American Criminal Liberties Union
Posted on July 13, 2006
Update: Right on cue, the ACLU are sueing for prisoners’ “right” to have access to porn.
I am going to assume that most people can agree that America’s population is found across a vast political spectrum. From libertarians and liberals to moderates and conservatives we find each other across a broad field on ideas and issues. Many times we can all agree that certain things are problems within society yet be on the opposite extremes on how to solve that problem. One of the problems of society that most people can agree on is that of crime. The solution to reducing this problem most likely is found somewhere in the middle and not the extremes.
One of the purposes of the Constitution is to ensure domestic tranquility. Due process, the Fifth Amendment right, is a procedural right, one that defines the methods that can properly be used to ensure domestic tranquility. Without both, there can be no liberty. Domestic tranquility can easily be achieved without respect for due process, as dictatorships throughout history have shown. It is also quite possible to have a society where due process is respected-even considered sacrosanct-and still lack for domestic tranquility. The latter predicament more closely resembles the situation in the United States today.Source
The ACLU in its extreme ideals of society unravels due process from the reasons it was created to serve. The ACLU maintains that it is their purpose to ensure due process and the police to tend to domestic tranquility. I agree that the roles should be separate. I think the opposite would be an invitation to disaster. The ACLU’s sincerity in their statement might be more believable if, as we shall show, they were not so often in opposition of law enforcement. It is generally accepted that domestic tranquility is absolutely necessary to the process of liberty. What is often less understood is how the exclusive concern for due process can also be damaging to liberty.
I think we can all agree on how important domestic tranquility is to maintaining liberty. What good are all of our freedoms if we are afraid to practice them? The only liberties worth having are ones that we can enjoy without fear. This simply can’t be done if a society is filled with crime and violence.
The ACLU do not share these moderate views on society. They have a much more extreme viewpoint.
“According to the ACLU,” writes Jeffrey Leeds, “there is no right to live in a quiet or pleasant society, but there is a right to speak, to seek to persuade, to have unpopular or even stupid views. Moreover, there is no right even to live in a safe society. The ACLU will work to vindicate a convicted criminal’s rights to due process, even if it means setting a killer free.”Source
Leeds isn’t exaggerating. One ACLU official Dorothy Ehrlich can be quoted as saying, “the citizens’ need to be ‘free from criminal activity’….is not, in the legal sense, a ‘right’ at all (and thus is nowhere mentioned in the Bill of Rights) but, rather, an essential social good, like fire prevention, or adequate medical care, or the prevention of famine.” Source
Funny that an official from the ACLU is stating that if a right isn’t mentioned in the Constitution then it isn’t a right at all. After all, this is the organization that defends abortion on demand, and the sale of child porn. These are not mentioned in the Constitution either.
The ACLU’s skewed views toward crime can also be seen in its approach toward crime victims. The ACLU has shown very little interest in the rights of crime victims. When it comes down to it, the rights of criminals seem to always override the rights of the victims. For example, the ACLU opposes the use of a crime victim impact statement in capital sentencing because it “unconstitutionally requires consideration of factors which have no bearing on the defendant’s responsibility or guilt.” Of course the courts have ruled otherwise.
While the ACLU says they have our liberty as its mission, its policies in the area of criminal justice have only aggravated and accelerated the already terrible problems of maintaining domestic tranquility. Their opposition to the death penalty doesn’t bother me by itself. It is the ACLU general attitude toward criminal justice as a whole that I deem dangerous. Throughout its history it has fought many court battles to:
Eliminate all prison sentencing from criminal judicial procedure except in a few “extreme” cases of utter incorrigibility-and only then as the penalty of last resort.Source
Let me briefly interrupt my list for a little perspective on this particular policy.
In conjunction with their opposition to the death penalty in all cases this particular policy is quite disturbing to me. It would seem that the ACLU wants rehabilitation and probation to be the primary means of preventing crime in all but the most extreme cases.
