Crosslinked to Stop the ACLU.

Via Time:

Lawsuit Alleges Troop Misconduct

New documents released Tuesday regarding crimes committed by U.S. soldiers against civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan detail a troubling pattern of troops failing to understand and follow the rules that govern interrogations and deadly actions.

The documents, released by the American Civil Liberties Union ahead of a lawsuit, total nearly 10,000 pages of courts-martial summaries, transcripts and military investigative reports about 22 incidents. They show repeated examples of soldiers believing they were within the law when they killed local citizens.

The killings include the drowning of a man soldiers pushed from a bridge into the Tigris River as punishment for breaking curfew, and the suffocation during interrogation of a former Iraqi general believed to be helping insurgents.

I want to stop for a moment and note a few things. 

First, this story was sent to me by a friend of many years who vehemently opposes any form of torture and coercion.  He has very vocally made that position well know.

Where he and I disagree quite often is in the details.  I may buy off on some forms of coercion that he wont, but we both disagree with actual abuse and torture, much like what is noted here.

Note also that the "repeated examples of soldiers believing they were within the law when they killed local citizens" is based on reports of 22 incidents.  22.  So they looked into all 22 and found that most of the soldiers were sure they were doing OK.

Of course they were, that is the core of a defense.  They have to state that they believe they were justified to defend their actions.  So their grim pronouncement is hardly a shock, when their data is gleaned from Court Martials against people who committed crimes.

But getting back to my friend, he raised an interesting point.  he said:

I have been really busy this week, and have gotten a lot of emails about ACLU related stories, so here is a round up of the more interesting ones, along with a few thoughts.

A previous recipient of ACLU assistance, the Westboro Baptist church took one on the chin at a funeral when they were chased out.  Via Stop the ACLU:

While my sympathy is with the families at the funerals, and my scorn is firmly directed toward Phelps and his people, I have to also deplore the violence aimed at them, particularly the window breaking.  They had been humiliated and chased out.  Enough.

***

Also at Stop the ACLU, the case invlolving the Mt Soledad Memorial took an encouraging turn, as the California Appeals Court reversed the lower court ruling.

The court finds that 1) the appeals are not moot; 2) San Diegans for the Mount Soledad War Memorial and Mike Shelby are aggrieved parties for the purposes of the appeal; and 3) the transfer of the cross under Proposition A does not in itself violate the First Amendment establishment clause or the California Constitution…and the attorney’s fees award has been reversed!

Kiss all that money goodbye ACLU!

The fees part is a serious blow to the ACLU as part of their normal method of operation is intimidation regarding the possibiity of huge legal fees.  Many targets capitulate simply to avoid that possibility

Read the opinion here

The ADF said:

A California appeals court today reversed a lower court decision that had determined that the transfer of the Mt. Soledad National War Memorial to the federal government was unconstitutional.

“The people spoke on this issue, and now the court has upheld their right to preserve the Mt. Soledad National War Memorial, which honors those who sacrificed themselves for our freedom,” said Alliance Defense Fund Litigation Counsel Tim Chandler. “Removal of the cross at Mt. Soledad would have no purpose other than to create heartache for the veterans’ families and comrades who cherish their memory. We, like them, are pleased with the court’s ruling.”

This weeks Blogburst from Stop the ACLU, written by Jay.

So, America voted for change? They should be careful what they ask for because they will get it. For those that voted or stayed home in order to send the Republicans a message on election day…congratulations! Your all important “lesson” will now backfire in your face. You just cut off your nose to spite your face. Not only have you helped to give both Houses over to the left, put Nancy Pelosi in as the Speaker of the House, and completely destroyed any chance of getting a Constitutionalist majority in the Supreme Court, but groups like the ACLU seem to think this election was a mandate for their insanities. Look, you can’t say we didn’t warn you.

Yesterday voters nationwide rejected candidates who failed to uphold civil liberties and rejected ballot initiatives that undermine fundamental freedoms of all Americans.

“American voters have reinvigorated our system of checks and balances essential to stopping the abuse of power,” said Anthony D. Romero, American Civil Liberties Union Executive Director. “Voters finally had enough of the 109th Congress that repeatedly rubber-stamped legislation that violates our basic rights. Voters also rejected many state ballot initiatives designed to restrict civil liberties and meddle in our personal lives. The 110th Congress should take note - voters rejected political scare tactics and government power grabs in favor of civil liberties and policies that keep us safe and free.”

