-
Stop the ACLU Blogburst Watch: Interview With William A. Donohue
Stop The ACLU: Interview With William A. DonohueWilliam A. Donohue is the President of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights based in New York. He received his Doctorate in Sociology from NYU in 1980. He is the author of three books, two of which are very critical on and revealing of the ACLU. We have quoted from his books on numerous occasions so it was quite an honor when he returned my call requesting an interview.His first book, The Politics of the American Civil Liberties Union, was published in 1985. His second book, The New Freedom: Individualism and Collectivism in the Social Lives of Americans, was written while Bill was a Bradley Resident Scholar at The Heritage Foundation; it appeared in 1990. Bill’s third book, Twilight of Liberty: The Legacy of the ACLU, was published in 1994 by Transaction Press; a new afterward to this book was published in 2001. Source
It was an honor that Mr. Donohue took time from his schedule to allow us an interview. It was even more encouraging that he had heard of Stop The ACLU and expressed his appreciation for what we do. I recommend reading his books to anyone that is interested in learning more about the ACLU and how their actions are actually harming civil rights.
Our conversation was very laid back and informal. After some small talk and introductions I started the interview asking Mr. Donohue his general opinion of the ACLU. Mr. Donohue’s answers will be quoted in the American Flag quotes.
I believe that the American Civil Liberties Union is based upon a noble purpose. However, they often work against that very purpose due to a radical interpretation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I wrote about this extensively in my third book, Twilight of Liberty: The Legacy of the ACLU where I focused on how their view of liberty actually works against itself. They are an arm of the radical left. In my first book, The Politics of the American Civil Liberties Union, I also exposed just how phony their claim of being non-partisan is. The ACLU is not non-partisan. Social reform, in a liberal direction, is the sine qua non of the ACLU. Its record is far from showing impartiality. It is full of attempts to reform American society according to the ideals of liberalism. The truth of the matter is that the ACLU has always been a highly politicized organization.
In your opinion is the ACLU simply misguided or do they actually have a more malicious motive and agenda?
I have asked myself that question a million times or more. I guess that I think that some of them are just wrong headed and sincere while others are actually more malicious and seeking to actually destroy America from its foundation. Some that are just misguided yet sincere truly believe that they have to defend the extremist speech in order to protect all free speech. Others are actually malicious.
Norman Siegal is one of the few who I believe to be honest and sincere in their passion for civil liberties. He has at least come out and debated his point of view and that is something that is due some respect. So many others are cowards with another agenda that works against the best interest of the country.
At this point I asked Mr. Donohue about other ACLU members that had come into conflict with the organization over their own views and his opinion on their sincerity. I specifically asked about Natt Hentoff.
Natt Hentoff is a Jewish atheist who interprets the First Amendment entirely too loosely. He is one that wants “In God We Trust†off of our money. I do believe that Natt is one of the sincere civil libertarians who is very passionate yet misguided in his views. He has been very much involved in civil liberties. He came into conflict with the ACLU over his view on abortion. He came to the conclusion thinking in biological terms that unborn babies are human and do deserve the same civil liberty protections as everyone else. This is where he came into conflict with the rest of the organization. I think Natt Hentoff is a principled civil libertarian. He went bonkers when they tried to implement a policy that would censor critical speech from their own members, and rightly so.
Michael Myers is another principled civil libertarian. He is an African American man who I believe to be principled, honest, and sincere. He resigned after seeing much of the hypocrisy and censorship attempts at the ACLU. He is another one that is not playing politics with the Constitution.
In your book you often quoted from the ACLU Policy Guide. I have called them myself asking for this before and was told it was for internal purposes only and not for the general public. While they have this right, it makes me wonder what they are hiding. How did you get your hands on their policy guide?
Heh, yet it wouldn’t matter how secret or important to National Security a government document or information they are against was. They would still fight to have it published for all to see.
They cut me off from their policy guide about ten years ago. I first got access to their policies when I was a student at NYU in my twenties. I just asked until they revealed them to me. They opened up some of them but wouldn’t let me see all of them at first. They didn’t want me to see the FBI files on them. The FBI was more cooperative on that than the ACLU.
