I have many differences with the ACLU, but I find many of the attacks on the ACLU to be quite reprehensible. Consider, for instance, the following from the Stop the ACLU blog, quoting a letter from another group:
Yesterday the ACLU announced that they would be suing the city of New York for violating the rights of American citizens who use the public subways because they are subject to random searches. Whether you agree or disagree with the random searches, we all know they are intended for our security in a dangerous time. They are intended as a plan to thwart terrorists and protect Americans from harm.
Don Swarthout, President, Christians Reviving America’s Values, is releasing the following response:
“If the ACLU wins this battle in court they will receive a very large financial boost as they have from similar ‘victories’ in San Diego, Alabama and Virginia. When the ACLU wins their attorneys are paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by tax-payers.
“The never ceasing flow of litigation against cities, states, and the federal government is nothing more than fund-raising stunts. Many of the ACLU’s victories come not because their complaint is just, but because the municipality budget is inadequate to match the abusive onslaught.
“In New York, apparently the ACLU believes these searches are unconstitutional because they are random. Although the ACLU has also called metal detectors in airports an invasion of privacy. There is no pleasing the ACLU, because improving society or protecting the rights of American citizens is no longer its goal.
“Now the ACLU is coming against the Constitutional duty of the United States government which requires the protection of citizens. What is in question here is the definition of freedom. Freedom comes with responsibility. The ACLU has become an anti-Christian, pro-terrorist, entity whose only goal is to get the headlines to keep donations rolling in.
“The ACLU’s abuse of the legal system is criminal. For that reason Christians Reviving America’s Values is drafting a letter asking the US Congress to investigate the ACLU for widespread use of frivolous lawsuits. In the case of the New York lawsuit, the ACLU’s actions may also be dangerous to the citizens of New York City.”
I called Mr. Swarthout on the phone and I have full permission to reprint his statement here. He said he has come across our site when he was doing research a few times, and that he really appreciates what we are doing. Mr. Swarthout, we really appreciate what you are doing too. If people don’t wake up, this trojan horse named the ACLU may just destroy us from within. They consistently defend our enemies, and fight against our efforts to fight them. ACLU, root for the good guys for a change!
We wish Mr. Swarthout the best of luck in this letter to Congress. We hope it is successful, and that Congress will listen. And for those who want to defend the ACLU on this action…just remember…and if they are successful, and one day these terrorists blow up a few thousand in a subway, you will be able to thank the ACLU.
By filing lawsuits, the ACLU is exercising its (and its clients') legal rights and its (and its clients') constitutional rights: The Petition Clause, which protects the right to petition courts for redress of what one perceives as grievances. One may disagree with them. One may try to change the legal doctrines under which they're suing (by Congressional action, by persuading the courts to change the constitutional rules, or for that matter by constitutional amendment) to keep the ACLU from willing. One may call for changes to statutes that give prevailing plaintiffs in some civil rights actions the right to recover attorneys' fees, though I'm skeptical about that. But there's nothing remotely "criminal" about the ACLU's actions.
Filing an outright frivolous complaint -- which is to say one that is not "warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous [i.e., legally plausible] argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law" -- is punishable. One can already get sanctions for the filing of such frivolous complaints. But I know of no systematic pattern of the ACLU's filing such frivolous complaints.
In fact, my sense is that most of the criticism that the ACLU faces comes because their arguments are too successful -- not only nonfrivolous, but actually ones that win in court. If the ACLU only filed complaints that were such clear losers to be frivolous, they wouldn't much bother people: At most, they'd waste some government lawyers' time, but since government entities tend to have lawyers on salary (and generally not very high salary), they wouldn't even waste much government money. In those frivolous cases, the government would fight the ACLU, win (by definition, since if the government lost, the case wouldn't be frivolous), and even get sanctions against the ACLU.