Ah, the old “Safe and Free” banner! Since when did the ACLU care about us being “safe”? So now the ACLU is promoting itself as a champion of both safety for our citizens and of freedom. What a joke! When 9-11 occurred what measures did the ACLU take to ensure our safety? None, zip, nada. This organization has done nothing to ensure our safety; in fact it has chosen to sue our government on behalf of terrorists outside of their legal jurisdiction while they were located in prisons on foreign soil.

I have a low opinion of the ACLU, that is fairly obvious.  I won't go into detail why again.

But I am also fair enough that I have always given them credit when they come down on the proper side of an issue, as they did last week.  Even a broken watch is right twice a day.

The scene was the rally at Bellevue Community College (BCC) last week, sponsored by Sen Maria Cantwell (D) and featuring Sen Barack Obama (D).

The rally was published to the school and all students were invited to attend.  Additionally, several teachers canceled classes so students could attend and write a report on the rally's activities.

5 such students showed up to attend the rally but were denied entry by the Cantwell campaign staff for wearing Mike McGavick tee shirts.  Mike is the Republican candidate for Maria's Senate seat.  The young men were physically ejected from the line.  BCC attempted to intervene but the staffers refused claiming they had ultimate authority to reject anyone as they had the hall rented.  That point is under dispute, as the whole campus was invited.

One of the young men has his story blogged here, and I cross-blogged it here.  And for a good giggle, check out this video of the events below, from Sound Politics.

The local media has been fairly mum on the initial story, till now.  What has changed is that the ACLU has come down firmly on the side of the students, as you saw in the video.

Read about it here and here.  The full letter that the ACLU wrote to the school is here.

So I applaud the local ACLU for taking the right steps in a clear case of suppression.  I don't find too many of their cases I agree with so this is a welcome surprise.

One minor thought however.  The campaign staffers made the observation that "They were clearly there to disrupt the event," though the students deny this.

Intro:
Every Wednesday I participate in what bloggers refer to as a blogburst.  The purpose is to focus a lot of attention on a single subject.  The subject of this particular blogburst is the ACLU.

The  ACLU is, to me, a very complicated and contradictory organization.  It purports to support and depend the bill of rights and other other constitutional protections, and indeed many of the causes it takes on are clear violations of the various constitutional principles.

The problem is that many more of them, and what to my reckoning appears to be the majority, involve the suppression of Christian and other "traditional" type of values.  The most notable and hypocritical seem to be cases involving the distancing of Christianity from schools or government.  The reason I highlight these as being hypocritical is that they often parallel cases the ACLU has taken the opposite position on when it concerns other faiths such as Islam. 

It just seems to me that an organization that declares itself to be the guardian and watchdog of constitutional protection do more to violate the constitutional rights of the people they should support.

I fully support some of their cases, but more often then not when I see their name in a news story, it causes me frustration.

On to the blogburst, written By Jay at StoptheACLU.com

Liberals always act shocked and astonished that conservatives believe that an organization claiming to be the guardian of religious liberty is actually is actually America’s number one religious censor. They will spout off token cases where the ACLU veered from its normal path of hostility toward Christian religious expression to defend free speech. They have a handful of cases they try to convince us with. However, the ACLU’s history can easily be looked at and the cases against religious expression far outweigh these token cases. If the ACLU were consistent in its positions on religious liberty despite the religion their defense on the issue would be much easier. However, many cases point out that it isn’t religion in general the ACLU fight, but the Christian religion in particular.

I don't want to attach too much significance to this, but it does raise questions.  The fact that Christianity seems to exist in a double standard in American schools is fairly obvious.  This is just one more example, with a surprising source.

The following was reposted from Stop the ACLU.

Jailed Terror Suspect Helped ACLU Draft School Religion Rules

Recently, the Supreme Court rejected an appeal from the infamous 9th Circuit over a school engaged in Islamic indoctrination during certain classes.

The suit challenged the content of a seventh-grade history course at Excelsior Middle School in Byron in the fall of 2001. The teacher, using an instructional guide, told students they would adopt roles as Muslims for three weeks to help them learn what Muslims believe.