When I finally went to publish all the information I had gathered no one wanted to go for it. People said, “You can’t publish that! This is the ACLU you are talking about. You are in New York! No one will go for this!†I finally found a publisher through a friend at the Heritage Foundation in the 1982-1983 time frame.
I still received policy updates and was on one of the ACLU’s special mailing list for years before they cut me off. I guess they finally figured out that it was being used against them.
In reading your books I thought it was interesting that your knowledge and access to ACLU policies played a part in the election of President Bush (the father).
Yes, it was the 1988 Presidential campaign when the Democratic candidate, Michael Dukakis, proudly announced that he was a “card carrying member of the American Civil Liberties Union.†This announcement was soon used against him as George Bush decided to criticize Dukakis’s support and several ACLU policies. His campaign team got in touch with me, and I tracked down some of the policies for them.
In the first debate, Peter Jennings of ABC News asked George Bush why he continued to make an issue out of Michael Dukakis’s membership in the ACLU. Bush replied that he didn’t like most of the ACLU’s positions and offered four of them. “I simply don’t want to see the ratings on movies-I don’t want my ten year-old grandchild to go into an X-rated movie. I like those rating systems. I don’t think they’re right to try to take the tax exemption away from the Catholic Church. I don’t want to see the kiddie pornographic laws repealed. I don’t want to see under God come out from our currency. Now, these are all positions of the ACLU, and I don’t agree with them.â€
Of course several ACLU representatives came out and said he misrepresented their positions. However, I know that Bush was right. I know because I was the one who suggested these very policies to the Bush operatives who briefed the candidate before the debate, and I made sure to double-check my sources. I have the proof, taken from ACLU documents, that verifies that Bush was right. If anyone wants to check my sources I list them extensively in my book, The Twilight of Liberty.
One of the ACLU policies you revealed that particularly disgusts me is their policy in favor of legalizing the distribution and possession of child pornography.
Yes. The ACLU takes what I call an atomistic view of liberty. What they don’t seem to understand is that radical individualism actually works against liberty. There view on the First Amendment also covers what the call “Dwarf tossing†and women mud wrestling as freedom of speech. The purpose of freedom of speech has nothing to do with pornography or libel despite what the ACLU think. Anyone that believes it does is living in la la land.
I have written on their policy about Child Porn and many liberals just call me a liar. They want proof.
Well, you’ve got proof. It’s right there in my book.
That isn’t good enough for them. They will question your reliability or say that was an old policy. I doubt they would believe me if I put the current policy in their face.
Why don’t they explain to you what proof they have you are wrong? Why doesn’t the ACLU release this policy and settle the issue. It isn’t just you that has brought it up in the public before. They don’t deny it. Ask them why the ACLU doesn’t make this policy public and clear up the issue once and for all.
Barry Lynn, former legislative counsel for the Washington office of the American Civil Liberties Union, is on the Congressional record stating these positions. Lynn told the U.S. Attorney General’s Commission on Pornography that child pornography was protected by the First Amendment. While production of child porn could be prevented by law, he argued, its distribution could not be.
When you are dealing with the ACLU and many of its supporters you are going to find a lot of straight up liars. One time I debated them in a public forum of a college. I brought their policy guide with me on stage. I mentioned some of their more extreme policies. I think I mentioned their policy to legalize all drugs. The lady I was debating denied this was their policy. I said, “Stop the debate!†I called up one of the students to come to the stage. I said, “Someone on this stage is lying, and I want someone to be witness to who it is.†I got a student up there to read the ACLU policy. This lady left quite embarrassed.
You should tell those that doubt you have your facts straight to prove you wrong. The ACLU is a bunch of hypocrites. If they have nothing to hide then why don’t they just make these policies public? The funny thing is that there is not a single top secret document that they wouldn’t make public.
What would you say is encouraging in the fight to expose and stop the ACLU’s agenda?
The good news started in the 1970’s when more legal groups began to develop to oppose the ACLU. More and more Catholic and Protestant legal groups are appearing that battle the ACLU and have done a magnificent job. Our side is winning more and more of these battles where before the ACLU had a monopoly on civil liberty issues. There are several good organizations out there now including The Alliance Defense Fund, The American Center For Law and Justice, and the Thomas More Law Center just to name a few. There isn’t really one unified organization that opposes them, but several that fight them on different fronts. They are becoming more and more successful and this is good news.