But in fact the ACLU often wins, and even when it doesn't, its arguments are generally quite plausible. For instance, the claim that random searches of people in subways are unconstitutional is an eminently plausible Fourth Amendment claim, perhaps even a winning one. Searches that aren't based on any individualized suspicion are usually unconstitutional; even some conservative Justices have said so. (See, e.g., City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000) (Thomas, J., dissenting) ("I rather doubt that the Framers of the Fourth Amendment would have considered 'reasonable' a program of indiscriminate stops of individuals not suspected of wrongdoing."); Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993) (Scalia, J., concurring) (expressing "doubt" as to whether even suspicion-based searches for weapons are constitutional, unless the suspicion rises to the relatively high level of "probable cause": "I frankly doubt, moreover, whether the fiercely proud men who adopted our Fourth Amendment would have allowed themselves to be subjected, on mere suspicion of being armed and dangerous, to such indignity").
There are some exceptions, including one for airport searches. Perhaps courts should extend this exception to subway searches, especially aimed at finding bombs. But given the current law, the ACLU's argument is eminently credible.
If you don't like the Fourth Amendment rules that make it possible for the ACLU to sue, fault the Justices who have developed those rules. (In some situations, fault the Framers for setting up the constitutional provisions based on which these rules have been developed; while the Fourth Amendment's ban on unreasonable searches doesn't clearly prohibit the New York searches, it doesn't clearly authorize them, either.) Or fault the Framers for maintaining the English system of justice, in which people have legal rights against the government, and are entitled to go to court to vindicate those rights, even when the majority believes (for good reason or bad) that the rights are dangerous to the common good. Or perhaps, at most, argue that while the ACLU has a legal right to do what it's doing, it ought to (presumably in highly unusual circumstances) refrain from exercising its rights.
But stop calling them "criminal" for exercising their constitutional rights. Stop calling their lawsuits "frivolous" when the lawsuits bother you precisely because they may well prevail. Stop calling them "pro-terrorist" when there's absolutely no reason to think that they indeed favor terrorism, and lots of reason to think that they favor (whether soundly or misguidedly) legal rules -- such as limits on government power to search -- that unfortunately sometimes protect terrorists while at the same time protecting law-abiding citizens. (It's far from clear to me that random searches are going to do much good at stopping suicide bombers, or that bans on random searches will help terrorists; but I acknowledge that some constitutional rules that the ACLU defends do at times protect terrorists as well as protecting law-abiding citizens.)
What is in question here, indeed, is "the definition of freedom." There is lots of room for good faith disagreement about the scope of our freedoms. But that some people have a broader view than you do -- whether it relates to the right to bear arms, the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to counsel, the right to spend one's money for political causes -- doesn't make them criminals, doesn't make them pro-criminal or pro-terrorist, and doesn't make their arguments frivolous.
All Related Posts (on one page) | Some Related Posts:
- The ACLU and Bigoted Speech in Public:
- ACLU of Texas and Gun Rights:
- Why Do I Keep Blogging About Unsound Criticisms of the ACLU?...
- Before Criticizing a Group, It Helps To Get One's Facts Straight:
- Unfounded Attack on the ACLU:
- More on Nebraska ACLU seeking gag order on the press:
- Nebraska ACLU and lawyers' ethical obligations:
- Nebraska ACLU asks for injunction against speech:
Agesilaus
Ah yes, it's those rich, money-grubbing ACLU attorneys!
Of course the attorneys themselves actually get paid a small fraction of what a first year associate at a firm earns...
And of course, their lawsuits are frivolous -- so why is Mr. Swarthout concerned about them winning and collecting all those fees?
"For the record: yes, I am a card-carrying member of the ACLU, but the more important question is, 'Why aren't you, Bob?' Now this is an organization whose sole purpose is to defend the Bill of Rights, so it naturally begs the question: why would a senator, his party's most powerful spokesman and a candidate for President, choose to reject upholding the Constitution?"
--Aaron Sorkin, THE AMERICAN PRESIDENT
Very well said.
I have lost respect for the ACLU and for those who demand that we respect the priesthood of lawyers.
As to the "Priesthood of lawyers" comment, This isn't the first time I've seen this kind of reference in the comments. It looks like this site is starting to draw the attention of militia types.