“Deprivation of an individual’s physical freedom is one of the most severe interferences with liberty that the state can impose. Moreover, imprisonment is harsh, frequently counterproductive, and costly.” This explains why the ACLU holds that “a suspended sentence with probation should be the preferred sentence, to be chosen generally unless the circumstances plainly call for greater severity.” The Union favors alternative sentencing and lists the reintegration of the offender into the community as “the most appropriate correctional approach.” Here’s the clincher: “probation should be authorized by the legislature in every case and exceptions to the principle are not favored.” Prior to 1991, when this policy was revised, the Union said that only such serious crimes as “murder or treason” should qualify as exceptions. The explicit referencing of those two crimes was deleted because of the public embarrassment it caused the organization.Source
Let us continue with the list:
Disallow capital punishment in any and all situations as a violation of the constitution’s “cruel and unusual punishment” clause;
Discredit deterrence as a basis for incarceration;
Oppose rehabilitative confinement;
Block all sentencing guidelines that seek restitution to the victims of criminal behavior;
Mandate suspended sentences with probation as the primary form of “treatment” for criminal offenders;
Restrict all court sentencing discretion through the legislative process or direct judicial intervention in trial proceedings-thus severely crippling the principle of trial by jury;
Eliminate all mandatory sentencing laws;
Facilitate mandatory early parole and release programs;
And, oppose new construction or expansion of jails, prisons, and detention centers. Source
In addition the ACLU is also involved in limiting the power of law enforcement to maintain domestic tranquility:
Severely restrict search and arrest procedures even when evidence of guilt is available;
Hinder protective or corrective police action at crime scenes;
Invalidate airport bomb detectors, drunk driving checkpoints, periodic or random drug screening, and other preventative security measures;
Prohibit the free exchange of criminal records between law enforcement agencies;
Limit even the most sound and non-prejudicial police interrogation and investigation techniques;
Institute national or regional bureaucratic control over law enforcement agencies-thus effectively, removing local accountability;
Severely restrict riot control, swat team, and antiterrorist activities and efforts;
Make most surveillance operations, stakeout procedures, and community crackdowns illegal;
Prohibit the eviction of drug dealers and other incorrigibles from public housing projects;
Deregulate and decriminalize all “victimless crimes”-such as prostitution, drug use and abuse, gambling, sodomy, or the production , exhibition, and sale of vile and obscene materials-despite the proven link between such vices and serious crime.Source
There is one recommendation that the ACLU makes on how to stem crime: strong gun control legislation. It adopted its first gun-control policy in the late sixties which was actually pretty reasonable. For the sake of brevity on such a broad topic I will not quote it. Suffice it to say that most of today’s liberals would not agree with it.
However…
In 1971 the Union took the position that the ownership of guns, any guns, aside from guns owned by the militia, was not constitutionally protected.Source
The ACLU’s policy towards the second amendment is:
“The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court’s long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual’s right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms.”
It is strange for the ACLU to use such a dated ruling as precedent, when many more recent cases have ruled otherwise.
The ACLU’s approach to crime, its prevention, and punishment clearly are not in the mainstream opinion of most Americans. The organization has consistently been an adversary of law enforcement. The Union’s perspective is almost entirely focused on the criminal which makes many people conclude that rather being a defender of civil liberties, the ACLU is actually the champion of criminal liberties.
Roger Baldwin once actually admitted that he could not in good conscience serve on a jury because he simply “would never take part in convicting anyone.” When asked how society could possibly continue to exist without some sort of penal justice system, eh tersely snapped, “That’s your problem.”Source
The ACLU’s pandering to criminals, lack of interest in true victims, and opposition to law enforcement are not solutions to society’s burden with crime. I advise everyone to use common sense, and not to follow the extreme positions of the ACLU when it comes to preventing and punishing crime.
This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay or Gribbit. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 200 blogs already on-board.
» Filed Under 2nd Amendment, ACLU, Illegal Activities, News, War On Terror
Trackback URL
Comments
23 Responses to “American Criminal Liberties Union”
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Advertise
Donate
Suggestions
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
You put a great deal of effort into this one Jay and it shows.
Now waiting for the “three stooges” to show.
Yes I did Lobo, thank you for noticing.
Amazing post Jay. Well worth the extra time to read it. Excellant insight.
The easiest way to lower crime rates is to make less stuff illegal - I’m talking mostly of drug laws. I don’t have the figures in front of me, but I think we can all agree that the majority of crime in the US stems from illegal drugs. Repeal the drug laws, and watch crime rates plummet. The negative effects would be negligible, considering that even with laws in place, those who want drugs don’t have much trouble getting them. For most people they’re only a phone call away. The positives would be numerous. There would be far less crime, and income taxes would go down because we’d spend far less on law enforcement. Drugs could still be regulated, and I’d have no problem with the government taxing the hell out of them. If you’re stupid enough to use hard drugs, the least you can do is pay a stupid tax.
“According to the ACLU… there is no right to live in a quiet or pleasant society, but there is a right to speak, to seek to persuade, to have unpopular or even stupid views.”
Golly. How terrible is it that people are allowed to have “unpopular or even stupid views”, Jay? Why, the very thought that someone would express an opinion that you don’t agree with must give you the screaming heebie-jeebies.
Now, where does the ACLU say that “there is no right to live in a quiet or pleasant society”? Quoting someone who merely claims that this is the ACLU’s view just doesn’t cut it, Jay. Show us the primary source for this attribution.
“The easiest way to lower crime rates is to make less stuff illegal - I’m talking mostly of drug laws.”
Well, that’s brilliant. If we made murder legal we could lower crime too right? Why have any laws? Brilliant.
“Repeal the drug laws, and watch crime rates plummet.”
