The ACLU Is Going Down...

For years the American Civil Liberties Union has pushed its agenda as to what the Constitution “really says,” and what freedom “really means” through judicial extortion. In 1978, the Supreme Court exempted the ACLU from the “ambulance chasing” prohibitions that apply to nearly every other lawyer in the country. Over the years this has enabled the ACLU’s legions of pro bono attorneys to specifically target various organizations they feel are vulnerable to their lawsuits, dredge the ranks of the “offended” until they can find someone who will agree to let the ACLU stick their name at the top of a case, and then attempt to force a group’s acquiesce to their demands by threatening a costly legal case they usually cannot afford. Many who have dared to stand up against the ACLU might have won the battle in the court room, but lost the war as their organizations were driven into bankruptcy under crushing legal bills.

However, in the last few years the tide has started to turn. Alternate civil liberties groups, such as The American Center for Law and Justice, conservative radio commentators, and even some in the media, have drawn attention to the ACLU’s pattern of abuses, fanatic beliefs and outright hypocrisy. For the first time the ACLU is faced with legitimate public outcry over their tactics and slowly those who once would quietly give up their freedoms have been instilled with the will (and pro bono legal support) to fight. In addition, despite the efforts of obstructionist liberals in Congress, the court system is being given a much needed infusion of new judges who recognize that their interpretation of the Constitution should in some fashion be similar to those who wrote it. The ACLU understands its days of forcing Christianity, traditional values, and freedoms out of American public life are numbered.

Out of a sense of desperation and frustration toward this new threat, the ACLU has recently begun to change the target of their court cases to include the leaders of public groups and the private individuals who are leading the charge against them.

The best known case involves popular talk show host Sean Hannity. While interviewing volunteers of the Minuteman Project last April in Arizona, Hannity inadvertently crossed the US/Mexico border for a few minutes then immediately returned. It was a simple mistake and easily understood in light of the pathetic security of our borders. However the ACLU, which led the good fight by trying to obstruct the Minutemen and goad them into conflicts while enabling the rampant invasion of illegals into our nation, decided this was an offense that could not be tolerated. Apparently upset at Hannity’s drawing interest to the good work of the Minutemen, Arizona State Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, under the auspices of the ACLU, demanded Hannity’s arrest.

It is quite obvious that Sinema and the ACLU were not motivated out of a sense of respect for immigration law or fairness, but out of personal hatred toward Sean Hannity. The ACLU does not like what Hannity has to say, so what better way to silence him than by having him embarrassed and thrown in jail. But this is a larger issue than just the ACLU trying to embarrass Hannity. It is indicative of a terrifying new trend from the ACLU where they are attempting to hold individual citizens legally liable for doing nothing more than thinking they are wrong. With large organizations starting to resist them, the ACLU must now found a new defenseless target unable to afford to fight them: private citizens.

There are several other cases in recent weeks which further illustrate this trend. In Tangipahoa Parish, Louisiana, the ACLU has called for the arrest of school teachers and administrators because the ACLU does not feel they adequately exorcised all Judeo-Christian influences from their classrooms and cafeterias.

In San Diego the ACLU is suing five local personalities, including Rush Limbaugh sub Roger Hedgecock, because they do not like the wording they have chosen to represent the “Arguments For” section of a local ballot initiative to save the Mt. Soledad Cross. Who cares about freedom of speech and the right to voice your political opinions, the ACLU does not agree with it so it must be Constitutional to censor it. What is next? Arresting talk show hosts?

In the Keystone School District in Clarion County, Pennsylvania, even after the school board caved into the demands of the Pittsburgh ACLU, the ACLU is still suing the district because they felt that some in the community still “hoped” that there would be a prayer offered at the high school graduation. Suing a school district because some people in the community, who have no connection to the actual school district, “hope” something happens? Just what does that mean? Last time I checked “hoping” was still Constitutional. This case is nothing short of the ACLU trying to punish rank and file tax payers for not falling into line with its edicts. Just what will it take for the ACLU to feel adequately comfortable with the average citizen of Clarion County’s lack of hope at ever opposing the dictates of the ACLU? Will it be the ACLU individually suing every conservative American until we finally agree to live out our lives as Godless, Socialist drones, or would it just be Brown Shirts and Thought Police?

The ACLU is out of control. They can no longer even pretending to support freedom, the Constitution and Bill of Rights. What once may have been an organization dedicated to high ideals has now degenerated into a literal threat to our liberty. They are going beyond just trying to prosecute every Boy Scout troop and are now moving on to either sue people just like you and me, or actually have us arrested and subjected to criminal prosecution. How ironic it is that a group who thinks terrorists should not be in prison feels that those who disagree with them should. Sounds a little like the ACLU is no longer endorsing civil liberties but political prisoners.