People aren't angry that the ACLU successfully petitions, they're angry because, in their eyes, the ACLU is a handful of lawyers who is somehow able to tell 300 million people what to do and what to think.
(Hell, I don't like the ACLU after seeing those Harvard scumbags lining up to represent the Nazis of the 21st century like it was some kind of prize. Don't give me that "ethical obligation to represent the worst to protect the best" b.s., either. Those guys wanted it. Bad. That says all you need to know about them.)
Thanks.
Do you find that argumentum ad hominem works well in defending your clients? If so, it might be useful to note that other audiences can be less tolerant.
Further, you might consider how its use here would relate to paragraph one of the rules for commenting. I'd also recommend a glance at the paragraph that begins, "Here's a tip".
As to the substance of Prof. Volokh's post, I agree with his call for moderation in terminology, even while disagreeing (strongly) with some of the tactics and views of the ACLU. Perhaps I should also note that I have been, though am no longer, a member of the ACLU, and that my decision to leave the group was directly related to my aforementioned disagreements.
I don't have much use for many of the ACLU's positions. Certainly they take some positions that can be legitimately attacked.
However, this appears to be one of the more obviously meritorious cases they have taken in recent memory. The diatribe appears more anti-lawyer than anything else.
BY the way I'd still like that cite about the government's constitutional duty to protect citizens. I could file alot of lucrative civil rights lawsuits with that one.
The fact that some condemn the ACLU for the mere act of asking the courts to determine the constitutionality of government action is baffling.
In any event, you will find very few people who contend that the NY subway searchers are in any way effective in stopping or deterring terrorism, considering that a terrorist is free to refuse the search and then walk a few blocks to the next subway stop. And yet some will defend this useless program to the death against the ACLU's attempts to challenge it.
This is not correct. The first campus "speech codes" were put in place in 1989-90; the ACLU went on record as opposing such codes in 1990.
Yes, poor helpless government. We must protect them from the awful bullying of the ACLU.
The bag searches are a pointless waste of time, performed for the purpose of letting cops bill unnecessary overtime and creating the appearance of doing something.
Its important to remember _why_ police violate civil rights: In the NYPD's case, because they are, to a man, too lazy, incompetent, banal, or just plain dumb to conduct a proper investigation.
When the NYPD catches a terrorist - a single one - BEFORE they pull off an attack, I'll reconsider. Until then, they're a bigger threat to me than Al Qaeda is.
Remember, this is the same PD that DIDN'T BOTHER TO READ SHEIK RAHMAN's documents, which it had in its possession after the first attack, and which would have IF THEY HAD BOTHERED TO READ THEM revealed a great deal about Al Qaeda's network in America.
But I did some googling, and it's clear that this is NOT a militia catch phrase. I apologize for the above post.
But I stand by the rest of the post. The ACLU is doing us a favor by resolving the issue in a civil case. Otherwise, it would be litigated in a criminal case that could end up letting guilty people go free.
The MTA is entitled to impose any not-completely-arbitrary restriction on entry into the system. One long-standing rule is that nobody may enter without paying a fare; another, now, is that nobody may enter who, upon being asked by a policeman to consent to a search, declines such consent. I don't see a way to legally distinguish between these two rules.
The ACLU has and always will take unpopular positions because often it attempting to defend a set of rights against a majority position. Of course, this will lead to some revulsion from the majority, but that's the nature of the system. Some rights are too fundamental to be subjected to the will of the masses. As Madison said, "the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority."
On a side note, as a current resident of New York, and considering that the ACLU is litigating so that I don't get searched randomly on my way to work, I'd like if everyone stopped calling me a "terrorist":
Ogre said "I agree with Mike -- the ACLU DOES defend terrorists, and they use terrorist tactics -- they threaten and bully to get their way. They may be successful, but Bonny and Clyde were successful for quite some time, as was the Boston Strangler."
Like much of the airport security apparatus, the policy is all for show. It gives the appearance that the authorities are "doing something", while doing nothing to actually increase security.
