Crossposted From Stop The ACLU: Judge Roy Moore makes a New Years Resolution that I’m definitely on board with. Each year the American Civil Liberties Union and other liberal organizations continue their efforts to destroy traditional values that we o…

A day late, but better late than never….

There is no doubt that a certain amount of transparency is essential for a modern democracy to function honestly. However, taken to the extreme, complete transparency would effectively make our National Security impotent and threaten the ability of the…

Before we hand the decision making process of what should or shouldn’t be secret or in the public interest to extreme partisan organizations like the ACLU

Who’s suggesting that?

Judge Rakoff is notoriously liberal, having declared the death penalty unconstitutional in 2002 (a ruling quickly overturned), and earlier this year forcing the Pentagon to make public, thousands of pages of information on suspected terrorist detainees at Guantanamo Bay. So it’s understandable for prosecutors to not want to fight an unwinnable battle.

Um, that’s self-contradicting. If the prosecutors were to lose due to judicial prejudice as he’s suggesting, they could appeal just as they did in the death penalty case.

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.

That’s not a fair statement. It would not be unreasonable to say the “national security” scale already has enough mass of its own. You’re assuming that the ACLU would keep pushing and winning more concessions even if the balance shifted back to “civil liberties”.

When it comes to drawing the line between classified information and national security the ACLU’s record has never leaned toward the side of caution or national security.

How do you know that? Are you assuming they’ve released every document they’ve come to possess? Are you further assuming that they would have released everything, if only they could have acquired it?

It starts out badly and then gets worse.

“Control of our government’s intelligence agencies demands an end to tolerance of “national security” as grounds for the slightest departure from the constitutional boundaries which limit government conduct in other areas.”

Good point. Why should our spies have to worry about things like “constitutional boundaries”? That whole constitution thing is just Communist propaganda.

The government needs to step up and aggressively investigate and prosecute those that act, participate, aid and protect in the unlawful disclosure of our national security secrets.

…and? Such a crackdown would only be just in cases involving a leaked document that truly is sensitive. To simplify matters, they need to improve the classification process to the point where they can reasonably assume that all leaks are damaging.

Ms U signed up for this weekly intrusion when she made the mistake of giving me access to her site.
Crossposted from Stop The ACLU
There is no doubt that a certain amount of transparency is essential for a modern democracy to function honestly. …

…

by Jay
[Crossposted from Stop the ACLU]
There is no doubt that a certain amount of transparency is essential for a modern democracy to function honestly. However, taken to the extreme, complete transparency would effectively make our National Sec…