Repeat:

First things first: The first post, in any ACLU thread posted on FR, should carry the following paragraph for context...

"Roger Baldwin, the co-founder of the ACLU said: “I am for socialism, disarmament, and ultimately, for abolishing the state itself. … I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the properties class, and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal. I don’t regret being part of the communist tactic. I knew what I was doing. I was not an innocent liberal. I wanted what the communists wanted and I traveled the United Front road to get it.” In spite of Baldwin’s Communist leanings, President Jimmy Carter awarded him the Presidential Medal of Freedom on January 16, 1981."

I'm with you! Each time I see ACLU in a post, I'll make darn sure it's there.

Now would you do something for me?

Every time you see Amnesty Internationial, if I don't beat you to it, would you add the following into comments...

Information for Journalists

Irene Khan - Biography

Irene Zubaida Khan joined Amnesty International as the organization’s seventh Secretary General in August 2001.

Taking the helm in Amnesty International as the first woman, the first Asian and the first Muslim to guide the world’s largest human rights organization, Irene brought a new perspective to the organization. As an individual, she brought experience and enthusiasm for putting people at the heart of policy.

Irene took up the leadership of Amnesty International in its 40th anniversary year as the organization began a process of change and renewal to address the complex nature of contemporary human rights violations, and confronted the challenging developments in the wake of the attacks of 11 September.

In her first year in office, Irene reformed AI’s response to crisis situations, personally leading high level missions to Pakistan during the bombing of Afghanistan, to Israel/Occupied Territories just after the Israeli occupation of Jenin, and to Colombia before the Presidential elections in May 2003. Deeply concerned about violence against women, she called for better protection of women’s human rights in meetings with President Musharraf of Pakistan, President Lahoud of Lebanon and Prime Minister Khaleda Zia of Bangladesh. She has initiated a process of consultations with women activists to design a global campaign by Amnesty International against violence on women.

Irene has been keen to draw attention to hidden human rights violations. In Australia, she drew attention to the plight of asylum seekers in detention. In Burundi, she met with victims of massacres and urged President Buyoya and other parties to the conflict to end the cycle of human rights abuse. In Bulgaria, she led a campaign to end discrimination of those suffering from mental disabilities.

Interested in working directly with people to change their lives, Irene helped to found the development organization, Concern Universal, in 1977, and began her work as a human rights activist with the International Commission of Jurists in 1979.

Irene joined the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in 1980, and worked in a variety of positions at Headquarters and in field operations to promote the international protection of refugees. From 1991-95 she was Senior Executive Officer to Mrs. Sadako Ogata, then UN High Commissioner for Refugees. She was appointed as the UNHCR Chief of Mission in India in 1995, the youngest UNHCR country representative at that time, and in 1998 headed the UNHCR Centre for Research and Documentation. She led the UNHCR team in Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia during the Kosovo crisis in 1999, and was appointed Deputy Director of International Protection later that year.

Irene studied law at the University of Manchester and Harvard Law School, specialising in public international law and human rights. She is the recipient of several academic awards, a Ford Foundation Fellowship, and the Pilkington "Woman of the Year" Award 2002.

Public Document

For more information please call Amnesty International's press office in London, UK, on +44 20 7413 5566
Amnesty International, 1 Easton St., London WC1X 0DW. web: http://www.amnesty.org

Or this one:

In its annual report, titled “Why human rights matter,” Amnesty International says that America's war on terrorism has “made the world a more dangerous place.” This is the consequence of “the US seeking to put itself outside the ambit of judicial scrutiny,” the organization says. Furthermore, “[s]acrificing human rights in the name of security at home, turning a blind eye to abuses abroad, and using pre-emptive military force where and when it chooses, have neither increased security nor ensured liberty,” the report adds. Practicing and apparently condoning torture, according to Amnesty International's Secretary General Irene Khan, has resulted in the US having “lost its high moral ground and its ability to lead on peace and elsewhere.” The practice of violating human rights and the war in Iraq is believed to have a broader influence than on the immediate victims. “The war in Iraq,” the report says, “has diverted global attention from other human rights abuses around the world.” [BBC, 5/26/2004 Sources: ACLU et al. v. Department of Defense et al., 7/6/2004]
People and organizations involved: Amnesty International, Irene Khan

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.