It isn’t just the legal groups either. Cable and internet are doing a magnificent job, including your site, in an educational campaign to inform the public. FIRE (Foundation For Individual Rights In Education) is doing a great job of informing students of their rights on campuses. I know that our side is making great progress. Things were a lot worse.
The ACLU also doesn’t do as good of a job at reaching out to the public as they used to. Ira Glasser, who I am not a big fan of, did a much better job at public outreach when he was the Executive Director of the ACLU than the current one, Anthony Romero. They just don’t want to deal with the public. They have a few town hall meetings in elite and controlled environments, but they mostly avoid any kind of debate. I think that Anthony Romero was hired because of his ties with the Ford Foundation than for any talent towards public impact.
Can the ACLU be reformed?
No. They are entirely too corrupt. Norman Thomas, six time candidate of the socialist party and one of the founders of the ACLU, once said, “Instead of burning the American Flag, people should wash it.†The ACLU has gone far beyond this kind of talk into much more extreme realms. They are the legal arm of the political left. Even with a few whistle-blowers, the ACLU is more corrupt now than ever.
There are so many competing legal groups out there now fighting the ACLU’s agenda. I am pleased that the ACLU doesn’t own the entire field anymore. They still score, but our side has made a lot of progress. It is not from within that the ACLU can be defeated. There is way too much corruption to hope for that. It is from the outside that is the best way to beat them. With so many legal groups fighting them in courts, and internet sites like yours educating the public our side is making major progress. That is the way.
Stop The ACLU wants to sincerely thank Mr. Donohue for taking the time to honor us with this interview.
This has been 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.
Technorati Tags: StopTheACLU -
Stop the ACLU Blogburst Watch: Surprise Surprise – The ACLU Urges Congress To Reject H.R. 2679
Well it comes at no surprise to us at Stop The ACLU and Wide Awakes Radio that the American Civil Liberties Union is opposed to passage of H.R. 2679, the Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005.A review of the bill is as follows:
PERA would eliminate the ability for judges to award attorney’s fees compensation to groups like the ACLU in Establishment Clause cases only. These fees where originally authorized by CONGRESS so that good attorneys wouldn’t be dissuaded from accepting civil rights cases pro bono.
But in the hands of the ACLU it has become a source of income for the organization. In any other type of lawsuit, ie: personal injury, the attorney’s fee if any comes out of the settlement with their client if they prevail. But not under the law authorizing these fees.
The ACLU actively shops around for reasons to challenge any public displays of religion in order to collect these “attorneys’ feesâ€. This has led to a systematic removal of your Constitutional protections under the 1st Amendment to freely exercise your religious beliefs. They accomplish this by judge shopping. They shop for a district to present a case in. A district in which one of their “best buddies†activist judges will hear the case and more often than not, rule in the favor of the ACLU.
The ACLU prefers to bring these types of lawsuits against cities, towns, and states which are usually cash strapped. First it is a matter of sending a letter to the governing body recommending that they cease and desist from further allowing public displays of religion. That if they fail to do so, it will cost the city, town, or state massive amounts of money to defend against them in court. And usually, a city or town is likely to not challenge. They will capitulate to the will of the ACLU. But if it does come to trial and they prevail, the amounts awarded to the prevailing party are often compounded by the amounts awarded to the ACLU attorney(s) for fees that had they NOT prevailed, would have gone uncollected.
This is extortion. Do what we tell you or something bad is going to happen. Pure unadulterated extortion.
It is these practices that the Public Display of Religion Act of 2005 (H.R. 2679) promises to eliminate so of course the ACLU would be opposed to its passage. They aren’t interested in protecting your right to freely express your religious beliefs in public.
