Slashdot Mirror

Where this hits for me though is when the same fascist above the law crew whisks someone off to Afganistan, beats the crap out of him for 6 months, realizes they made a clerical error and then dumps them off in the middle of nowhere half a continent from home (searching for this article, most references are in foreign press).

OK. But do we have a right to use anonymity/privacy to hide wrongdoings? At the time of the founding of the Republic and drafting the US Constitution, the world was a very different place. People knew each other, and would watch strangers. We now have mechanized mobility and electronic communications. Shouldn't monitoring be similarly enabled to preserve balance?

Clearly abuses must be avoided. But at what cost? Aren't there better ways (like "Fruit of the Poisoned Vine") to stop abuse without unduly impairing activity? Aren't the police & government "innocent until proiven guilty" too?

I friend sent me this link just yesterday about someone trying to purchase a pizza in the world it would appear both the UK and US governments want us to live in!

I, for one, do not welcome any overlords, whether insect or other sufficently low life to want to be in politics!
Just say NO

• Patriot Act Abuses Seen
  
• Critics cite PATRIOT Act abuse and misuse
  
• Abuse of the "Patriot Act"
  
• Patriot Act Abuses and Misuses Abound, ACLU Says
  
• More Signs of Patriot Act Abuse

Apparently Diana DeGette received 86 - 100% approval ratings from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in the past 6 years, according to Vote-Smart.org

How can this apparently high approval rating from a purported supporter of civil liberties be reconciled with Rep. Degette's recent anti-privacy action? Was the ACLU on crack when they scored her?

I'm not opposed to showing ID to board a plane. I don't, however, like the thought of my email, phone calls, and other communications being secretly monitored because I might be 'a person of interest', said monitoring being approved by a secret court.

I'm not anti-military and I'm not anti-government. I just feel that the provisions of the constitution regarding things like freedom of speech and unreasonable search and seizure are there for a reason. Many people have died so that we could have these rights and we're giving them up quietly, one by one, in bits and pieces.

Yep, and then we have the ACLU to help keep an eye on things.

Hey, I've got shit to do as well. That's why I pay people other than myself to fight in my place.

Logical Fallacy # 1: Poisoning the Well

linky:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning -the-well.html

Logical Fallacy # 2: Guilt By Association

linky:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/guilt-by- association.html

Both are particularly amusing due to your choice of link to "prove" your point.

...

Make the requirements to vote the same as to own a gun.

Simply go to the polling place, fill out a Form 4473, show your ID, and the poll worker will check with the FBI database to make sure that you're not prohibited from voting. If everything is working correctly, you will be allowed to vote in a few minutes.

If the GCA/Brady system doesn't violate the rights of gun owners, then what possible objection could there be to implementing the same system for voting?

Robert Racansky

You are not going to "do" something about the current administration, so get over it. If Democrats come up with some ideas about running the country and present them to the people before the next ELECTION, then Democrats might actually get elected.

Note: "Bush is a Moron" is not a platform idea the Democrats can run on, because BUSH IS NOT A CANDITATE IN THE NEXT ELECTION.

While on some level it is amusing to see people in the thrall of Bush Derangement Syndrome, the country needs the Democrats to get a grip, get a message, and Move On, so that the voters have two viable parties to choose from.

The rest of your rant about /. being like Free Republic is to risible to deserve a response.

Furthermore, if we follow the suggestion in the supersig below, we can eliminate one of the components of voting fraud, and get an honest election result. ...

Make the requirements to vote the same as to own a gun.

Simply go to the polling place, fill out a Form 4473, show your ID, and the poll worker will check with the FBI database to make sure that you're not prohibited from voting. If everything is working correctly, you will be allowed to vote in a few minutes.

If the GCA/Brady system doesn't violate the rights of gun owners, then what possible objection could there be to implementing the same system for voting?

Robert Racansky

Trying to create a trend or perception where there is none. Witness all those smarmy "the suit is back" articles.

In addition to accepting paid and free propaganda, trying to create public hysteria to influence political outcomes, the MSM survives on renting reader's eyeballs to advertisers. Whatever it takes to do that, they will do. Slashdot itself has fallen into that same cycle, with regular articles about "political" subjects sure to get 800 replies (and corresponding ad impressions) but with no valid technical content.