Jim
If the City sees fit to enforce screening to protect their investment, it has that right.
Would the "aclu" be whining if there were metal detectors &bomb-sniffing booths at every entrance?
Is it really necessary to hinder EVERY user just so that a group....that's been shown to produce terrorists...isn't "offended" ?
Oh...by the way....
Nice job ,there,protecting the child molesters who call themselves nambla.
I'm sure the aclu felt THAT was in the best intrest of America, also.
Secondly, the easiest way for law enforcement to protect the citizens is to have the full access to do their jobs. Law enforcement is afraid to search those who would fit the mold of a terrorist for fear of a profiling lawsuit. All they will need to do is search those they suspect of possible terrorist activity not every citizen to be efficient and effective.
That hasn't been part of our law since forever, if it ever was.
In any event, yes, one DOES have a right to travel, interstate or intrastate, by foot, car, subway, or jetliner. Government cannot restrict that right unreasonably.
Neither Bonnie &Clyde nor the Boston Strangler were trying to rip down the moral fabric of the Nation.
It's the USE of the systems that I'm pointing to here.
No one here is saying that jihad Mo can't walk from point to point.
No one said that he couldn't drive a car.
I stated that Public Transportation is not a right.
&it isn't.
are we really so comfortable in the notion that terrorism is restricted to a particular ethnic group? are you willing to risk that bombing in the subway station that kills thousands on those probablities? after all, john walker lindh, timothy mcveigh, richard reid, eric rudolph...any of these names familiar? and let's say we do adopt a profiling procedure, and a white, 40 year old male drops a ricin bomb in the middle of Penn Station...should we lay the blame for the eradication of New York at the feet of those advocating profiling?
as for the child molestors, i think the issue is rather that the "best interest of America" is served when constitutional rights are protected, not when we alter their effectiveness based on a group's popularity. There can certainly be disagreement on the scope of those rights, and whether they stretch to "child molestors," but that disagreement doesn't prevent someone from going to court to get resolution. One last question--everyone keeps saying the ACLU is funded by tax payer funds...can someone clear this up for me? My impression is that a wing of the ACLU has tax exempt status, and that the rest is largely funded by donations?
(sigh)
Of the 19 that attacked the Towers...how many weren't of a middle east influence?
The attackers of the Cole?
The attackers in London?
The list goes on &on.
If the attackers were white, mid-aged males, would the "aclu" still fight for their "freedoms"?
I think not!
Please point to one example of where the ACLU has recovered attorneys fees under U.S.C. 1988 in a frivilous civil suit.
This is misleading. Section 1988 allows attorneys of the prevailing party in a civil rights case to collect fees, which renders somewhat silly the argument that it allows the ACLU to file nonsense lawsuits with impunity. Adam had it right earlier.
Example 1
Example 2
And Defend these actions for those that love the ACLU
second, 42 U.S.C. 1988, from a quick scan, seems to allow attorney's fees for the prevailing party at the court's discretion. so, if the aclu is winning attorney's fees, then, it means that it's winning the suits...which would seem to get back to prof. volokh's point--if you don't like that, campaign against the judges, get a constitutional amendment, talk to your congressman and amend 1988. it's not the aclu's fault for winning.
and as to the little school communitites, etc, it stands to reason that if they're having to pay these atty's fees, then they're losing these cases...in our legal system, doesn't that mean that they have some fault?
.