From the ACLU’s News Release on H.R. 2679 dated 07.26.06:
The American Civil Liberties Union today urged the House Judiciary Committee to reject H.R. 2679, the “Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005″ (PERA). The panel is expected to vote on the legislation today [meaning Wednesday – in committee]. The bill would bar the recovery of attorneys’ fees to citizens who win lawsuits asserting their fundamental constitutional and civil rights in cases brought under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
“If this bill were to become law, Congress would, for the first time, single out one area protected by the Bill of Rights and prevent its full enforcement,†said Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. “Proponents of the measure claim that the bill is needed to protect religious freedom, when in fact, the bill would undermine it. We hope that the committee will stand for the Constitution and reject this unwise proposal.†emphasis mine
Hold the presses… Stop Stop Stop…..
Did they actually make an argument that if the bill becomes law, Congress would single out a Constitutional protection and block it from enforcement?
WRONG!
The only thing being discussed is a law written and adopted by Congress for the awarding of the fees. And the removal of the fees from a certain kind of cases in order to remove the ability for unscrupulous people like the ACLU to abuse it. In other words, shop around for cases in order to create a money making enterprise out of the award.
The so-call establishment clause only appears one place, in the first Amendment. The leftists at the ACLU are addicted to abusing the so-call protection of separation of church and state. Which is a fantasy created by people like the ACLU in order to have grounds in which to remove religion from the public sphere. Here’s what it actually says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Amendment I of the United States Constitution
Where is this phantom “separation of church and state� I don’t see it mentioned.
I do see a provision whereby the Congress of the United States is preventing from making a law which establishes a religion in the United States. The founders were escaping a government that dictated that if you didn’t follow the Church of England, you were a criminal. This is what they were trying to avoid.
I fail to see how putting a nativity scene in the public square or a cross being present on a war memorial constitutes Congress making such a law. Because Erie, PA allows the erection of a nativity scene in Perry Square doesn’t constitute Congress taking any action what-so-ever to establish a national religion.
Democrats strongly opposed the bill yesterday.
A veterans’ group, the American Legion, has pushed for the legislation out of concern that war memorials and cemeteries could be cleansed of religious symbols. Mr. Nadler called the gravestone issue a “red herring†and submitted a letter in which the ACLU said it would “vigorously defend†the rights of veterans to use any religious symbol they choose on grave markers. The letter did not address the use of Christian crosses in publicly owned group memorials or tombs for unknown soldiers.
…..
After more than an hour of debate yesterday, the committee adjourned before taking an up-or-down vote on the bill.
But the ACLU would have you believe otherwise. Their press release continues:
The ability to recover attorneys’ fees in civil rights and constitutional cases, including Establishment Clause cases, is necessary to help protect the religious freedom of all Americans and to keep religion government-free. People who successfully prove the government has violated their constitutional rights would, under the bill, be required to pay their own legal fees — often totaling tens, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars. Few citizens can afford to do so. But more importantly citizens should not be required to do so where the court finds that the government has violated their rights and engaged in unconstitutional behavior.
The ability of the ACLU to collect attorney’s fees in establishment clause Cases does not protect your religious freedoms, it attacks them. The ACLU actively shops for these types of cases because in the hands of judges like Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the former Chief Counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union and former National Board member, the ACLU will prevail every time. And it becomes a business.
It is time that these types of abuse be brought to an end. Call, write, email, fax, and visit if you can , your Congressman and urge him to vote for the Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005 (H.R. 2679), and put an end to the abuse and prostitution of our Constitution and our Judicial Branch of government.
This has been 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.
Technorati Tags: ACLU, StopTheACLU
-
Stop The ACLU Blogburst Watch: ACLU Encouraged by U.N. Questioning of U.S. Government
ACLU Website:GENEVA, SWITZERLAND — A United Nations human rights body expressed grave concerns today about the record of human rights in the United States. The American Civil Liberties Union with a delegation of 10 and working with a broad coalition of other groups is in Geneva to monitor the examination of the United States the U.N. Human Rights Committee (HRC).