New SuperSig:

....


Make the requirements to vote the same as to own a gun.

Simply go to the polling place, fill out a Form 4473, show your ID, and the poll worker will check with the FBI database to make sure that you're not prohibited from voting. If everything is working correctly, you will be allowed to vote in a few minutes.

If the GCA/Brady system doesn't violate the rights of gun owners, then what possible objection could there be to implementing the same system for voting?

Robert Racansky

spent ourselves into a massive deficit and added a bunch of laws that restrict our civil liberties (free speech zones?)

Your right about spending but that was only because the war cost Clinton used was never added to the budget. He closed down bases in American cities and pulled the economic revenue away from those cities to pay for his wars. It is one of the reasons we had the recesion that Clinton left us with. Yes, I've even heard the recesion being blamed on bush when it clearly started before he took office or made any policy changes that could have possibly ef fected the econemy. Oh well.

We have also had laws restricting our civil liberties under clinton too. DMCA, Safe zones when protesting medical facilities, Maybe this mighthelp a bit(this only goes to the 2003/2004 era and isn't inclusive of the his entire administration) And maybe this too might show a little more about civil liberties violations today.

I don't write this to make claim that clinton is a bad person (although i think he is about equal to the current president) just that his record is washed under the table while bushes record is negetive no matter what. It goes back to the original comment about how it is mostly spin and smokescreens.

. Don't forget that, had Congress not blocked the legislation, we would not have national health care at lower cost than we pay now

National healthcare is bad for america. The way it is now with a few adjustments needs to be the way it is. I'm sure you heard about all the greatness of foreign healthcare plans and think they are great. But problems like in canida were you go on a waiting list and if your still alive or your condition hasn't progressed to the point you need to be reclassified and get placed on another waiting list, you finaly get treatment and all is well. I'm not sure if thats the reason wealthy candians go on vacation to america and have proccedures done (even the government officials do it) or if it is because thier pay system to support the free helthcare makes it almost impossible to pay off school bills and such so they are have a shortage of doctors

You know nothing about how domestic spying works. Your local police department is the one spying on you, not military intelligence. What happens is that your local cop gets done listening to Sean Hannity, and then decides how he's going to "protect" America from them damn liberals, and hops in his car with the Clinton-pelled-with-a-hammer-and-sickle bumpersticker, and drives down to the park to write down license plates of "trouble makers." Then he changes clothes and decides to join his local "Operation Truth" group and at every meeting suggests that they should go out and take "direct action" (i.e. bomb something).

Then sends reports like "Joe Smith has an "Impeach Bush" sticker on his car, and his wife Jane said that Iraq was a mistake" into TALON, which is simply John Poindexter's outlawed "Total Information Awareness" only with a new name. Everything is marked as "a credible threat", and now Joe and Jane Smith are now "persons of interest in a classified investigation."

Now we have "defense contractors" (i.e. mercenaries) providing security in Iraq, training our army, running the supply lines for our army, provinding "domestic security analysis" for our government. They're immune to open government laws, and in many ways are more free to act than the government. And best of all, the government can say "Oh it's not us. It's a private entity," thus ensuring (im)plausible deniablity.

You really need to learn about the illegal domestic spying during the 60s. What's old is new again.

Yes. The Bush adminstration is breaking the law. Bush even admitted to it in a radio address. Yes. They're facists. More precisely, crypto-facists.

"everyone's getting so worked up about this 'big brother state', but what are you *honestly* doing that's gonna cause any serious concern/suspicion on the part of the ruling authorities?"

And that my friend is exactly why so many jews ended up in crematoriums.

1. "Okay the don't like us but we can still work, this is as far as they'll go"
2. "Okay we have to register and wear these stars, be we can still own our business. this is as far as they'll go"
3. "Okay, our property has been siezed, and we cant get a permit to leave. but they'd be crazy to go any farther...."

Right now it's a nebulous group. Next it becomes people who don't have "acceptable" viewpoints. Here in the US both the FBI and pentagon have been caught spying on quakers for gods sake.

Every time any government tries to increase its power, the citizens should always ask themselves "would I want (insert your least favorite politician or political group here) to have this power?"