Ford Foundation $925,000 2002 Rockefeller Foundation $275,000 2002 David &Lucile Packard Foundation $1,600,000 2001 Ford Foundation $900,000 2001 Ford Foundation $465,000 2001 Ford Foundation $300,000 2001 Ford Foundation $100,000 2001 Clark Foundation $70,000 2001 Clark Foundation $35,000 2001 George Gund Foundation $35,000 2001 W. K. Kellogg Foundation $25,000 2001 Peninsula Community Foundation $25,000 2001 Community Foundation of Greater Memphis $10,000 2001 Ford Foundation $1,500,000 2000 Ford Foundation $250,000 2000 Ford Foundation $187,500 2000 Ford Foundation $7,000,000 1999 Ford Foundation $800,000 1999 Ford Foundation $600,000 1999 Huber Foundation $400,000 1999 Ford Foundation $200,000 1999 Open Society Institute $200,000 1999 Open Society Institute $200,000 1999 Open Society Institute $125,000 1999 Open Society Institute $100,000 1999 Open Society Institute $100,000 1999 Ford Foundation $1,000,000 1998 David &Lucile Packard Foundation $600,000 1998 Carnegie Corporation of New York $500,000 1998 Open Society Institute $200,000 1998 Open Society Institute $200,000 1998 Ford Foundation $187,500 1998 Open Society Institute $150,000 1998 Open Society Institute $107,300 1998 Open Society Institute $100,000 1998 Open Society Institute $100,000 1998 Open Society Institute $100,000 1998 Open Society Institute $100,000 1998
I only included donations 6 figures or higher.
Even though they say thay're all for the Constitution, they don't recognize the Right to Keep &Bear Arms.
you're right about all of those people...they were all of "middle east influence." (not exactly sure what that means...i like falafel, does that mean i might be a terrorist?) so, from that argument, are you suggesting that terrorism just doesn't happen in other ethnicities? what about the weather underground, who detonated an explosion in haymarket, or who bombed police cars?
and i'd like to remind you that the facists who wanted to march in skokie, i'm pretty sure they were all white...doesn't seem very consistent with the Nazi philosophy to be inclusive...but, of course, it's always easier to throw out conclusory statements about the aclu, like, no, they won't represent white people, than actually looking at the facts...
I was merely using YOUR idea about 40-ish white males.
I'm not saying that that other "ethnicities" , as you put it, aren't capable of terrorism.
But, can you point out another viable group that's been credited with attacks in the past &threaten more attacks in the future?
Wrong. The ACLU has been a leading force challenging sex offender registration and residency restriction laws. Most sex offenders are middle-aged, white men.
Maybe we should start profiling middle-aged, white men for non-random searches and interrogations. It might catch more criminals than targeting Arabs.
I like the disclaimer at the bottom of your links that the information contained in the pages does not comport to contain anything which has been "proven in fact."
Who do the cops look for when a little girl or little boy go missing?!
Middle aged white males!
Where's the cries of profiling?
The cries are not needed. Most prudent Americans realize that that group of people commit 99% (fictional number....I don't know the actual % )of crimes against young children.
however, not being a terrorism expert, i won't wager a guess which of these groups are "viable." the point is rather that terrorism, violence, criminality is not confined by racial boundaries...to take a limited viewpoint of it leaves our national security overwhelmingly underinclusive.
can you point to an example of the profiling you speak of in relation to the disappearance of children?
Don't believe me? My money is on the fact that no one here, besides me, has actually read the "9-11" report. In it you will see that one of the main contributing factors to allowing the 19 MIDDLE_EASTERN YOUNG MEN OF ISLAMIC FAITH through and onto the planes was the exact thing that the A.C.L.U. is complaining about.
Until you idiots on the left actually come to grips with who is trying to kill innocents and who isn't, you need to keep your mouths shut and let those that want us safe do their jobs. If you are that concerned about it, then actually work to do something about the 18,000 murders committed in this country every year.
And do NOT bring up Timothy McVeigh. While you can only cite ONE instance of a domestic terrorist, let me make something very clear. He DID NOT bomb the Murrah building in the name of a God/Religion/Group or anything else. It was an act done to protest the Clinton Administration's use of force in the killings at Ruby Ridge and Waco, Texas. It DOES NOT equate on ANY level.
When a detective is told that the serial killer looks a certain way, he does not detain someone that looks nothing like him. Tell me why this should be different.
Unfortunately, the terroists act to protest the Bush and Clinton Administration's use of force and military installations in Iraq, Israel, Saudia Arabia and the rest of the Arab World.
Sadly, this does equate on many levels. McVeigh was no better and no worse.
