The ACLU is out of line

The American Civil Liberties Union has long trumpeted itself as the protector of America's freedoms. But in a bizarre tactical decision, it has decided to abdicate that self-appointed role in exchange for membership in the shrill chorus of Bush administration opponents. The decision to file suit against Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in connection with the alleged abuse of foreign detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan places the ACLU outside of its stated mission. It also places the group firmly in opposition to an organization -- the US military -- that is actually working for what the ACLU purports to be about -- the protection of American freedoms.

The ACLU says its "job" is to "defend the rights of every man, woman and child in this country" and ''defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to all people in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States" (emphasis added). Yet, none of the eight plaintiffs for whom the ACLU is providing pro bono representation is either an American citizen or a legal (or illegal) resident of this country. The plaintiffs are all citizens of either Iraq or Afghanistan who were captured by US military forces during the wars being fought in those two countries. How then does this lawsuit advance the cause of American civil liberties?

The ACLU press release touting this "landmark" action does not provide an answer to that question. Instead, the release suggests that the group wants to reestablish itself as the American Public Relations Union. According to ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero, "The effects of Rumsfeld's policies have been devastating both to America's international reputation as a beacon of freedom and democracy, and to the hundreds, even thousands of individuals who have suffered at the hands of US forces."

Among ACLU's founders January 12, 1920, were William Z. Foster, Elizabeth Gurley Flynn and Louis F. Budenz. All three later became prominent leaders of the Communist Party, USA, although Budenz broke with the Party in 1945 and became a militant anti-Communist.

In 1976, Congress passed the Civil Rights Attorneys Fee Awards Act, which was designed to encourage private lawyers to take on suits to protect civil and constitutional rights. The law provides that judges can order federal and state governments to pay legal fees to private lawyers who sued the government and won. The result has been a flood of civil rights cases in federal court. From The New American Feb. 2, 1987

It's an outrage that US law, passed during the Watergate era, allows the ACLU to collect attorney's fees for makework----Christian-hatng lawsuits it itself launches.

That means "values voters" have been footing the bill for the ACLU's launching a juggernaut to remove Ten Commandments images, Christmas creches and Christmas carols, taking God out of the Pledge of Allegiance, and because they claim they have a civil right not to see the Ten Commandments, a civil right not to hear the word “God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, not to see a creche of the Baby Jesus, not to hear Christmas carols. The ACLU has collected a huge amount of our tax dollars in this left-handed fundraiser for the ACLU.

FReepers can silence the ACLU with a bit of activism. We need to insist our Congressmen repeal this abusive law that allows the ACLU to get rich on harassing Christian America. Congress must repeal laws enabling the ACLU's Christian-hating activities. Cut off the ACLU's funds and watch them disappear. Here's what we can do.

Under the aegis of the ACLU's Foundation---worth some $135 million---any number of financial travesties can be hidden. The IRS should determine whether the ACLU is properly accounting for all its tax-funded activities, whether it is inflating legal costs, and whether it is using tax dollars for the purposes stated. We need to know whether the ACLU is engaged in Enron-style accounting and spending practices.

REFERENCE SOURCE FOR ARGUING REPEAL TO CONGRESS

Apparently, when Congress contemplated the fee-shifting bill three decades ago, it never conceived that 42 U.S.C. §1988 would be used to secure fees in esoteric battles over the meaning of the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

The statute gives a court "discretion" to award attorneys' fees to the prevailing party in civil rights cases.

Study of the legislative history of the statute reveals that Congress intended this statute to apply to civil rights abuses, including certain race and sex discrimination cases, but not to arguments about whether Judge Roy Moore is allowed to display the Ten Commandments in the Alabama courthouse.

During the deliberations on the bill, the Senate penned that "in many cases arising under our civil rights laws, the citizen who must sue to enforce the law has little or no money with which to hire a lawyer."[6] In the recent First Amendment lawsuits filed by the ACLU, the tables are turned.

Small school districts and municipalities can either defend lawsuits and risk paying the ACLU's attorneys' fees if they lose, or they can voluntarily submit to the ACLU's view of the Constitution.

Even if lawsuits over the establishment clause somehow fall within 42 U.S.C. §1988, the statute empowers courts with nothing more than "discretion" to award fees.

In these cases, one would expect courts to withhold awarding fees. Since this is not happening, Congress must take immediate action to clarify 42 U.S.C. §1988 to explicitly exclude lawsuits related to the acknowledgement of God.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.