Geist:
there are many groups (EFF, CDT, Public Knowledge, ACLU, EPIC, IP Justice, etc) that work in the area.

Electronic Frontier Foundation

Center for Democracy & Technology

Public Knowledge

American Civil Liberties Union

Electronic Privacy Information Center

IP Justice

etc

Heres a few from the ACLU. (PDF waring!) http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/toolkit/images/pri vacy_checklist.pdf

"As far as the 'peace activists' today, they can only wish they were important enough for the government to pay much attention to.

The secret agencies aren't operated by a paranoid boob like J. Edgar Hoover anymore, ya know."

I think Mr. Murdoch would be very pleased to know that the millions he spends feeding right wing drivel into the freepers and republitards doesn't go to waste.

here ya go

I think google is still trying to do the right thing. But I trust the government to do what governments the world over do - spy on its citizens, reduce our rights, be more invasive in our lives and so on. Hey if you've got nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear... right?

So I think that no matter what google tries to do or be - they are a gold mine of data. The government tried to get some data in the public eye, and got rebuffed. I believe that they will get whatever they want from google soon, but you wont know. How can you stop a government that can enact a law that means you can be
a) held without trial
b) that libraries can be forced to hand over your data, and gagged be gagged (sorry about the lame PDF)
c) that search and seizure can be enacted without judicial review

And dont forget good ol torture (but hey - it didn't happen on our soil, so its ok. Even if we organised and supported it.

So - I trust google to be as good as they can. But you can't fight the government that makes the rules.

If I were in to conspiracy theories - I'd suspect that this was just a front, and the govt already has plans to use existing laws to simply retrieve the data in the name of anti-terrorism, for the safety of the fatherland (I mean the homeland)...

Not that I have anything against surveillance... just as long as it isn't abused

Honestly, if they just hint that my wife/parents/children just might end up in an "accident", it would be enogh for me to shut up. If they could capture a German citizen (El Masri), put a diaper on him, drug him and fly him God knows where for harsh interrogations, then release him in the middle of Albania five month later, then I wouldn't hold it above them to harm my family to get me to shut up... I am surprized that guy even had enough guts to talk about it. I am sure you've heard about him, here is a link on the ACLU website about his case.

------ ACLU press release available here

I think most people going hysterical actually have not read up on what the Patriot Act does in a SERIOUS and ACADEMIC way. Before passing judgement, I recommend you do.

This site has a tremendous amount of quality, specific information. And for those too lazy to read, there's some interesting video at c-span at this link: rtsp://cspanrm.fplive.net/cspan/project/ter/ter071 805_discourse.rm Go about 49 minutes in and listen to Stuart Taylor, a fellow at the Brookings Institute (yes, a left of center policy think tank).

Once you start reading with an open mind, I think that most people will find that extending the Patriot Act provisions is quite a good idea, and that maybe this is why it passed in the Senate 89-10.

"[T]here's no actual ID classes being taught outside of private parochial schools despite various proposals"

Er, you're wrong:

ACLU of Ohio Demands Schools Stop Teaching Intelligent Design as Science
2/14/2006

Quote: "The American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio today sent a letter to the Toledo Public Schools demanding that they cease allowing staff to teach intelligent design in science classrooms throughout the district."

Quote: "Recently, a news article in the Toledo Blade featured teachers in the Toledo Public School system who admitted teaching intelligent design in science classrooms. In the article, teachers acknowledged they taught lessons on various pieces of evidence that seemed to refute evolutionary theory, despite the fact that all were proven to be hoaxes by the scientific community."

So, go ahead and make a few jokes about "Jesusland" for us here in Toledo, Ohio. The sad thing is that, such jokes better represent direct reality here than some farcical part of reality.

ID is being taught in public schools in America. The religious wack-jobs are constantly pushing it, and even teachers (i.e. people with enough education to know better about science, the seperation of church and state, and political liability) are involved on their own.

This is a sad state of affairs. It's not fringe; it's pervasive but insidious in various areas of the US.

Several of the targets were *not* related in any way to foreign nationals. Several of the targets were anti-war protestors, or other who have vocally and publicly stated opposition to the war in Iraq.