Give me a break, we're talking about stinking lawyers here! And at that, lawyers that have a reputation for supporting the most sick, twisted, deranged, and sadistic perverts and animals in society —, murdering child molesters.
We're talking about the same sick and twisted ACLU that defended NAMBLA (the North American Man Boy Love Association that believes in sex with boys by 8 or it's too late.) The same sick, twisted, deranged lawyers that say NAMBLA's POSTED INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO BE SEXUAL PREDATORS WITH CHILDREN AND GET AWAY WITH IT, EVEN TO THE POINT OF MURDER!!
When any HONESTLY takes a look at the ACLU's history, and what they have defended in the last 10 - 20 years, they are deranged lawyers bordering on outright evil!
Since there are all of those hidden white male sex offenders out there, maybe the cops should be pro-active--start suspicionless searches of white men, their papers, and, most importantly, their computer. After all, failing to do so would be to fail to protect children from their right not to be abused.
This is what some are demanding to do to look for terrorists. My guess is that white male sex offenders have harmed a more people in this country than terrorists have.
1) Do you really think that civil rights don't matter if the establishment clause is at issue?
2) echoing "anothereugene", do you really believe that to be labelled "leftist" is to be (or at least labelled to be) corrupt?
3) You do realise the reason the ACLU declines 2nd Amendment cases is due to the principle that the right to bear arms clause implies and accepts regulation? This is a principle many/most conservative justices accept.
4) Do you know what the definition of a frivolous lawsuit is? Do you believe that any lawsuit that is not in line with Mr. Bush's agenda is "frivolous"?
5) If an organisation will defend Nazis and suspected terrorists, isn't it possible they involve themselves in the defence despite the client, instead of due to the client?
6) Is it possible that the ACLU defends "suspected terrorists" because of the nature of their prosecution (tribunals, denial of the right to cross-examine one's accuser) rather than some race-based affinity?
7) Would you support the use of military tribunals, secret testimony and a cloudy appeals process to go after the members of the Michigan Militia (two of whom were involved in terrorism) and Operation Rescue (several of whom have performed terrorist acts)? Because if this is not true, (and you support these policies in general) I can only assume you have no problem with murders, you just don't like "colored" murderers (or non-Christian ones I suppose).
Allow the next Democratic president the right to use all of these new "Homeland Security" enhancing powers to arrest and imprison the entire Religious Right for the actions of its fanatics, and perhaps you'll have the moral legitimacy to ask for their application on Muslims.
For the record, I am neither Christian nor Muslim, nor have any antecedents from either camp. I am not a member nor employee of the ACLU. I am, proudly, a Democrat.
-RS
The propensity to hit soft targets &public transportation leads to one particular group. To overlook this group is a deadly mistake.
.
.
.
The Jessica Lunsford case comes to mind.
The local Constabulary canvassed the area searching for "persons that might fit the profile"....
Mr. E. Volokh, I'd like to know why you don't consider any of the ACLU's lawsuits frivolous, by your definition of "warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous [i.e., legally plausible] argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law".
And why do you feel so threatened by the opinion of American citizens who feel that the ACLU is not a good organization? The post is only petitioning for an investigation, not summary execution.
How do you feel about pedophiles? The ACLU has defended NAMBLA.
I think you've mistaken me for someone else.
I've not even used the word "frivolous"
Get your facts right before you start a rant.
/typical leftist crap
from a very cursory reading of some lunsford materials, there is no mention of racial profiling being used...could you send me the link where that quote is found?
and despite mr. hosedragger's comments to the contrary, the timothy mcveigh incident is related...there were "soft targets" if i'm understanding the term correctly, and while not using public transportation, it did involve a federal office building...
it's no surprise to say that the 9/11 attackers were young, Muslim males...that's been pretty well covered by every major news outlet...it's just short sighted to make the assumption that therefore, every credible threat to our country will come from young, Muslim males...if you want to search everyone, and can do it in a constitutional manner, then go for it...
