your comment from the US perspective anyway.

The US Supreme Court has ruled that the police have no Constitutional requirement to prevent crime of any type. They investigate crime and apprehend suspected criminals, only. ACLU press release concerning one case related to this. There are several other cases on this topic also.

A cop standing on a street corner watching a mugging in progress has no legal requirement to stop the crime in progress. He should, however, watch carefully in order to make a proper identification to assist in apprehending the alleged perpetrator after the crime occurs.

Don't you just love how things work in the US?

Never being able to be a juror? where is the downside... I have never ever known anyone to say "hey, I would like to be on a jury"

Maybe, but if you are on the other side of things, you might care. If you are from some segment of society that is disproportionately likely to be arrested unfairly -- say because of your race or political activity -- that means that a jury is less likely to include people like you.

Couldn't they get all the same benefits with a simple barcode?oes the RFID hold just your ID number for lookup on the database or is the RFID part now full identification?

Yup. Time to post the ACLU pizza link again...

Still, by concentrating on technological issues, the EFF calls attention away from the fact that the rights being fought over in court today concern not just internet wiretapping and music downloads, but are in fact a facet of the overall struggle for more basic rights like the right to free speech and the right to privacy.

So, join both the ACLU and the EFF. Problem solved. As far as your Internationlist Revolutionary approach, well, let's just say that I care more about shoring up and restoring the rights that are under threat in my own country *right now*, rather than sinking more cash into causes that may or may not benefit others elsewhere. The EFF, ACLU and the Center for Democracy and Technology are just the ticket for me right now.

Since the 21st century is only about 6 years old, isn't a statement like that just a little premature?

He was making a statement with vision and foresight, not making a TOP 10 list for cases that have already taken place. Look here, www.eff.org/legal/cases/att/ for AT&T case details. While you read, consider what the next century will look like if EFF loses this and future cases like it.

Sure, we've already seen things like eschelon and carnivore, but this is by far the boldest power grab by the US government to formally & non-apologetically establish itself as Big Brother over US citizens. This case, in concert with the related ACLU case, has the *potential* to be the precedent that stops this government from using tech companies to become Big Brother for the next century. I'd say that would make it one of the most important privacy & free speech cases of the 21st century. Now they need to win and they're going to need help to fight this goliath of a case.

The ACLU has often been criticized for "ignoring the Second Amendment" and refusing to fight for the individual's right to own a gun or other weapons. This issue, however, has not been ignored by the ACLU. The national board has in fact debated and discussed the civil liberties aspects of the Second Amendment many times.

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 to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration.

"Works just as it used to over here... What distopia land are you posting from?"

It is interesting that you you use the label "Dystopian land" in your reply, at least I guess that is what you meant with "distopia land". This is exactly what the USA is devolving into and exactly what the ACLU is confronting on issues like this. I do not believe in the possibility of a Utopian society at this stage of mankinds evolution, if ever. However, this does not mean I intend to sit and quietly watch as our liberty is stolen by a bunch of neo-fascists. Try the following Google link for a few examples of where the separation of powers is an issue with the current government.

http://www.google.com/search?hs=0zW&hl=en&lr=&clie nt=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q= Bush+separation+of+powers&btnG=Search

"I don't see a contradiction, frankly. Nor does ACLU, apparently, because they are not using this argument..."

One more time. "Amendment V (1791) of the constitution says otherwise in regard to the collection and presentation of evidence against a citizen. "No person may be compelled to testify against himself." I don't see how it could be stated with any greater clarity. Are you operating under the mistaken assumption that this only to be used on foreign terrorist suspects? Have you read the FOIA? http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/privacy/fmrifoia20060628. pdf Besides even if it is only used on non US citizens the use of this technology to obtain evidence used to detain citizens of another nation does not seem to be an ethically sound practice. What's next, Bolton removing the US as a signatory of the UN charter on human rights?

That's just ridiculous. 20 years is not enough for you? Cell-phones have existed for shorter time...

The 20 years is actually the rough useful history for MRI as a medical diagnostic device. fMRI has not been around as long and there is very little data in the public space on the use of it for the methods of thought detection, let alone critical evaluation. A good read on the brain/mind that has some information on fMRI is "Conversations with Neil's Brain(1994)". I don't like what is happening with the monitoring of cell networks either :).

"Reading comprehension problems (in addition to writing)?.. Or just choking on your tofu? I'll try one more time: How the government spends money -- whether you approve of it or not -- is not a civil liberties concern, hence not one, I gave ACLU money to address..."