The number of "leads" generated by the NSA as a direct result of this operation has in fact reduced the efficiency of real investigations, as it has been burdensome to the FBI and others. Basically, they're getting deluged with requests to investigate people such as George Main and others like him have been the target of the domestic spying operation.

You ignore this at peril to your own liberty.

And lets not forget the domestic programs like secret spying by the FBI using it's COINTELPRO program against people we regard as heroes now like Dr. Martin Luther King and John Lennon. See:

http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/cointel.h tm

And for recent abuses of the governments shroud of secrecy see:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10965509/site/newsweek /

and

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/spyfiles/index.html

Still think government secrecy is a good idea? Or perhaps world peace and protecting the bill of rights is a little more important than being an apologist for the governments cover ups of it's abuses both here and abroad?

Umm... because the ACLU is already pretty busy dealing with the Federal Government that is *actively* violating our civil liberties (as opposed to this loser who is merely proposing it)?

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/index.html

The ACLU is not a partisan organization. If they happen to be picking on Republicans these days, I submit to you that it's because they have earned it...

"From what I understand, the government asked for web search strings alone. No identifying information at all."

This is a trial run for the DOJ. If this works out, you can guarentee that personally identifyable information will be requested next. That request will come under a Patriot Act Secret Warrant, so you'll never hear about it. The goverment will use that data to secretely and warrantlessly tap your other communications, you'll be arrested and sent to a secret prison where you'll have no access to a lawyer or the red cross. Sure you may try to starve yourself or hang yourself from your bedsheets after 4 or 5 years, but the guards will make sure to tie you down and force feed you so that your misery can continue.

Yeah, Google's the bad guy here.

http://www.aclu.org/pizza/

There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part, you can't even tacitly take part, and you've got to put your bodies upon the gears, and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus. And you've got to make it stop.

There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part, you can't even tacitly take part, and you've got to put your bodies upon the gears, and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus. And you've got to make it stop.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed a class-action lawsuit against AT&T Tuesday, accusing the telecom giant of violating the law and the privacy of its customers by collaborating with the National Security Agency (NSA) in its massive and illegal program to wiretap and data-mine Americans' communications. http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2006_01.php#00436 9

What is it going to take to stop this type of activity?

The FBI and the military are spying on non violent politcal activists now. Given that we have Alito on the supreme court who supports the power of the "unitary executive," and given that Bush lied to us about always getting a warrant before engaging in phone tapping (in New Mexcio 2004 google it), it's utterly foolish to allow Bush to have the power to spy on anyone in violation of FISA. Lists of links showing Bush's FBI and military spy on domestic activists now from a post to William Arkin's excellent early warning blog at the Washington Post: http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2006/ 01/nsa_expands_its.html

American Media Dodging U.N. Surveillance Story By Norman Solomon Media Beat March 6, 2003 http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2226&printer_fr iendly=1

###

The unholy trinity of electronic snooping: Bolton, Negroponte and Hayden By Wayne Madsen Online Journal May 5, 2005

###

NSA spy program hinges on state-of-the-art technology By Shane Harris National Journal January 20, 2006 http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=33 212&printerfriendlyVers=1&

### NSA Gave Other U.S. Agencies Information From Surveillance Fruit of Eavesdropping Was Processed and Cross-Checked With Databases By Walter Pincus Washington Post Sunday, January 1, 2006; A08 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2005/12/31/AR2005123100 808_pf.html

### New Documents Show FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force Targeting Peaceful Protest Activity in Colorado ACLU Press Release December 8, 2005 http://www.aclu.org/safefree/spying/22884prs200512 08.html

### New Documents Show FBI Targeting Environmental and Animal Rights Groups Activities as "Domestic Terrorism" ACLU Press Release December 20, 2005 http://www.aclu.org/safefree/spying/23124prs200512 20.html

### Secret Pentagon Unit May Have Gathered and Kept Unauthorized Files on Thousands of Innocent Individuals and Organizations Newsweek Jan 23, 2006 http://www.yubanet.com/artman/publish/printer_3073 0.shtml