Actually, I do really like the First Amendment, and I like when a group fights for robust freedom of speech. I like it when they do it for Oliver North just like they do it for NAMBLA...the reason? Because at some point down the road, I don't want close minded people attempting to abridge my ability to speak out...hence the Pastor Niemolle quote...of course, it's always nice to be able to pick and choose when the First Amendment applies, but only really when you get to do the picking...
As for the slippery slope ... I was at a deposition this week and the videographer (who was Latino) casually asked the attorneys assembled whether it was OK for the police to check his bag as he EXITED the subway. Granted they may have asked his permission (that wasn't clear, but I recognize that if so it was constitutional under current caselaw) but even if he gave it, it was hardly truly voluntarily. But of course he didn't want to make it seem as if he were unwilling to cooperate in the global struggle against extremism.
Keep living in that bubble!
Do you think these very animals you seek to protect would spare your life?
It's also well documented that their "religion" requires them to "destroy all infidels".
Would you still feel this way when the next public transportation attacked is filled with aclu attourneys &leftists.
&with that, I'm outta here.
There's no use in arguing with a fool.
NYgirl...are you looking for me to say I love pedophiles? Does that make it easier to characterize this as a "typical leftist rant?"
Sounds to me like your jumping to unfounded conclusions. I merely asked our views on an issue. I did not say you are fill-in-the-blank. I did not characterize you. However, you have characterized me.
so, there are my views...i believe in uninhibited freedom of speech that extends to even unpopular viewpoints
NYgirl: "How do you feel about pedophiles? The ACLU has defended NAMBLA."
True. BUT CONSIDER:
The ACLU defends NAMBLA's right to petition the government to change laws. Now, I hope that NAMBLA loses and the laws remain on the books as they are currently. But to paraphrase Voltaire, I will defend to the death their right to petition the government 'til they are blue in the face.
Here's a link to the exact case. NAMBLA is being sued because their web site and fliers allegedly influenced a man to commit a heinous murder. (According to the ACLU, the materials at question DO NOT advocate any criminal activity.)
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,38540,00.html
Now, some people will say, "So what! NAMBLA is evil and they must be silenced to prevent pedophiles from being influenced to commit crimes."
Unfortunately, that is the same line of reasoning that allows people to call for banning AC/DC (http://www.crabsodyinblue.com/acdcnightstalker.htm) because someone may be "influenced" to commit a crime.
Or for that matter, someone using that reasoning could try to ban the NRA for supposedly "influencing" the perpetrators of the Columbine massacre.
I don't agree with all of the ACLU's positions (I am a former member), but there are times where I am glad to have them around if only to teach us a lesson about jumping on the bandwagon before the musicians have had a chance to tune up first.
You are entitled to your views; however, others are entitled to theirs too. The effort that Mr. Volokh is criticizing is, as I mentioned earlier, only asking for an investigation, not summary execution.
Just as the ACLU can characterize Guantanamo as an illegal torture camp (I am paraphrasing), so can others characterize the activities of the ACLU as pro-terrorist &harmful to American society.
I can't speak for Andy, but I support NAMBLA's right to petition the government, but not the contents of the petition. Everyone ought be able to make their case to the government, even if their case is a bad one.
That's entirely consistent with criticizing the anti-ACLU site. The information on the site is wrong-headed, misleading, and if followed, would result in bad policy. I don't think the administrators of the site should continue to maintain it. But I certainly think they have a right to do so, and would be willing to defend them against government efforts to censor the site.
Just as they have a right to criticize the ACLU though, we have a right to criticize them, especially for misleading information.
See above. You are missing that criticizing the content of someone's ideas and opposing government efforts to censor those ideas are entirely consistent.
reader: NYGirl, I think you're removing critical words from Andy's post. He said that "The ACLU defends NAMBLA's right to petition the government to change laws."
I can't speak for Andy, but I support NAMBLA's right to petition the government, but not the contents of the petition. Everyone ought be able to make their case to the government, even if their case is a bad one.