And take society with it. The negative effects would not be “negligible” either. While you’re right that it may not be difficult for some to acquire drugs your solution is to make it easier and cheaper for them to buy, unless you think the goverment is going to tax it so bad it is unaffordable.
“Why, the very thought that someone would express an opinion that you don’t agree with must give you the screaming heebie-jeebies.”
When their opinion happens to be in agreement with the ACLU, you bet.
Excellent post Jay. Really reveals the fine details! Love Gribbits post on racisim too but I cannot post a comment letting him know. Nothing worse than a black racist in power. Keep up the good work!
Have fun punching that straw man.
I don’t know why I feel the need to refute this ridiculous argument, but… Murder places other people in obvious and immediate harm, while taking drugs doesn’t. When you get down to it, drugs aren’t so bad if taken in moderation. Hell, I’d be willing to bet that if drugs were legal, alcohol would still cause more problems.
Are you saying that drugs don’t cause harm to other people? I don’t agree with that. I have watched them ruin families, finances,and relationships. Don’t justify that by saying alcohol does too. Don’t justify one bad thing with another.
Brilliant post Jay!..well done..Heard ya on WAR as well..Keep up the good fight!..Not sure why my tb didn’t go thru..but I’m behind u all the way.:)
I never said drugs don’t ever harm other people. The difference between drugs and murder is that murder necessarily harms other people, while drugs don’t. What I really don’t like is legislating based on potential harm. Sure, there may be some exceptions, but just because something may cause harm to others doesn’t mean that we need to outlaw it. I only bring up alcohol to point out that there is an obvious double standard. I think you see the parallels, too, so is it your suggestion that we also ban alcohol?
No, my personal suggestion is to decriminalize marijuana, but not the hard drugs. Not even cocaine…I’ve watched it ruin many lives. Drug addiction isn’t some liberty to be won, it is the opposite. It is a form of slavery. You become a slave to the drug.
Nice work Jay.
I would add that a compounding factor and more manifestly insidious tactic in the ACLU’s rabid campaign to throw our entire system into chaos is their psychotic tendency to hurl themselves headlong — EVERY SINGLE TIME — into the defense of our enemies.
So not only does the ACLU seek to inject turmoil into domestic law enforcement affairs, but works tirelessly to leave us exposed to threats from without. Can anyone seriously conclude that when the ACLU fights doggedly to hamstring our efforts to defeat jihadism that they are REALLY fighting for some higher principle? The ACLU’s history is an uninterrupted excercise in identifying the enemies of this country and the enemies of its people by throwing their full force behind nurturing and promoting all manner of perversity, violence and subversion. How else do you explain their defense of child molesters, child rape advocates, the distribution of child porn, attempts to secure full constitutional protections for illegal terrorist combatants during wartime, attempts to thwart monitoring of terrorists, support of imprisoned felons in pursuit of porn…it goes on and on and a study of the history of the ACLU reveals an unbroken pattern of the same.
Bottom line: The ACLU is an enemy of the people of this country, but thankfully, every day the public uncovers more of their agenda…and we don’t like it. As the saying goes, “Sunlight is the best disinfectant.” Keep shining that light Jay.
I was going to do a separate post on this, but I figure it is appropriate to supplement Jay’s post and my own above comment since it ties both of our points together.
Visit this link: http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/17444res20040528.html
The ACLU identifies these guides as “Know Your Rights” brochures. Look at the languages the ACLU has chosen for translation. Notice something? Pretty easy to figure out:
All the languages chosen for their “How to Use US Laws Against the US, Especially if You are Here Illegally and Intend to Hurt the US” guides happen to be either:
1) Better suited for Appendix A in al-Qaeda’s “Living Well While You Plan Jihad in the US” chapter in “Terrorism for Dummies” (bin Laden, 2006)
2) Available free at every Mexican consulate in the country.
This is yet another example of the ACLU identifying the enemies of this nation and doing whatever they can to assist them in their pursuit to either compromise US sovereignty or just plain erase us from existence.
I used to think that groups like the ACLU simply had a different view of the law and what we are as a nation. The more I learn, the more we encounter the next ACLU outrage, the more I am convinced that this organization exists only to produce the chaos in which it best thrives. There is nothing American, Civil or Liberty-loving about these tyrants, only a twisted adherence to an ideology — radical secularism — that has resulted in more human slaughter and suffering than any any other in world history.
OK — one more thing, just so there is no misunderstanding:
I do not think that individuals, peaceful Mexican illegals are “enemies” in the same sense that jihadi terrorists are. I do however think that the continuing flow of illegal immigrants over our southern border, the economic turmoil created by the same particularly in border town hospitals, schools, etc. and the inordinate number of criminality among illegals is a threat to our sovereignty. Without getting too far into this debate, I also think our government is at fault for allowing this distaster to metastasize.
