ACLU To Ask Court To Void Anti-Terror Oaths

Stop the ACLU ^ | 14-Apr-06 | John Stephenson

[Jay777]

A civil liberties group is challenging part of a new state law after an attorney was told he wouldn’t be assigned court-appointed cases unless he signed a questionnaire stating he is not a terrorist and does not support terrorism.

The law requires applicants under final consideration for a government job, contract or license to complete and sign questionnaires to determine if they have supported organizations on a federal list of terrorists.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio planned to ask the Ohio Supreme Court on Friday, the day the law takes effect, to exempt court-appointed lawyers from that portion of the statute. The ACLU is arguing that only the Supreme Court - not the Legislature - has jurisdiction over Ohio’s courts.

Actually this isn’t suprising.

In October of 2004, the ACLU turned down $1.15 million in funding from the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations because they objected to promising that none of the funds would be used to engage in any activity that promotes violence, terrorism, bigotry, or the destruction of any state. They got the provision scrapped after a long and vigorous fight, then accepted the funds.

It isn’t difficult to understand why the ACLU would object to such terms, after all they are defending numerous terrorists, including an individual that participated in a 15-year conspiracy to finance the group Hamas, laundering millions of dollars, some of which went to buy weapons. With the help of CAIR, they are also defending an admitted agent of Al Qaeda that has confessed to attending jihad camps in Afghanistan, and is being charged with lying to the FBI about his terror ties and activities.

[Sun]

We need to write letters to editors to inform readers about the ACLU. There are a lot of naive people out there.

[Auntie Dem]

If the ACLU had to take the oath, they would have to stop 90% of their activility (if they were honest, of course!)

Most of us here know the ACLU is not honest. But perhaps what they object to in this matter is that they're being forced to lie if they answer "No" to the oath.

I say, why should they feel any differently about lying to the courts now? Every one of their cases is a lie from the start. Their entire reason for existing is a lie. They were formed by and serve the Master of All Lies.

[Velveeta]

bump