In a two-day session that concluded today, the committee members pressured the United States for answers on the following issues:
The sentencing of children to life without parole and the disproportionate incarceration of minorities;
The militarization of the border;
The failure to prevent human rights violations and respond in a non discriminatory manner to Hurricane Katrina;
The failure to end racial profiling practices, specifically the profiling of South Asian convenience store employees in Georgia;
Warrantless spying on ordinary Americans;
The abuse of women in prison; and
The indefinite detention, rendition and torture of non-citizens.“The U.S. should be ashamed of itself,†said Ann Beeson, Director of the ACLU’s Human Rights Program. “The review by the Human Rights Committee was a stark and all too accurate condemnation of the state of rights in America.â€
No, the ACLU should be ashamed of itself. The review by the Human Rights Committee which includes member states Cuba, Saudi Arabia and China ,and ensures that violaters are included, is a joke and nowhere near accurate.
Religious persecutors, Womens Rights violators, Communist Regimes, and illegal organ harvesters will make up the new UN Human Rights Council.
And this is the organization that the ACLU want to hold the U.S. accountable to? The ACLU, and the U.N. are the two most dangerous organizations in the world. They are both seeking to destroy America’s credibility and soverignty. The U.N. are a corrupt joke when it comes to human rights, and they have absolutely zero credibility to make any judgement on America in that area.
The ACLU, who provided the list called “Dimming the Beacon of Freedomâ€, to this corrupt organization that can’t even clean up its own human rights violations are an embarrassement to this great nation. It is shameful that their list included our efforts to spy on the enemy, protect our borders, and several other accusations without evidence. I also wonder if their accusation to “abuse†of women in prison would be not providing them with abortions at the expense of taxpayers.
Besides the issues within our own judicial system and its decay, the ACLU is also turning to international sources to undermine our nation’s sovereignty and national security.
For instance, the ACLU filed a formal complaint with the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention against the United States, stating that the United States violated international law when it detained 765 Arab Americans and Muslims for security reasons after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack on our nation. Eventually, 478 were deported. ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero said, “With today’s action, we are sending a strong message of solidarity to advocates in other countries who have decried the impact of U.S. policies on the human rights of their citizens. We are filing this complaint before the United Nations to ensure that U.S. policies and practices reflect not just domestic constitutional standards, but accepted international human rights principles regarding liberty and its deprivations.†Source
Romero, of course, makes the United States sound like some rogue nation with no regard for human rights, not the beacon of liberty that so many have come to escaping from tyranny and the bonds of oppression.
All of this should concern you. You may think that it doesn’t directly affect you in your everyday life, but it will eventually. The ACLU’s embrace of international law seeks to hypocritically do the opposite of what the ACLU claim to protect, and the Constitution forbids; prohibit the free exercise of religion.
In spring 2003, a group from the United Nations Human Rights Commission, of which former ACLU officials Paul Hoffman and John Shattuck are a part, met and discussed a resolution to add “sexual orientation†to the UNHRC’s discrimination list. Homosexual activists at the meeting called for a “showdown with religion,†clearly intending to use international law to silence religious speech that does not affirm homosexual behavior. Source
The ACLU’s actions are a direct threat to our very freedom of speech, religious exercise, security, and soverignity. In some countries, laws are being pushed, and in some cases, enacted that essentially criminalize forms of religious speech and activity that does not affirm homosexual behavior.
If we are going to turn the interpretation of our laws to international jurisprudence, and decisions of foreign courts, judges, and legislatures, the question begs…why did we fight a war of independence? If the ACLU are successful in their agenda for international law, the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution will eventually become irrelevant documents. More and more of America’s freedoms, and our very soverignty will be sacrificed for international law. Our freedoms will vanish. The ACLU’s vision of freedom that includes the public sale of child pornography, the silencing of churchs and ministries, and unlimited abortion and euthanasia will replace them. To many Americans, these sound more like human rights violations than anything on the ACLU’s list.
On October 27, 1787, Alexander Hamilton predicted that a “dangerous ambition†would one day tyrannize the gangling young American Republic, all the while lurking “behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people.†It could almost be said that Hamilton had a prophecy of the ACLU.
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.
Technorati Tags: ACLU, StopTheACLU
-
Stop The ACLU Watch: American Criminal Liberties Union
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.â€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 crimesâ€-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.â€
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.â€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.