### Protesters Subjected To 'Pretext Interviews' FBI Memo Shows No Specific Threats By Dan Eggen Washington Post Wednesday, May 18, 2005; A04 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2005/05/17/AR2005051701 240_pf.html http://www.aclu-co.org/docket/200406/JTTF_file_sar ah_bardwell_08-02-04.pdf

### Battlespace America: The new Pentagon can peruse intelligence on U.S.citizens and send Marines down Main Street Peter Byrne Mother Jones May/June 2005 Issue http://www.motherjones.com/cgi-bin/print_article.p l?url=http://www.motherjon es.com/news/outfront/2005/05/battlespace_america.h tml

The FBI and the military are spying on non violent politcal activists now. Given that we have Alito on the supreme court who supports the power of the "unitary executive," and given that Bush lied to us about always getting a warrant before engaging in phone tapping (in New Mexcio 2004 google it), it's utterly foolish to allow Bush to have the power to spy on anyone in violation of FISA. Lists of links showing Bush's FBI and military spy on domestic activists now from a post to William Arkin's excellent early warning blog at the Washington Post: http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2006/ 01/nsa_expands_its.html

American Media Dodging U.N. Surveillance Story By Norman Solomon Media Beat March 6, 2003 http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2226&printer_fr iendly=1

###

The unholy trinity of electronic snooping: Bolton, Negroponte and Hayden By Wayne Madsen Online Journal May 5, 2005

###

NSA spy program hinges on state-of-the-art technology By Shane Harris National Journal January 20, 2006 http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=33 212&printerfriendlyVers=1&

### NSA Gave Other U.S. Agencies Information From Surveillance Fruit of Eavesdropping Was Processed and Cross-Checked With Databases By Walter Pincus Washington Post Sunday, January 1, 2006; A08 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2005/12/31/AR2005123100 808_pf.html

### New Documents Show FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force Targeting Peaceful Protest Activity in Colorado ACLU Press Release December 8, 2005 http://www.aclu.org/safefree/spying/22884prs200512 08.html

### New Documents Show FBI Targeting Environmental and Animal Rights Groups Activities as "Domestic Terrorism" ACLU Press Release December 20, 2005 http://www.aclu.org/safefree/spying/23124prs200512 20.html

### Secret Pentagon Unit May Have Gathered and Kept Unauthorized Files on Thousands of Innocent Individuals and Organizations Newsweek Jan 23, 2006 http://www.yubanet.com/artman/publish/printer_3073 0.shtml

### Protesters Subjected To 'Pretext Interviews' FBI Memo Shows No Specific Threats By Dan Eggen Washington Post Wednesday, May 18, 2005; A04 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2005/05/17/AR2005051701 240_pf.html http://www.aclu-co.org/docket/200406/JTTF_file_sar ah_bardwell_08-02-04.pdf

### Battlespace America: The new Pentagon can peruse intelligence on U.S.citizens and send Marines down Main Street Peter Byrne Mother Jones May/June 2005 Issue http://www.motherjones.com/cgi-bin/print_article.p l?url=http://www.motherjon es.com/news/outfront/2005/05/battlespace_america.h tml

I think if you relied less on TV news for your information, you might have a more accurate view of the ACLU.

For example, the ACLU of Texas recently worked with the NRA to ban consent searches, which police were using as an excuse to (amongst other things) trawl white guys' vehicles for guns.

The ACLU has also filed lawsuits to preserve people's right to say prayers.

And shoving your fingers deep into your ears and singing lalala doesn't make anything not true, so thanks for that nugget of information.

My previous statement had two salient points: 1. The NSA tapped or datamined information for possibly thousands of people and inundated the FBI with this information, according to the NYTimes. 2. Noted journalist Christopher Hitchens, a pro-Iraq war writer, has joined the case against the NSA along with the ACLU and EFF.

Further reports indicate that not only Hitchens, but also Christine Amanpour a CNN reporter as well as many others also had their phone tapped. This program was far-reaching, did not follow the FISA requirements, and was lied about by current Attorney General Gonzales while under oath and by President Bush during a press conference.

This program did not merely focus on "immigrants" but on many more people and included domestic calls within the United States.

Finally, these are internet links so I guess they can't be true since the seem to put some rent into your well-defined reality.