This is simple, accountability of government officials is at the core of what protection of civil liberty's are about. Where were you in primary school civics or US history classes? When the government spends money on things that directly threaten my constitutional rights and freedoms it becomes an even more critical civil liberty's issue. I don't always like the position the ACLU takes on some issues either. For instance I wish they would take a different stand on the second amendment, they are dead wrong in the interpretation they currently stand by. This does not mean that I withhold my support, moral or fiducial as on the whole their efforts are worthwhile for our liberty. Ouch, I must have hit a nerve somewhere. You don't like reading my writing, don't. If you think that by making derogatory statements about my missing a word or imperfections of grammar at 2:00AM, my reading comprehension of your illogical and non nonsensical diversions and digressions or my personal dietary habits you are going to annoy me, go ahead. What this actually tells me is that I somehow managed to annoy you. Got any more labels you wish apply or imply, abilities or skills you wish to denigr

Wow, So being a cop for 18 years means you can violate civil rights because you THINK you are right.
Hmm. Lets go over the run down of bullshit things cops have done to just me (35 year old male)
Got pulled over once when a cop was behind me and he said after I ask why he pulled me over, "you where driving to carefully." NO KIDDING a cop car behind me and I was driving carefully. Then there was the time my girlfriend and I where driving in a car and I was pulled over and when I ask why he said he want to count the occupants of the car. So I counted for him, 2. Then there was the time I witnessed a cop car run a red light with none of its lights on and smash into a another car. The cops kept insisting that I did not see what I said I saw. Even to the extent that they tried to put words in my mouth through intimidation. That time was so bad I called a family friend of mine who is an FBI agent (lawyer would have charged me) to come to help me.

Then there was this Guy on his porch in the Bronx that got shot for reaching for his wallet. 41 times I believe. (Diallo's case)

There was a case in Devner of raiding the wrong house and killing the dude inside and then LIEING and puting a gun in the dudes hands. HOLLY SHIT.

http://v6.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~4330~11 29795,00.html

Now how about the cop in San Bernardino California that shot the air force security officer IN COLD BLOOD. http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,86767, 00.html?ESRC=topstories.RSS

Let me put it simple. You are a cop, (probably don't even know where the term cop comes from I bet, quick Google it) Have you ever heard of the Blackstone ratio? LOOK IT UP.

Here is a great post to a editorial comment on NYC police brutality.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0 6E1DD1239F935A35755C0A96F958260

Or maybe police cover there own asses.
http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14542prs20040128.ht ml

I mean Google searching for police abuse returns 70 million hits. Teen sex only returns 72 million. Seems that maybe Police abuse could be nearly as pervasive as teen sex. WTF?

If there is any doubt as to whether to shoot or not shoot. You DON'T SHOOT. I would rather the police offer was shot then he shoots an innocent person. Sorry but that is the job YOU CHOSE. The civilian has more of a right to survive a misunderstanding then you. If you are unsure of the outcome of the situation you withdrawl rather then risk an innocent life.

I've given up on the ACLU as a bunch of leftist laywers bought and paid for by the union politicos after they refused to take on the Vincent Chin case in the 80's.

It was a clear, nationally covered hate crime case (a few days before his wedding, Mr. Chin was bludgened to death with a baseball bat in front of many onlooker in front of a bar by two layed-off detroit autoworkers who apparently hated japanese and mistook Mr Chin who is chinese for japanese and only recieved a $4000 fine for this crime), something that was well within the ACLU charter for being for racial bias in criminal justice. Because the offender was an out of work autoworker and the ACLU knows who butters their bread, they of course passed on the whole thing and have never appologized.

As many have mentioned, the ACLU is of course a private organization that can do whatever the hell they want. However, perhaps more realistically, the ACLU flock of lawyer do whatever their left leaning sugar daddies who pays their retainers want them to do. I wouldn't mistake this cauldren of lawyers for one that fights for principles (well maybe KKK principles). They certainly are selective ;^)

would you rather have some of your rights defended or none?

Yes, the ACLU won't touch gun rights, because they don't believe they exist:

http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.ht ml

I think they're wrong, but that that doesn't mean I think the ACLU are doing wrong by defending my other rights. Interestingly enough, it appears possible for people to disagree on one subject while agreeing on a different one!

Click me for free money!

Do some research on US laws. Police can detain you to determine if a crime committed. Hell just watch the TV show COPS - they do it all the time. "I'm not placing you under arrest, I'm just detaining you while we get some information."

Form the Americal Civil Liberties website - (they happen to know a little about police rights) - http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14528res20040730.ht ml -
. You must show your driver's license and registration when stopped in a car. Otherwise, you don't have to answer any questions if you are detained or arrested, with one important exception. The police may ask for your name if you have been properly detained, and you can be arrested in some states for refusing to give it.

Notice how "detain" and "arrest" are two seperate things? And that you may be detained without being arrested??

Or from another criminal law site - http://www.expertlaw.com/library/criminal/police_s tops.html
Can The Police Stop And Question People Who Are Not Under Arrest?
Yes. The police can stop a person, and ask questions, without "arresting" the person. Upon seeing suspicious activity, the police may perform what is called a "Terry Stop," and may temporarily detain people to request that they identify themselves and to question them about the suspicious activity. The scope of a "Terry Stop" is limited to investigation of the specific suspicious activity, and if the police detain people to question them about additional matters, the stop can turn into an "arrest."

Haven't you ever heard of Guantanomo Bay?? The US is "detainig" hundreds of "suspected terrorist" without arresting a single one of them. Or is that "utter baloney" too?

For all this discussion has focused on the "debate" about global warming, if you think that political interference is limited to environmental science, you're missing a very, very big picture.