She encouraged them to use Muslim names, recited prayers in class, had them memorize and recite a passage from the Quran and made them give up something for a day, such as television or candy, to simulate fasting during the month of Ramadan. The final exam asked students for a critique of elements of Muslim culture. Source

If this would have been a Christian class using anything similar the ACLU would have been there in a flash just as they are for a woman suing over a “voluntary” Bible class in Indiana. However, as blatant an example within the ACLU’s standard of church and state as this was they were nowhere to be found. If we were to follow the ACLU’s typical standards this would be a shining example of crossing the line of “church and state” into the “slippery slope area” and straight into the pit of indoctrination. So, why the ACLU’s absense when the case went all the way up to the Supreme Court? The case was taken up by Thomas More Law Center, but the ACLU didn’t even file a simple friend of the court brief. Why no involvement or even a statement of any kind?

Perhaps their absense was because they wrote the religion in school rules with a little help from a terror supporting friend.

This week's blogburst was a good article, but I got a kick out of another story posted there earlier, so I will post both here.

For brevity, here are the links for each one, which I will post in full below.

Enjoy.

ACLU Should Lose Its Tax Exempt Status

and

Thomas More Law Center Confronts ACLU Over Berkley, Michigan Nativity Display

***First*** 

ACLU Should Lose Its Tax Exempt Status

Huge thanks to Greg Tinti of the Political Pitbull for the video!

Imagine if a Church used the power of its tax exemption as a lever towards political campaigns. Can you imagine the outrage from groups like the ACLU if a Church used its tax exempt donations to create political ads opposing candidates that did not adhere to certain “American values” as interpreted by that Church? What if a Christian Religious organization were to use its official title to oppose certain political issues such as abortion?

We don’t have to imagine, the ACLU’s history shows us. They would challenge that Church’s tax exempt status.

However the ACLU’s official policy goes even further. In the ACLU’s eyes a Church doesn’t even have to be politically involved to deserve having its tax exempt status stripped.

From Stop the ACLU

This despite the fact that school and district policy allows it.

That pretty much summarizes my feelings. 

Hopefully this was just an overzealous individual, and the District will step up and correct the issue, perhaps issue a clarification.

But my cynical mind still wonders: Would the principal have cared if she was Muslim and this was a Koran?

And I also, in my depraved cynicism wondered why the Ruutherford institute is defending this and not the ACLU, as this is clearly in their arena.

I want to take a quick moment to express why I participate in the Blogburst most weeks.

The ACLU is an enigma to me.  On the surface their goals are noble, lofty and just.  And, as critics have often told me, they have been involved in some very important and supportable cases.

But too often I find myself wondering if their liberal agenda is at work cherry picking their cases.  Too many of their cases seem to take such an extreme position.

So my goal in regard to the ACLU is to expose their extremism and hopefully be a part of the encouragement of an agenda that is less about activism and more about constitutionalism.

This weeks Blogburst, courtesy of Jay at Stop the ACLU.

In case you haven’t heard, a group of dissenters from the ACLU are rebelling and calling for a change in the current leadership of the main organization. The summary of things this new group is fed up with is hypocrisy and the ACLU is full of it. Purging the ACLU of its hypocrisy is bound to be a Goliath task.

Where do we even begin with the ACLU’s hypocrisy? How about its odd stance on the Second Amendment? They have decided that the term “the people” that is contained in the Second Amendment does not apply to “the people” as it does in all of the other rights contained in the Bill of Rights. Instead they say that the Second Amendment only applies to militias such as the National Guard. They defend even the most radical free speech issues as individual rights, but somehow have adopted the opposite position on the Second Amendment.

In August of 2005 the New York ACLU sued against random bag searches on the NY Subway. Ironically the NYCLU HQ has a sign warning visitors that all bags are subject to search.

LSU, again, asks the obvious question:  What is so fundamentally bad with voter and election integrity, that the ACLU and Democrats almost consistently oppose it?   Would someone please explain that one to me?

Enjoy...

Crossposted from Stop The ACLU

Via The ACLU Website:

The following can be attributed to Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office:

What a load of crap! This ridiculous "poll tax" meme is quickly making its rounds. Nancy Pelosi has taken the ball with this one and ran with it headlining with the alarmist title, "Voter ID Bill Is an Attempt to Suppress the Votes of Millions of American Citizens!"

Give me a break! You have got to be kidding! Perhaps they are worried this act will supress "millions" of illegals and dead people from voting! An I.D. is required in many of the most basic things in America such as driving a car or even cashing a check. Please, tell me how all of these poor people that can not afford to get an I.D. cash their welfare checks?