And perhaps, just perhaps, there were warrants granted on the domestic numbers (they did get thousands of warrants, after all). You don't know, and neither do I... and that's all I'm trying to say.

Don't know what?. That calls were tapped but warrants not issued?

But we do know that (or know it as much as we can say to know it based on the President's admission of such; if the President is misleading us in this then of course we would be being mislead) calls were tapped but warrants neither sought nor issued based on the President's admission of such. That's not at issue.

At issue is whether the Constitution dissolves when Congress declares war. If it does, then the President (who would at that point no longer be President) is as free to ignore the Fourth Amendment as anyone else is. If it does not, then the President remains bound, and [t]he 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.

The entire Administration argument turns on the definition of reasonable. The Administration claims, in effect, that it is reasonable for the government to conduct these kinds of searches in time of war.

On the surface, this might itself seem a reasonable argument. But among Constitutional scholars and lawmakers this issue of the definition of reasonableness in the Fourth is a well understood, well visited issue.

Our Constitution vests the power of interpreting the law in the Judiciary (not the Executive) branch. The Constitution provides for the Legislative branch to create laws to guide the judiciary in it's interpretation. The Courts have already spoken on this issue. (For a full analysis, read the ALCU brief [PDF Warning] yourself.) In a nutshell, when Congress makes clear in statute how reasonable is to be interpreted (as it did with FISA) the President must abide.

The Administration seems to be claiming that it is only bound by the language of the Constitution itself; that any law made by Congress cannot affect the Executive branch, and therefore FISA has no standing.

Now maybe they're wrong (in which case Bush should be impeached) or maybe they're right (and Federal law does not apply to them). In either case, there should at least be an independent investigation to determine who's right.

Of course if Bush is right, then having the Supreme Court confirm it is just a waste of time, since the Judicial Branch would have no more power over the President that the Legislative branch has.

I would ask you to consider a hypothetical question, though:

Suppose the Supreme Court affirms Bush's authority in exactly the way he claims it should. Then suppose some future Congress, under circumstances it deems warranted, sees it prudent to grant some future President an authorization to go to War.

(One might imagine a scenario where a charismatic but clearly insane psuedo-Hitler gains office on a "Let's Nuke France" platform and, upon taking the Oath, France issues a Statement of Policy expressing a desire for Regime Change in the US.)

Suppose such a Congress, mindful of the Courts decision but for reasons it deems warranted, sees it prudent to restrict that future President's power to engage in certain activities during the prosecution of a War to defend the Nation. (We might imagine such restricted activities might include evesdropping of the kind currently being discussed, but imagine the issue was to be treated more broadly, for example Congress wants to grant the President the power to wage war against the enemy France, but not allow an invasion of neutral Belgium in the process.) W

I checked aclu.org, and even read some of the articles linked there, but was unable to find Some Bleeding-Heart's Cry of Foul Play against a Pedophile. Could you please provide a direct link to this work of literature, or perhaps a .torrent file? I'd like to burn it to DVD.

I got an invite to the ACLU, who's currently running this campaign is apparently buying mailing lists from the public radio station I support. Compiling lists of data from non-customers/members for abuse while blaming other people for the problem isn't exclusive to the spyware industry.

When somebody prays or carries out other religious expression during meetings or on government property, it does not force everyone else to support their religion.

I agree. So does the ACLU. The ACLU has involved itself in just these sorts of cases and issues. It's why they supported allowing a grade-school student sing a religious song in a talent show. They supported the right of jurors to engage in religious expression. They've repeatedly defended the rights of students to express their religion by spoken and written word on public school property.

The ACLU isn't hostile to religion. But they see a clear line where the state should not cross. They draw that line differently from you (they would suggest that the government spending money on a religious display for a particular faith would be out of line), but they're hardly rabidly anti-religious.

Unless of course, it's the ability to carry out prayer or other religioius expression during meetings or on government property. Then the ACLU is indeed forcing government (courts) to take your rights away.

