Enemy Within Part III
Posted on July 20, 2005
First of all welcome Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiller Readers! Want to thank Misha for adding me to the blogroll there. Also thanks to Sigmund, Carl and Alfred for linking to us!
Thanks Mudville Gazette
So far in this series I have shown how the ACLU’s past has revealed their support for terrorist organizations and their opposition towards methods to fight it. (See Part I and Part II).
There are many examples of how the ACLU opposes efforts by our government to fight terrorism, and how they show support towards the enemy today.
A few examples of this are the ACLU’s opposition to the no-fly list, border control, and the CFC Watch List which would require charities to check their employees and expenditures against several government watch lists for “terrorist activities”.
But one issue in particular catches my attention. In October of 2004, the ACLU turned down $1.15 million in funding from two of it’s most generous and loyal contributors, the Ford and Rockefeller foundations, saying new anti-terrorism restrictions demanded by the institutions make it unable to accept their funds.
“The Ford Foundation now bars recipients of its funds from engaging in any activity that “promotes violence, terrorism, bigotry, or the destruction of any state.”
The Rockefeller Foundation’s provisions state that recipients of its funds may not “directly or indirectly engage in, promote, or support other organizations or individuals who engage in or promote terrorist activity.”Source
Does this strike anyone else as odd? The ACLU states that the language of the grants are too vague and could have a “chilling effect” on civil liberties. Vague? I don’t know how the organizations could have been more clear. They didn’t want thier money going to support or promote terrorist activity. The ACLU obviously had a problem with this.
So what does the ACLU use its money to do?
Ben Johnson of Front Page Magazine points out:
The ACLU has also shown itself a willing tool of the terrorists, waging a massive anti-anti-terrorism legal campaign. This pillar of the legal Left denounced the government’s requirement that men aged 16-25 holding “temporary visas” from nations with known ties to terrorism register with the INS; represented Sami al-Arian, the North American fundraiser and co-founder of Palestinian Islamic Jihad (filing a brief upholding his inalienable right to fresh briefs!); rallied on behalf of convicted al-Qaeda benefactor Maher Mofeid Hawash; urged local communities not to cooperate with federal anti-terror investigations; and opposed the FBI’s monitoring Islamist mosques. As David Horowitz notes in his book Unholy Alliance, radical Center for Constitutional Rights lawyer Ron Kuby notes the “passionate…identification” most lawyers feel with their clients, such as that of convicted terror enabler Lynne Stewart for World Trade Center bomber Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman. Given her aid for international Islamic terrorism, the government is right to keep a watchful eye on those who perpetually side with the enemy.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.”
All of this has now been dropped from the official ACLU Policy. Twilight Of Liberty
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.
I don’t know about you, but positions like this makes me suspicious of the ACLU’s intentions, and what their money goes towards. As a matter of fact, I’ve shown you a history of how they use their funds to defend terrorists, and they still do so today. The sad thing is they are using your tax money to do so.
The United States Congress, roughly thirty years ago, passed a provision in United States Code section 1988 that requires taxpayers to pay attorneys in civil rights cases. I don’t want my tax money supporting an organization that defends terrorists organizations and the sworn enemies of the United States.
Please join me in signing this Petition To Stop Taxpayer Funding of The ACLU
Visit Our Stop The ACLU Store
This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst! If you would like to join us, register at the Protest The ACLU Portal. You will be added to our mailing list and emailed further instructions.
Sites already on board are listed in the right sidebar.
Thanks Outside the Beltway
Look what Basil’s having for dinner.
» Filed Under Illegal Activities, War On Terror
Trackback URL
Comments
16 Responses to “Enemy Within Part III”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Donate
Steal Me
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
Did you read my post last week, sounds familiar…great post, one of my favorite subjects too.
Nice post, Jay, check out the AZ site. Can we get it added to the blogburst list?
Britain’s been attacked again by the enemy within.
Jay I threw up a post and links back to your three part series.
http://www.team-swap.com/wordpress/2005/07/21/aclu-terrorism/
Well, the ACLU is certainly consistent. I wonder, as my blogburst entry postulates, did the ACLU refuse the money from the Ford Foundation because they didn’t “like” the wording of their policy, or because they felt they couldn’t obey the wording?
Since your Trackback isn’t working, let’s carve one out of a comment:
I don’t want to ‘bulldoze’ the ACLU, as is mentioned here, but if that’s really what it takes to fulfill its mandate - let ‘er rip. Looks like we’re generally due for an overhaul of many of our institutions of ‘reform’ - the U.N., the Pew Charitable Trust, the ACLU and so on. But in this lies a key concept we’ve grown to understand: Institutionalizing an ideal inevitably kills it.
Hey did you guys know, you are linked over at Discoverthenetwork.org??…Your interview with a former ACLU lawyer is there…How cool is that !!!!
RR
I am of the general same outlook. We need a civil liberties union looking out for our rights…but ACLU is not that. I would love to see reform, but if it takes destruction then so be it.
And by the way, my post is up. I did on their defense of NAMBLA.
Hope you guys like.
RR
Thats very cool RR! Comin to see your post now.
Jay,
About your trackbacks…I’m in the middle of moving and should be settled in next week…I’ll fix it all then.
John
Thanks John, I understand you’ve had a lot going on.
“The ACLU states that the language of the grants [from the Ford Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation] are too vague and could have a ‘chilling effect’ on civil liberties. Vague? I don’t know how the organizations could have been more clear.”
You’re right, it couldn’t be more clear. And there’s no reason the ACLU should agree to abandon the civil liberties of US soldiers.
The Ford Foundation bars recipients from engaging in any activity that “promotes violence, terrorism bigotry, or the destruction of any state.” US soldiers are trained for the express purpose of engaging in violence, and attacked Iraq for the express purpose of destroying that state. Obviously the ACLU would reject this requirement.
The Rockefeller Foundation says recipients may not “directly or indirectly engage in, promote, or support other organizations or individuals who engage in or promote terrorist activity.” Throughout the 1980s US military personnel were involved with training Osama bin Laden and others to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. Throughout the administration of the first President Bush, US personnel aided Saddam Hussain in his war against Iran, even as Hussain oppressed his own people and used poison gas on the battlefield. Clearly many US personnel have, directly or indirectly, supported those who engaged in terrorist activities. Whether or not we like these past policies, this is no basis to refrain from defending a person’s civil liberties today.
Come on, guys. If the ACLU really wanted to be a terrorist organization, why wouldn’t they simply take the money and then hide their actions? The ACLU made a principled stand, even through it cost them a lot. Standing up for our troops - and for principle - is noble, not nafarious.
Your blog is very interesint
Sliding Glass Door
Charlie And The Factory