Let me start off by saying that scientific advancement is not a left-right issue, and should never be viewed through the narrow prism of party politics. However, the United States has fallen into a (man-made) rut of EVERYTHING being split down partisan lines (even national security, even voting integrity, even scientific research) so that is the playing field we are on, whether we like it or not. Wedge politics infect every issue now.

Under this administration, the religious right has exerted undue influence over decisions ranging from:

• blocking OTC access to emergency contraceptives
• stalling approval of a vaccine for HPV which would prevent cervical cancer
• censoring vital information about sex by imposing abstinence-only education on teens
• forcing doctors by law to peddle phony information about a phony link between abortion and breast cancer

(source article for that list, a must-read)

And without going on a daylong linkhunt, they are passing bad information about condom effectiveness, intimidating non-profit organizations which do not toe the party line on reproductive issues, and denying USAID funds to overseas orgs which even mention abortion, or distribute condoms as part of family planning efforts. (Imagine sending $15B to Africa to fight AIDS without distributing or even even mentioning condoms! Talk about throwing good money away...It's like fighting fires without water, it's that foolish.)

And don't even let's discuss the bi-partisan support for embryonic stem cell research which has been effectively neutered under this administration. Or the medical expertise of Dr. Bill Frist in the case of a braindead woman he never examined, or his patently absurd claim that AIDS may be transmitted via tears and sweat.

Sadly, I could document this sort of war on objective science all day, but I think I've made my point. It infests the policy debate over far more than global warming, and if you think there's no difference between the parties on this, you're sadly, tragically mistaken.

At least the UK has a superhero still attempting to defend freedom. I don't know of any in the US despite all our comics and movies about them.

The regulations should control how much you can buy.

Yeah, we tried that. As a result of the lame-ass Patriot Act, allergy sufferers must tie their schedule to that of the pharmacy. Consider the following:

• Thanks to Asscraft, each person is limited to purchasing 9g of pseudoephedrine every 30 days.
• A 30 day supply of Allegra-D contains 7.2g.
• You must present a government-issued ID to purchase Allegra-D.
• Imagine a family in which both parents have allergies, as does their 14-year-old daughter.
• The family needs 21.6g of pseudoephedrine, but are limited to purchasing 18g.

I guess allergies are about as unpatriotic as you can get.

Times like these require action.

Who can we support and donate $$ to if we want to fight this kind of thing? This community bought a full page ad for Firefox, so surely we can make some impact when our basic freedoms are being squashed.

I'll update my ACLU membership, even though I think they are too partisan towards the Democrat party.

What other organizations stand against a government that is slowly combining the worst aspects of '50s-style social repression with 1984 intrusion into our lives?

Here are two

      ACLU

        Americans United for Separation of Church and State

The NSA doesn't give a shit that you ordered a che guearra T-shirt and hang out at ANSWER rallies 'speaking truth to power.' They don't care that whenever some new leak comes out of the CIA you're furiously typing away on your blog about how much this adminstration sucks and is the most evil thing since hitler killed a puppy for fun. They have more important things to do.

This is the letter I sent to my senators and rep today:

I am deeply troubled by the recent news that the National Security Agency has been building a database of millions of records of telephone calls. Combined with the earlier revelations of warrantless NSA wiretaps, indefinite detentions, and a host of other similar activities, it appears the Bush administration is completely unconcerned with civil liberties. Their public statements show deep contempt for the rule of law.

Congress must act now. Hearings must be held immediately to find out exactly what the NSA has been doing. Any budgetary or regulatory leverage must be brought to bear to stop illegal conduct. Existing law must be clarified, to make it absolutely clear that the executive branch does not have the authority to violate the Fourth Amendment guarantees of privacy.

If left unchallenged, these new assertions of executive power will form the foundation of a police state. Even though the current threat to our country is dire, and even though the current administration's intent may be noble, unchecked executive power will lead to tyranny.

I joined the ACLU, and my wife joined the EFF. What did you do?

-Esme

• Domestic spying is costly for telecoms
  Snooping and tapping activities at the boundary of legality have made me worried, but costly legal lawsuits could be a good medicine. Like chemotherapy against cancer. Better would be strict laws which prevent such abuse. Lets see how the law dragons fight the snooping hydra.
• Domestic spying could reveal trading secrets
  There is an other issue which could prevent that we slip into a totalitarian state: telephone calling records of industry decision makers are valuable information. The database can give hints about mergers, stock market developments (company X has suddenly a lot of phone-calls with company Y. Do they merge? Do they launch a new product, lets buy or sell stocks accordingly). In a government, for which business is so closely linked to politics, domestic spying could be seen a free ticket for obtaining insider information. That could become a problem, once it is realized that it exists.
• Domestic spying accelerates standard encryption
  A third remedy about the domestic spying issue could be technology: not only standard encryption of telephone calls, but also standard masquerading about who calls whom. Such technology will first be used by people who need protection, not criminals, but CEOs or engineers working on new technology, which the competition should not know about. Of course, the people who are the primary targets of those stupid spying activities have long gone to other communication channels.