Indeed. Except, of course, for those one or two exceptions. Like the ACLU supporting a second-grader's righ to sing "Awesome God" at a talent show. Or defending the right of jurors to engage in religious expression. Or defending the right of students to wear t-shirts with religious messages to school. Or protecting a church from eviction. Or protecting the right of a minister to preach on public streets. Or protecting the right to perform baptisms in public parks. Or stopping schools from censoring religious yearbook entries. Or defending students who distribute religious messages on campus. Or joining Jerry Falwell to protect a church's right to incorporate. Or defending a religious group's right to advertise on city subways. Other than that, the ACLU sure wants to take your rights away.

Back on subject, if the thought that ~36 authorizations of international phone calls were tapped after significant concern about terrorism was called in bothers you, then you have some bigger issues. This is about international intelligence gathering and not the US Gov using "poisoned fruit" evidence in a criminal trial of a US citizen.

This is about the President publically declaring the executive branch has right to spy on Americans without a warrant. In direct violation of a law passed specifically to control the ability of the executive branch to spy on Americans to limit abuse by a President. If the president had even the slightest shred of evidence that a wiretap was required, he has a secret court he can ask permission from. The court has grants thousands of requests over the years, only rejecting four. He can even ask permission after the fact. This isn't about protecting us from terror. The executive branch already has the tools for that. This is about demanding absolute, unquestionable power in the name of fighting a war that can never be completely won. The President has announced that so long as he feels something is necessary to protect us from terrorism, a threat that will never go away, he can take whatever measures he feels is necessary. This is an insult to our laws, our Constitution, and our country. This is a Big Fucking Deal.

Anyone who wants to say the ACLU is on the side of angels should really read the complaint first. The ACLU along with CAIR, some folks from Al Haq, etc. are basically claiming that the Bush administration has impaired their ability to talk to and about terrorists and suspected terrorists.

There is already a powerful organization dedicated to protecting that particular civil liberty, so why should the ACLU waste resources doing the same?

At least if you're going to be dishonest, try to be clever. The ACLU doesn't just not "waste resources" protecting the 2nd Amendment, they are opposed to private gun ownership (private being the only kind that matters):

From http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.ht ml, ACLU Policy #47:

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.

This is ridiculous for a number of reasons, such as:

• Why is the 2nd Amendment the only one that declares a right of the government, rather than of the people?
• Would anyone honestly not mock similar reasoning if applied to freedom of speech? Why do we need blogs when we've got corporate newspapers? Or hell, lets just stick to official government propaganda. After all, the 1st Amendment says

  Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

  Did you see that? "Congress shall make no law... Clearly that means that the States can regulate religion, speech, and assembly however they see fit.

Does anybody honestly believe that only the government can be trusted with guns? The government? The crazy bastards that want to pray to Jebus in science class? The ones that spy on you illegaly? You wants those guys to have the guns?

And I'm not some crazy right-winger, I'm a crazy Libertarian; I'm in favor of on-demand abortions, shall-issue laws, and decriminalization.

You are such a clueless, bigoted moron. You just goaded me into donating $200 to the ACLU: http://www.aclu.org/join

National ACLU statement on Gun Rights.

"But, no matter who you are, you have to admit that the ACLU prevents you from losing anything that might be considered a civil liberty."

Unless, of course, you're talking about the right to own a gun. The ACLU doesn't care much about that particular civil liberty. Or freedom from racism - unless you're a non-white-male.

::Sigh::

Acting on Behalf of KKK and its Opponents, MN ACLU Questions Delay in Rally Permit Applications
http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/11081prs200 10815.html

ACLU Asks Court to Protect Confidentiality of Rush Limbaugh's Medical Records
http://www.aclu.org/privacy/medical/14969prs200401 12.html

"But, no matter who you are, you have to admit that the ACLU prevents you from losing anything that might be considered a civil liberty."

Unless, of course, you're talking about the right to own a gun. The ACLU doesn't care much about that particular civil liberty. Or freedom from racism - unless you're a non-white-male.

::Sigh::

Acting on Behalf of KKK and its Opponents, MN ACLU Questions Delay in Rally Permit Applications
http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/11081prs200 10815.html

ACLU Asks Court to Protect Confidentiality of Rush Limbaugh's Medical Records
http://www.aclu.org/privacy/medical/14969prs200401 12.html

Was reading of theses stupid lawsuit web sites and they had a lawsuit that the ACLU is helpping to file where they are sueing a local council member.

