In The True Spirit Of Hypocrisy
Posted on January 2, 2006
Our “friends” at the ACLU have really started to show their true spots. In as much as they preach against the invasion of privacy in fear of Orwell’s “Big Brother,” they are willing to advocate just that when it serves their anti-American goals.
In two different states at the same time, they are both opposing the use of cameras as well as advocating them. As a matter of fact, they are actually paying for cameras in St. Louis.
In the spirit of the Nazis of 1930s & 40s Germany, the ACLU plans on distributing video cameras to private citizens in St. Louis’ poorest neighborhoods for the purpose of monitoring police. That’s right, they want those who have the worst view of law enforcement to monitor law enforcement. That’s like having the fox keep an eye on the dog guarding the hen house. [Story]
But yet in Minneapolis Minnesota the ACLU opposes the use of video cameras at intersections with the purpose of capturing the license plate numbers of violators. The ACLU’s position is that there is no way of knowing who was actually driving the car. I’m sorry, but if I lent my car to someone to use and they were operating it foolishly, I’d want to know. And trust me, if I got a ticket from “photo cop” the person who got me that ticket wouldn’t ever borrow my car again. [Story]
The ACLU has a history of this type of flip flopping. They were instrumental in getting a decision out of the United States Supreme Court that forces schools to support non-traditional after school activities just as it has for traditional school activities. This was in order to get funding and support for an after school Gay/Lesbian tolerance club. But when a school tried to use the same decision to get support for a Bible study group, the ACLU has changed its opinion on the matter, and are advocating reversal of the decision. [ACLU's Official Position]
The ACLU used this decision to force schools to have after school Gay/Lesbian tolerance clubs and went as far as to sent each and every high school in the state of Washington a letter advising them of the decision. But now that a Christian group wants to take advantage of the decision that the ACLU was instrumental in getting past, it’s time to back pedal.
These cameras are just more of the same. Do I support the “photo cop”? Yes. Do I support surveillance of police officers? Yes, but not by private citizens. Dash cams are just fine for doing that. And most police like having the dash cam because it covers them when they are truly in the right.
H/T: Ace of Trump
As always send all complaints to Gribbit
Trackback URL
Comments
22 Responses to “In The True Spirit Of Hypocrisy”
-
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
Note to all who wish to comment. Comments to threads authored by Gribbit must be have a VALID email and VALID link to an actual website or blog written by the individual wishing to comment. All comments made to threads written by Gribbit MUST include these or they will be deleted - pro or con to my position.
Commented Deleted By Gribbit - I warned you. Comment again without a valid link, your IP goes on the blacklist.
Brian, before your comment gets deleted for not following the rules posted RIGHT ABOVE YOUR COMMENT, I wish to ask you if you understand what “hypocrite” means, and if so, do you see the inherent hypocrisy in the ACLU stance of “Don’t monitor the people driving like idiots, but we will monitor the cops.”
Basically the ACLU is saying “Don’t protect the people from bad drivers” while saying “We will protect the people from the people that protect us”.
Really, man, can you NOT see the idiocy in this policy? The insane thought processes that go into such convoluted thoughts would be painful if there were one ounce of Cosmic Justice.
Go pray to whatever you wish to Brian, and thank the diety of your choice that stupidity isn’t painful. If it were, you would be constant agony.
When will the blinders come off the people in this country and see that a once “for” Americans’ rights group has now turned against those they were fighting for.
Gribbit: I don’t have my own website (yet, my brother is helping me out with that. He runs the freepa.org website if you want to check it out.) You don’t have to post my comment, but please read it.
My comment is simply this: All this fuss over Bush’s activities in regard to the NSA have no basis. You and I both know that. But the fact that the ACLU are advocating the civillian monitoring of police is very angering to me, because I know just how much of America will jump on that bandwagon, especially in the poorer neighborhoods that its geared toward. I’m sure you’ll agree that the lack of respect for law enforecement today is staggering, I would like to know just what the ACLU expect to accomplish out of this. Could it be that we’ll see a surge of frivilous law suits against police departments abroad? And who praytell, will be the lawyers to file these suits? Let me guess…
And as the son of a former NSA agent, let me tell you that they’ve done what they are doing for years, and if people knew how much more they did they’d either feel a lot more safe or even more terrified. Its all necessary, and if you don’t break the law, you have nothing to worry about.
