• Home
• About Us
• Petitions
• Email
• Store
• Log in
• Register

America Is Under Attack

Friday the New York Times leaked classified information that President Bush “secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on international phonecalls of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations. The ACLU, unconcerned with the Times’ compromising of National Security, called upon Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to appoint a special prosecutor to independently investigate the government.

On Thursday, McCain effectively gave the terrrorists their own Bill of Rights, and while the ACLU applauded this, they were still unhappy that it also extended rights to those that might be falsely accused of violating the terrorists newfound rights.

The ACLU are sueing the CIA to stop the transportation of terror suspects to countries outside US legal authority. Again, the ACLU are unconcerned over the leaking of classified information.

Another vital tool in the war on terror is the Patriot Act. The ACLU opposes it too. It is set to expire, and the ACLU are urging for that to happen.

Out of all the effective tools that America has to protect itself, I can’t think of one that the ACLU has not opposed. They oppose searches across the board. They advocate open borders. While they pretend to be concerned over American’s privacy, they dig up personal and private information on their own donors.

The ACLU are not only fighting every effort the government attempts to protect America, they are actively defending our enemies, to the point of telling detainees that they have a right to refuse to answer their interregators. Its nothing new, they have a long history of defending the enemy when America is at war.

Perhaps there is no other issue as fragile to the preservation of our liberties than a careful balance between civil liberties and our national security. To its credit, the ACLU recognizes the danger if the scales are tipped too far to the side of national security, however it doesn’t seem to acknowledge the danger if the scales are reversed.

On July 12, 1990, Morton Halperin, who at that time was director of the Washington Office of the ACLU, testified before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence: “The ACLU is deeply troubled by the notion that there is a national security exception to the Fourth Amendment or any part of the Bill of Rights. We regard those rights as fundamental and absolute.”

“Absolute” is the key word to understanding the ACLU. Its absolutist philosophies, just as any extremist view, endangers the very civil liberties it claims to protect.

In the debate on civil liberties and National Security you will hear a Benjamin Franklin quote thrown at you often that states, “Those willing to give up a little liberty for a little security deserve neither security nor liberty.” First of all, we are not talking about a little liberty for a little security, we are talking about the very real possibility of thousands being blown up, that may be prevented by minor inconveniences. Second, I want someone to show me where one person’s liberties have been violated through the Patriot Act, or one person who has been damaged by a phone tap that was actually innocent. You can’t.

In his book “Twilight of Liberty”, William Donahue compares Halperins views of liberty with that of Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson said, “A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country, by scrupulous adherence to written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us: thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means.”

There is no doubting the ACLU’s concern that there are untrustworthy public officials who will invoke national security as a cloak to cover their own wrongdoings; the pages of history are full of them. But does that mean that the only proper response is to make absolute the Bill of Rights, even in those clear-cut instances when the nation’s viability is seriously called into question: It is fair to say that most who have studied the question would prefer to side with Jefferson on this matter.” Twilight of Liberty pg 172

After 9-11, the ACLU and its leftist cohorts spearheaded a movement to depict the US in general – and the airline industry in particular – as a snake pit of bigoted vipers eager to abuse and humiliate Muslims and Middle Easterners. The statistics, however, tell quite another story. During the nine months immediately following 9-11, the ADC received a mere 60 reports of incidents where airline security personnel prevented “Arab-looking” male passengers from flying as scheduled. While this may have been an annoying inconvenience for those affected, six or seven complaints per month is hardly an epidemic – particularly in light of the fact that the most devastating attack in American history had just been carried out by nineteen men of virtually identical physical, ethnic, and religious characteristics”.

“From 9-11 to the present day, the ACLU has vigorously opposed every governmental attempt to more effectively protect the American people’s security. It sued, for example, to prevent the implementation of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, which was passed in November 2001 and included a citizenship requirement for airport screeners. It organized protests against a “discriminatory” Justice Department and INS registration system requiring male “temporary visitors” to the US from 25 Arab and Muslim nations to register with the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services. It condemned the FBI’s “discriminatory” plan to count and document every mosque in the US. It protested when FBI and Homeland Security agents recently tried to track down illegal Iraqi immigrants they deemed dangerous. In Illinois, the ACLU actually set up a hotline designed to give free legal advice to undocumented Iraqis facing deportation. Former ACLU Executive Director Ira Glasser casually dismissed Americans’ concerns about illegal immigration, chalking such sentiments up to a “wave of anti-immigrant hysteria.”