So, no illegal are generally not an immediate physical threat as terrorists certainly are. The main point was that ACLU has decided to support those who have no regard for this country’s laws or the lives of those who live here legally.
Captain: Its not a straw man, its YOUR argument. Murder harms other people, and so do drugs, including marijuana. I also think its a ridiculous assertion to think that heroin is harmless if taken in moderation. What are you, liberatarian?
It’s a classic straw man argument. The rest of us are discussing drugs, but you say I also must be for legalizing murder and then argue against that.
I can name hundreds of potentially harmful things that are legal, and I think drugs should fall into that category. The key here is that they’re only potentially harmful - i.e. when they are abused.
And regarding your closing question: Nah, I defy labels! If you have to call me something, call me progressive.
Where does the ACLU say that “there is no right to live in a quiet or pleasant society”? Still no primary source from you, Jay.
One would think that you don’t have that source… that you rely almost entirely on hearsay.
“Where does the ACLU say that “there is no right to live in a quiet or pleasant society”? Still no primary source from you, Jay.”
Your incredulous demand indicates two things: 1) You don’t believe Jay that the ACLU would say such a thing and 2) that you would be troubled by such a statement. So, if Jay (or someone else here) were to produce a primary source, you’d have to believe him and you’d have to concede that his post assumes a level credibility you are unwilling to assign it sans the primary source.
This standard doesn’t make much sense anyway as the case that Jay has built is not dependent on this single quote, rather it was a peripheral element that bolsters his argument, but does not make or break it. That you have selected this one minor point to quibble about indicates that you cannot argue the big picture and would rather avoid the issue with intentional obscurantism and misdirection. This is the tactic of someone who knows he’s been drubbed but insists on sticking around looking quite toolish.
That said, you have set yourself up to be embarrassed. I have no problem with someone asking for a source. That is a common thing in a debate. However, it seems to me that you don’t understand the appropriate conditions under which you’d demand a source and, as demonstrated in an earlier attack on Jay, you move the goalposts when you don’t like the result (I am referring to your silly demand to see where the ACLU had made an argument in a legal brief when the assertion Jay had made had nothing to do with anything from a court filing, but what an ACLU rep was quoted as saying in a news story — you must know what I’m talking about).
Here’s your source:
Dorothy Ehrlich, “The ‘Criminals’ Lobby’ Dissents,” ACLU News, October 1981, p. 4
A publication OF the ACLU, BY the ACLU…primary enough for you?
I’ll understand if this is all too much for you to to take.
“Your incredulous demand indicates two things…”
Put the straw man back in the barn, sparky. Attributing to your opponents viewpoints that they have not expressed is a transparently fallacious ploy.
“…it seems to me that you don’t understand the appropriate conditions under which you’d demand a source…”
Excuse me? Explain to me why I need to pay the slightest attention to your “appropriate conditions under which [I would] demand a source”. Believe it or not, I don’t need your permission.
I’ll see if I can find a copy of the document you claim is Jay’s primary source. I find it interesting that you have to reach back 25 years to document a viewpoint that Jay claims the ACLU holds now. It’s also quite typical that Jay can’t produce his own primary sources. Is he utterly incapable of defending his own opinions?
meatbrain…your foot-stamping, squirming, red-faced on the kitchen floor response is classic!
I don’t think you know what “straw man” means…explain how you are applying the term to the excerpt you’ve chosen.
“Excuse me?”
Was your lip quivering here…was your chin getting all scrunchy and dimpled? Seems you can’t take it when someone points out your lack of ability to make one valid point in this game.
“you have to reach back 25 years to document a viewpoint that Jay claims the ACLU holds now.”
Ha! The source, Crusty Old Dorothy, still heads the ACLU of Northern California. I suppose you’ll try to convince me she’s “Come to Jesus” and repudiated her own viewpoint.
Once again — Jay used the quote to bolster his other rock-solid points. The entire argument DID NOT depend on that one accurate and highly applicable quote.
Please reread points 1) and 2) above…they still hold and you have no way to rebut other than to pout.
“Restrict all court sentencing discretion through the legislative process…
Eliminate all mandatory sentencing laws”
Mr. Stephenson, these two supposed goals of the ACLU are contradictory. Do you bother to read this nonsense before you cut and paste?
meatpie…you look like Ken Shamrock after another Tito Ortiz beatdown.
Good day, I’ll consider that a tap out.
“Then she does not speak for the national ACLU organization.”
I have to hit you on this one…so the leader of one of the largest offices in the nation can just say all manner of things that conflict with national and still keep a job for nearly three decades? HaaaaaaaaaaaaaHaaaaaaaaaaHaaaaaaaa…you can’t really belive this. We already know how the ACLU deals with apostasy.
I think you may want to regroup and reconsider whether you want to stick around here and continue getting your meatbrain handed to you.