If people on the street actively video-tape police actions, could this be interpretted as surveillance? If that’s true, could the ACLU be brought up on charges of something similar to “conspiracy to surveil police activity”? Just a thought.
This reminds me of a woman I met years ago. She was a pro-choice vegetarian. Why vegetarian? In her view, the killing of innocent animals was wrong. But like I said, she was pro-choice so it was right to end the life of a human being but wrong to eat a chicken.
Yeah Tommy, I’ve met people like that too. Sad isn’t it?
The Nazis would never have allowed private citizens to watch over their uniformed thugs in such a manner. This is beyond the pale. And, by the way, it is horrendus to suggest that our police are anything like Nazi police brigades. In St. Louis or anywhere else.
What limits do conservatives set in terms of government oversight? I mean, if the government would require identification microchips under the skin, would we as conservatives agree? Just asking.
I would be leery Tommy, but would not object to having microchips placed in sex offenders if they are released. However, if they are really such a danger that they need tracking, they should probably remain in prison.
I want cameras watching the ACLU.
Police officers have no right to privacy while working in public. They represent the government. They are on the job. The ACLU is opposed to indiscriminate camera use in public because they record private citizens, with no accountability to the public. Government officials have NO right to privacy on the job–private citizens in daily life have at least some. There is no inherent hypocrisy.
And then to suggest that dashcams under the control of the police are sufficient to keep tabs on the police. Trust the government? Where did you get your conservative credentials, clown college? No, I don’t trust the government. The USA’s founding fathers were uniformly opposed to trusting government, and built a government that was based around the principle that government was not to be trusted. “Trust the government” sounds like something a Nazi would say, which makes you sound a lot more like a Nazi than the ACLU encouraging people to stand up for their rights.
“Police officers have no right to privacy while working in public.”
The inherent hypocracy is in that there is NO “right to privacy” in the US Constitution. There IS the injuction against undue and injust search and seizure. But the so-called “right to privacy” does NOT exist.
“And then to suggest that dashcams under the control of the police are sufficient to keep tabs on the police.”
Those cameras are not there for the public protection, but are there for the protection of police officers from frivolous lawsuits. Lawsuits advocated by the fine folks at the ACLU. Lawsuits that give the mistaken impression that police officers are so corrupt and incompetent that they require untrained civilians in crime-ridden areas to “monitor” them.
Thereby turning over the mandate to public safety to “neighborhood watch” programs and, very likely, gangbanging thugs. But the Minutemen at the border are “vigilantes”? How is it people watching the border and helping to enforce the current immigration law are “vigilanties” but these civilians are not?
Come on now, how is this not hypocracy?
Who would you rather have answer your 9-11 call; “citizen volunteers” or trained, equipped, uniformed law enforcement officials?
This fits very well into the myth of populism that has infected the left, but does not work in real life.
Ok troll, by calling me names all you did was grab my attention and prompt me to scrutinize your link. It is a commercial website. Therefore, you do not fit the acceptable criteria for commenting on my threads.
You are free to disagree, you are free to dissent. But call me names and I’ll track down as much about you as I can find. And I will take my revenge.
As for the rest of you… Keep in mind, I’m actually not reading these. I’m checking the validity of links and emails. But for some reason, the little name that this POS called me stuck out. I’d advise that you don’t follow in his footprints.
Next - I ban the IP.
Gribbit
Brian -
I don’t care what the limits are set by the software, if it were my choice, it would be required for you to register. However, to answer your charge, here are the facts. During Nazi Germany, you had a situation where there was neighbor v neighbor. People turning in their own family members for making statements critical of the government.
This is a race issue. This is the ACLU targeting even honest police officers over each arrest made on an African-American citizen. There are cameras on the dashes of the police cars to capture the traffic stops. I would have no problem with that camera being two way and video taping what happens in the cruiser. But to give vigilante powers to selected individuals is truly Gestapo tactics.