Technorati Tags: ACLU
-
ACLU Against Brain Scans on Suspected Terrorists
If it is a tool we use in the fight against terror one can bet that the ACLU will be against it. When the NY Times revealed classified information that we are trying to track international phone calls of suspected terrorists, the ACLU took that ball and are still running with it. When the NY Times leaked classified information that we are trying to track international bank transactions in order to catch terrorists the ACLU jumped on board with that too. If the NY Times doesn’t leak it to everyone, the ACLU will do its best by filing freedom of Information Act requests.
In the face of suspicions that the government is using cutting-edge brain-scanning technologies on suspected terrorists being held overseas or at home, the American Civil Liberties Union today announced that it has filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests with all the primary American security agencies.
“There are certain things that have such powerful implications for our society — and for humanity at large — that we have a right to know how they are being used so that we can grapple with them as a democratic society,†said Barry Steinhardt, Director of the ACLU’s Technology and Liberty Project. “These brain-scanning technologies are far from ready for forensic uses and if deployed will inevitably be misused and misunderstood.â€
I know that the ACLU claim to be the experts on rights, but I’m not sure where they found this “right to know†every secret government program used in a time of war. This must be one of those rights the ACLU made up out of thin air. Furthermore the ACLU’s leap that it would be inevitable that the program would be misused and misunderstood is pure biased opinion on their part.
Here is a brief description of the program.
FMRI is a technique for determining which parts of the brain are activated by different types of physical sensation or activity, such as sight, sound or the movement of a subject’s fingers. This “brain mapping†is achieved by setting up an advanced MRI scanner in a special way so that the increased blood flow to the activated areas of the brain shows up on Functional MRI scans. (See here for a description of the physiology of the BOLD response.) The whole FMRI process will now be briefly described.
The subject in a typical experiment will lie in the magnet and a particular form of stimulation will be set up. For example, the subject may wear special glasses so that pictures can be shown during the experiment. Then, MRI images of the subject’s brain are taken. Firstly, a high resolution single scan is taken. This is used later as a background for highlighting the brain areas which were activated by the stimulus. Next, a series of low resolution scans are taken over time, for example, 150 scans, one every 5 seconds. For some of these scans, the stimulus (in this case the moving picture) will be presented, and for some of the scans, the stimulus will be absent. The low resolution brain images in the two cases can be compared, to see which parts of the brain were activated by the stimulus.
After the experiment has finished, the set of images is analyzed. Firstly, the raw input images from the MRI scanner require mathematical transformation (Fourier transformation, a kind of spatial “inversionâ€) to reconstruct the images into “real spaceâ€, so that the images look like brains. The rest of the analysis is done using a series of tools which correct for distortions in the images, remove the effect of the subject moving their head during the experiment, and compare the low resolution images taken when the stimulus was off with those taken when it was on. The final statistical image shows up bright in those parts of the brain which were activated by this experiment. These activated areas are then shown as coloured blobs on top of the original high resolution scan, for interpretation of the experiment. This combined activation image can be rendered in 3D, and the rendering can be calculated from any angle. (See here for a brief overview of GLM analysis.)
Now why would the public need to know about this and debate it? This kind of information is for our elected officials to decide, and our enemies don’t need to know about it.
The most likely technology to be used for anti-terrorism purposes is Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI), which can produce live, real-time images of people’s brains as they answer questions, view images, listen to sounds, and respond to other stimuli. Two private companies have announced that they will begin to offer “lie detection†services using fMRI as early as this summer. These companies are marketing their services to federal government agencies, including the Department of Defense, Department of Justice, the National Security Agency and the CIA, and to state and local police departments.
“This technology must not be deployed until it is proven effective — and we are a long way away from that point, according to scientists in the field,†said Steinhardt. “What we don’t want is to open our newspapers and find that another innocent person has been thrown into Guantánamo because interrogators have jumped to conclusions based on a technology no one understands very well.â€
Who does the effectiveness of the program have to be proven to? If it has to be proven to the ACLU it would never happen. If the companies that have developed the technology are providing this service to the government as a useful means they are staking their reputation on its effectiveness. The ACLU admit that they don’t understand it well. Who would better understand it than those that developed it?
The ACLU’s FOIA requests were filed yesterday with the Pentagon, NSA, CIA, FBI and Department of Homeland Security.
