ACLU Claims Victory: Attorneys Not Required to Sign Terrorism Oaths

Stop The ACLU ^ | 13-Sep-06 | Jay Stephenson

[Jay777]

Via ACLU

Today, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that attorneys seeking to represent indigent clients are no longer required to sign documents swearing that they are not terrorists and have no involvement with terrorist groups. The American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio had challenged the provision, which is part of the Ohio Patriot Act, calling the requirement unnecessary red tape that will do nothing to prevent terrorism.

“We are pleased the court recognized that attorneys should not be forced to sign these ineffective and offensive pledges,” said ACLU of Ohio Executive Director Christine Link. “The Ohio Patriot Act is an assault on the fundamental liberties of all Ohioans. Hopefully, this decision is a stepping stone to reining in this overreaching and flawed law.”

I have only one question here. Why does the ACLU of Ohio have a problem giving an oath that they are not terrorists and are not involved with terrorist groups? What the law is attempting to do is ensure people have not supported terrorist organizations.

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.

Actually this isn't surprising.

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.

[Jay777]

Read much more at Stop The ACLU

[Jay777]

Ping!

[sappy]

Truly, the ENEMY WITHIN.

[kinoxi]

Slowly advancing their agenda. Destroy the USA at all costs. The ACLU should be labeled a terrorist organization when taking into consideration all of the aiding and abetting they do to terrorists.

[snowman1]

Must have a whole lot to hide if they aren't willing to state that they are not TERRORISTS. But then the FING ACLU stands with anyone th=at hates the US.

[taxcontrol]

While I normally oppose anything that comes out of the ACLU, they do have a point.

....calling the requirement unnecessary red tape that will do nothing to prevent terrorism.

Any terrorist is simply going to sign the form and do as they please. This is much like passing laws to not use guns in the commission of a crime... not much of a deterrent to someone already bent on breaking the law.

[From One - Many]

aclu & cair......
both are terrorist organizations worthy of being defunded.
I as an American taxpayer am appalled taxpayer dollars fund the aclu.

[Lekker 1]

..the requirement [is] unnecessary red tape that will do nothing to prevent terrorism

An attorney actually said THAT? They make a living out of creating ineffective red tape!

[steamroller]

i checked your blogsite-good stuff!!i recently exposed the aclu executive director here in rhode island,steven brown,an odious creature ,as a non-attorney-he had everyone assuming he was a lawyer without actually saying it-i confronted him on a radio show and now he has had to make it clear that he only has a ba in public administration-he is a true piece of filth who dirties up the planet by just being here-he hates anything traditional or decent and cannot explain his positions when challenged-of course he lives in barrington,a lily white super rich suburb

[VOA]

bump for publicity

[Enchante]

I'm no legal eagle, but I think where such a document may be very useful is when we find a Lynne Stewart type scumbag or otherwise has history of aiding and abetting terrorists and their organizations. Having signed such a false affidavit, they could be prosecuted and imprisoned for perjury, which might take them out of circulation for awhile. I think fear of that is why the ACLU is fighting this hard, and is why I think such affidavits are a good thing.

[Jay777]

If you read everything, they wouldn't even check to see if their clients were on terrorism watchlists. So, to say it would be ineffective isn't proven. To refuse to sign a statement that you are not a terrorist or support them...while maybe ineffective, is it really that much red tape? I mean, a stroke of the pen and your done.

[Jay777]

Cool deal and thanks.

[Jay777]

Bingo!

[Old Professer]

Before we get too carried away here, let's remember that an oath is only a promissary note against the truth and we are talking about lawyers.

[taxcontrol]

Well, someone has to PAY for a form to be build, printed, distributed, checked for compliance, stored and audited for compliance with privacy policies, security polices, records retention policies, etc. Man hours for clerks, storage, etc. It can and will add up in a year or two.

Sounds like a whole lot of $$ for little result.

[weegee]

It may do nothing to stop terrorism but some have a problem with saying that they do not embrace terrorism and the enemies of this country, all the same.

[weegee]

And we HAVE seen the case of at least one lawyer who passed messages from her convicted client TO other terrorists cells as he continued to plot attacks from prison.

[auzerais]

And now the weak-sister Senators have deemed that terrorists cannot be 'tortured', I bet the ACLU is crowing about that too.