No link? Kind of hard to refute then, but...

This crime, he sent out, using his own money and time(his wife made them), Christmas cards that showed the Statue of Liberty and a cross on them to friends and acquantices. They are claim it was illegal since he has a seat of authority that it is an official endorsement of a particular religion.

Then I presume there was some reason for them to conclude that he was acting in his official capacity. According to you the website claims it was "friends and acquantices (sic)" but I'm pretty sure ACLU would only get upset if he were doing it in a way which implies a government endorsement of his religious beliefs. Furthermore I know ACLU has fought for expression of Religion, it's just that usually it's the 'other' religions which need the most protection given the dominance of Judaism and Christianity in this country.

Here are a couple cases of ACLU fighting *for* expression of religion:

ACLU of Rhode Island Files Appeal on Behalf of Christian Prisoner Barred from Preaching at Religious Services: here

ACLU of Michigan Defends Catholic Man Coerced to Convert to Pentecostal Faith in Drug Rehab Program (12/6/2005): here

and from that second article:
"The ACLU frequently defends the rights of free religious expression for all people. In Michigan, high school officials agreed to stop censoring religious yearbook entries after the ACLU intervened on behalf of a Christian student. In other states, the ACLU has supported the rights of students to distribute Christian literature at school. Recently, the ACLU of Indiana defended the First Amendment rights of a Baptist minister to preach his message on public streets."

So, enough of this bullshit myth spread by the neo-cons and the religious right that the ACLU is anti-religion.

-chris

Was reading of theses stupid lawsuit web sites and they had a lawsuit that the ACLU is helpping to file where they are sueing a local council member.

No link? Kind of hard to refute then, but...

This crime, he sent out, using his own money and time(his wife made them), Christmas cards that showed the Statue of Liberty and a cross on them to friends and acquantices. They are claim it was illegal since he has a seat of authority that it is an official endorsement of a particular religion.

Then I presume there was some reason for them to conclude that he was acting in his official capacity. According to you the website claims it was "friends and acquantices (sic)" but I'm pretty sure ACLU would only get upset if he were doing it in a way which implies a government endorsement of his religious beliefs. Furthermore I know ACLU has fought for expression of Religion, it's just that usually it's the 'other' religions which need the most protection given the dominance of Judaism and Christianity in this country.

Here are a couple cases of ACLU fighting *for* expression of religion:

ACLU of Rhode Island Files Appeal on Behalf of Christian Prisoner Barred from Preaching at Religious Services: here

ACLU of Michigan Defends Catholic Man Coerced to Convert to Pentecostal Faith in Drug Rehab Program (12/6/2005): here

and from that second article:
"The ACLU frequently defends the rights of free religious expression for all people. In Michigan, high school officials agreed to stop censoring religious yearbook entries after the ACLU intervened on behalf of a Christian student. In other states, the ACLU has supported the rights of students to distribute Christian literature at school. Recently, the ACLU of Indiana defended the First Amendment rights of a Baptist minister to preach his message on public streets."

So, enough of this bullshit myth spread by the neo-cons and the religious right that the ACLU is anti-religion.

-chris

It's really very simple. The ACLU did actually take a stand against ECHELON at the time. They setup a website to collect information on ECHELON in August of 1999 - http://www.aclu.org/privacy/spying/15059prs1999111 6.html

But did they file suit against Clinton? Heck no, Clinton was a Democrat president. The ACLU is a partizan organization and will not go after Clinton.

And now that a very small subset of the eavesdropping that Clinton's Administration instituted with Echelon is being done by a GOP administration ... Well ... it's lawsuit time. The ACLU is about as partizan as you can get.

Don't believe me? They even took down all the info at www.echelonwatch.org because now that the ACLU is sueing the W administration, it must cover up the fact that something MUCH worse was going on in the Clinton Administration. You can still check out the info at www.echelonwatch.org by using the wayback machine at http://www.archive.org/web/web.php

So yes, if you tend to be to the left of the aisle, you love the ACLU, but if you are a centrist or lean to the right, the ACLU can be seen for what it really is - The legal arm of the DNC.

I have no doubt I'll be modded down because of the extreme left leanings of /. But it doesn't make this any less true.

--MarkusQ