“These brain-scanning technologies have potentially far-reaching implications, yet uncertain results and effectiveness,†said Steinhardt. “And we are still in our infancy when it comes to understanding the underlying processes of the brain that the scanners have begun to reveal. We do not want to see our government yet again deploying a potentially momentous technology unilaterally and in secret, before Americans have had a chance to figure out how it fits in with our values as a nation.â€
The Uncooperative Blogger says:
I say let’s experiment on terrorist, what better testing ground can you ask for? The ACLU has become just plain ridiculous, and they are not working in the best interest of our country. The New York Times, the leakers and the ACLU, who I refer to as the American Communist Liberation Union, are killing us in the war on terror!
So, what are we going to learn from an FOIA request? That they are using what I just told you about? Gee, that will be very helpful to the American people won’t it?
I’d just like to know how the ACLU would have us handle the war on terror. It seems they want us to fight the killers with kid gloves. If someone can name me one anti-terrorist program our government has implemented that the ACLU has approved of we might have a debate. I can’t think of one. If we are to fight the war on terror the way the ACLU wants we might as well just go ahead and surrender.
Bill O’Reilly is right on target.
The anti-Bush crew, led by The New York Times and the ACLU want civilian trials for terrorists, no coerced interrogation, no rendition for terrorists to other countries, no war in Iraq, and on and on. As I opine, The Times and other committed left media believe the Bush administration — and not the terrorists — is the primary danger to this country.
Thats ironic, because every once in a while I think it is the ACLU and far left that pose more of a danger to America.
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.
Technorati Tags: ACLU
-
ACLU Fights To Keep Communist Propaganda In School Library
Hat tip: DanegerusThe American Civil Liberties Union asked a federal judge to stop the Miami-Dade County school district from removing a series of children’s books from its libraries, including a volume about Cuba which depicts smiling kids in communist uniforms.
The ACLU and the Miami-Dade County Student Government Association argued in a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Miami on Wednesday that the school board should add materials with alternate viewpoints rather than remove books that could be offensive.
Last week, the board voted 6-3 to remove “Vamos a Cuba†and its English-language version, “A Visit to Cuba†from 33 schools, stating the books were inappropriate for young readers because of inaccuracies and omissions about life in the communist nation.
The book, by Alta Schreier, targets students ages 5 to 7 and contains images of smiling children wearing uniforms of Cuba’s communist youth group and a carnival celebrating the 1959 Cuban revolution. The district owns 49 copies of the book in Spanish and English.
To the ACLU it doesn’t seem to matter that the books are misleading, inaccurate, and inappropriate for this age group. It doesn’t matter to the ACLU that the book is pure propaganda. To the ACLU it is a book ban. It just so happens that the message portrayed in the book seems to go along with their founder’s beliefs.
“I have been to Europe several times, mostly in connection with international radical activities…and have traveled in the United States to areas of conflict over workers rights to strike and organize. My chief aversion is the system of greed, private profit, privilege and violence which makes up the control of the world today, and which has brought it to the tragic crisis of unprecedented hunger and unemployment…Therefore, I am for Socialism, disarmament and ultimately, for the abolishing of the State itself…I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.â€
~ Roger Baldwin-founder of the ACLU~Here is another one from Mr. Baldwin.
“Do steer away from making it look like a Socialist enterprise…We want also to look like patriots in everything we do. We want to get a good lot of flags, talk a good deal about the Constitution and what our forefathers wanted to make of this country, and to show that we are really the folks that really stand for the spirit of our institutions.â€-Baldwin’s advice in 1917 to Louis Lochner of the socialist People’s Council in Minnesota.
I’m sure the ACLU’s founder would be proud of the ACLU’s move to protect the propaganda of his ideology. The ACLU’s main point of argument is that banning one point of view is the wrong way to deal with the situation is lost when it is five year olds potentially being exposed to this crap. To the ACLU this is nothing more than a book ban, and they are asking the school to include more alternative views instead of banning unpopular ones. No one has to ask if they would fight this hard to keep a Bible in the school library, or whether their strength would be focused on getting rid of it. Take this however you want, but the ACLU has never strayed very far from its founding principles.
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.
Technorati Tags: ACLU, StopTheACLU