“The ACLU further claims that the Patriot Act has created an Orwellian big government of unprecedented proportions. “Under the new Ashcroft guidelines,” reads one of its disingenuous press releases, “the FBI can freely infiltrate mosques, churches and synagogues and other houses of worship, listen in on online chat rooms and read message boards even if it has no evidence that a crime might be committed.” Curiously, the ACLU does not mention that the FBI already had the authority to take these measures long before the Bush administration took power. Nor does the ACLU point out that the FBI can wiretap only after showing a court that the suspect is affiliated with a foreign terrorist group or government – the very same requirement instituted 25 years ago by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act”.

“What the ACLU is actually rebelling against is the Justice Department’s recent removal of Clinton-era intelligence-gathering restrictions that had crippled the government’s ability to fight terrorism. These restrictions prohibited intelligence investigators from conferring and sharing information with criminal investigators, even if they were both trailing the very same suspect who was plotting a terrorist act. On August 29, 2001, for instance, an FBI investigator in New York desperately pleaded for permission to initiate an intensive manhunt for al-Qaeda operative Khalid Almihdar, who was known to be planning something big. The Justice Department and the FBI deputy general counsel’s office both denied the request, explaining that because the evidence linking Almihdar to terrorism had been obtained through intelligence channels, it could not legally be used to justify or aid an FBI agent’s criminal investigation; in short, it would constitute a violation of Almihdar’s “civil rights.” “Someday, someone will die,” the agent wrote to his FBI superiors, “and the public will not understand why we were not more effective and throwing every resource we had at certain problems.” Thirteen days later, Almihdar took over the cockpit of American Airlines Flight 77 and crashed it into the PentagonExerpt Front Page Magazine

One of the most revealing occurances towards the ACLU’s absolutist position on national security and its recent evolution can be seen in the action the board of directors took at its Oct 1989 meeting: It dropped section (a) from its policy, “Wartime Sedition Act.” Before, the ACLU held that it “would not participate (save for fundamental due process violations) in defense of any person believed to be “cooperating” with or acting on behalf of the enemy.” This policy was based on the recognition that “our own military enemies are now using techniques of propaganda which may involve an attempt to prevent the Bill of Rights to serve the enemy rather than the people of the United States.” In making its determination as to whether someone were cooperating with the enemy, “the Union will consider such matters as past activities and associations, sources of financial support, relations with enemy agents, the particular words and conduct involved, and all other relevant factors for informed judgement.”
Source
All of this is now omitted from the Official ACLU policy!

As these policy changes indicate, balancing national security interests and civil liberties is not a goal of the ACLU. Its only goal is the absolute pursuit of unlimited civil liberties, with no regard to any consequence or negative impact upon our security. Not only does it ignore the issue of national security, but there are many examples I have shown where they actually work against it, even to the point of defending the enemy. The absolute tragedy is that it is not only the nations’s security the ACLU’s absolutist philosophy puts in danger, but the very cause of liberty itself. We’ve also saw recently the attitude of the ACLU to securing our borders, again civil liberties trump national security, their refusal of contributions because of anti-terrorism stipulations, sueing New York for trying to protect its subways, and even wanting to help the enemy keep its secrets from interragators. Is all of this not enough for Congress to do some kind of investigation? Write your Congressman and tell them you want an investigation on the ACLU immediatly before its too late.

America is under attack, not only from without, but from within. Not only is America under attack from extremist Muslims from outside our borders, our very defenses are being attacked from inside by our own extremist organizations right under our noses.

They pursue their radical agenda with your taxdollars.

Sign The Petition To Get The ACLU Off The Taxpayer’s Dole

 Email This

Posted by Jay on December 20, 2005 8:38 am

» Filed Under Border Control/Homeland Security, News, PETITIONS, War On Terror

Trackback URL:

• Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator: Once-Lone Foe of Patriot Act Has Company
• Pundits My *ss: Tap My Phone! Please!
• The Young Conservatives: How Soon They Forget
• Stop The ACLU » Blog Archive » ACLU Freedom of Information Request Would Gut NSA Program pinged this post.
• Stop The ACLU » Blog Archive » Essential Liberties pinged this post.

Comments

Copyright © 2007 - Stop The ACLU
Based on the PSimple Theme Powered By Wordpress, Original theme created By Paggu

Twitter links powered by Tweet This v1.6.1, a WordPress plugin for Twitter.