When you get your own site, you can comment on my threads. But until then, I maintain control over who does and does not comment on them. Like it or not, I’m in control not you. This is my forum, and I refuse to allow you to use our soap-box to voice your opinion without leaving us a way to return the favor.
Free Blogging available at: http://www.blogger.com http://www.blogsome.com Those are two that I recommend.
wouldn’t it be rather wonderful if a team of concerned citizens were to follow, for example, Anthony Romereo and other ACLU bigwigs around all day, every day and night with a video camera. I wonder what they would do. Call a cop perhaps and complain about harassment?
of course they are both for and against the use of cameras. They are for anything that is “pro-” their agenda, and against anything that isn’t… Even when it’s the same thing.
They really should go back to trying to help those folks who are in prison because they had crappy lawyers. Wait, that’s redundant.
To Answer apostle & mid, your comments both were removed from my edit screen due to the number of comments.
Apostle- please get that link up as soon as possible. You generally agree with my position and I’ve taken flack for allowing your comments to stand when I’ve deleted others. I understand that you are working on it, but I must be fair.
mid- you lucked out. read my comment to Brian.
If I catch it again, it gets deleted.
Am I the only one who has completely stopped expecting the ACLU to make any sense whatsoever?
4thelittleguy,
No, you are not. We have been expecting the ACLU to announce any day now that they are suing themselves. Why not? Ronny Earl has indicted himself - twice.
Your story and spin on it is totally bogus, I think that you are just afraid that upon the distribution of these video camera’s, that it will be found that there are many, many unchecked abuses that certain officers are getting away with every day, and every hour.
Now if citizens want to team up and get some of these everyday abuses caught on camera to help tip the balance of injustice that has been going on. I don’t see how that could bother you. Unless of course you are afraid that these cameras will make the police force look bad.
You should not be afraid of that type of thing. When people in law enforcement screw up. They should be held accountable charges should be pressed and video evidence should be taken to a court of Law. Thats it plain and simple.
This is not a bad Idea. However your whole photo cop deal in Minneapolis, if there is no proof that the owner of the vehicle is the driver of the vehicle. Then the summons the owner to get them in court is a big waste of time.
Who in there right mind would pay a speeding ticket when they did not speed? And then comes in the inconvenience of going into court taking a day off of work only to find out that the picture you get to see does not clearly show the driver of the vehicle.
Gribbit, Gribbit, Gribbit. First, your blogsome site doesn’t seem to be working. You should get it fixed or someone might not let you comment on this topic.
Second, the hypocrisy you accuse the ACLU of is a cheap straw man attack and the invocation of Nazis is just cheap.
Monitoring police activity that happens in public is a valid check on a group that has been given government sanction and authority to the extent that it can be abused. If I were a police officer I would make sure that most of my actions took place where the camera in the squad car could see. These cameras have a time-code and are considered part of the public record. Police, by their employment, are considered public figures while on duty and executing the powers of their job and thus have reduced expectations of privacy. People driving cars are not considered public figures and issuing tickets based on car ownership is worlds different than issuing a ticket based on an actual police intervention with the driver of a vehicle (regardless of ownership).
This isn’t flip-flopping; it’s two entirely different scenarios that involve video equipment coincidentally.
As to the school club issue in the state of Washington, the ACLU of Washington isn’t forcing schools to have clubs of any kind. They are advocating equal access to school facilities for all non-academic clubs regardless of content. The message they sent to school districts resulted from a section of Washington state law that needed clarification with respect to a federal law that addressed similar circumstances.
Your verbiage and phraseology create a false impression of the rules, how they changed with the latest court action, and the entirely consistent (no flip-flopping here) position of the ACLU of Washington with respect to non-academic clubs and “official” recognition and monetary sponsorship of these clubs by schools.
It’s easy to be an “attack dog” and bite into an issue. But you should make sure that both pieces of your argument are apples. In this case you have a mouthful of apples and oranges; but you can’t seem to taste the difference.