That's entirely consistent with criticizing the anti-ACLU site. The information on the site is wrong-headed, misleading, and if followed, would result in bad policy. I don't think the administrators of the site should continue to maintain it. But I certainly think they have a right to do so, and would be willing to defend them against government efforts to censor the site.
Just as they have a right to criticize the ACLU though, we have a right to criticize them, especially for misleading information.
Andy: "Exactamundo." (If I can paraphrase Voltaire, I can quote Demolition Man.
Andy &Reader, the information on the Stop the ACLU site is "wrong-headed, misleading, and if followed, would result in bad policy", in your opinion. But it is not in the opinions of others.
This is not a fair application of the civil rights funding enacted by congress.
But, it is an illustration of the ugly heart that beats inside this destructive organization bent on using our own constitution to destroy our nation.
Nonetheless I am entirely sympathetic with the sentiments expressed in the article he attacks.
No matter what the ACLU's announced aims, it must be known by its deeds. Its history reveals a group of radicals little different from Al Queda in its animosity toward the founding principles of the United States. Just as Islam proclaims that it is dedicated to peace, while doing the opposite, the ACLU supports only causes intended to further moral relativism and to undercut the Constitution.
The ACLU is, and has always been since the founding of its immediate predecessor organizations just before American entry into World War I, dedicated to furthering the cause of radical socialism. This necessarily means being opposed to the structure of government laid down by the Constitution and opposed to the moral principles upon which the nation was founded.
It is not coincidental that the ACLU came into existence the same year as the Soviet Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. All of the initial members of what later became the ACLU were active supporters of the Socialist International's program to sabotage the Allies' war preparations; many of them were members of the Socialist Party, notably Socialist party head Norman Thomas.
The ACLU's principal founder and driving force for many years was Roger Baldwin, who among other things was a member of the Socialist Party and a devoted follower of anarchist Emma Goldman. She was an advocate of "propaganda of the deed," what today is called terrorist bombing. One of her followers assassinated President William McKinley in 1901. Baldwin supported her all the way.
He also was a member and active defender of the I.W.W., the radical labor group that assassinated former Governor of Idaho George Steunenberg with a dynamite bomb in 1905, because he had opposed an illegal I.W.W. mining strike. In 1910 I.W.W. members bombed the Los Angeles Times building, killing twenty one workmen.
More than a hundred socialist and anarchist newspapers around the country, defended by the ACLU, regularly featured articles describing how to make dynamite bombs and how to plant them to inflict the maximum number of deaths.
Compare the ACLU's present-day efforts to thwart identifying terrorists with the identical avowed aim enunciated in 1917:
"...maintenance in war times of the rights of free speech, free press, peaceful assembly, liberty of conscience and freedom from unlawful search and seizure."
In private, Baldwin's true aims were more candidly expressed in a 1917 letter to Louis Lochner of the socialist People's Council in Minnesota:
"Do steer away from making it look like a Socialist enterprise...We want also to look like patriots in everything we do. We want to get a good lot of flags, talk a good deal about the Constitution and what our forefathers wanted to make of this country, and to show that we are really the folks that really stand for the spirit of our institutions."
Baldwin made clear his true purpose and that of the ACLU, of which he was always executive director until his retirement after World War II, in his statement before a Federal court in 1918:
"Though. at the moment, I am of a tiny minority, I feel myself just one protest in a great revolt surging up from among the people – the struggle of the masses against the rule of the world by the few – profoundly intensified by the war. It is a struggle against the state itself, against exploitation, militarism, imperialism, authority in all forms.... Russia already stands in the vanguard.... and in our own country the Non-Partisan League, radical labor and the Socialist Party hold the germs of a new social order. Their protest is my protest."
Nothing over the years changed Baldwin's beliefs or the purposes of his ACLU. As late as 1935, in the 30th anniversary classbook for his Harvard class, he wrote:
"I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control by those who produce wealth. Communism is, of course, the goal."
Thus supporting the ACLU is the equivalent of contributing to Osama Bin Ladin for the purpose of destroying the United States.
Thomas E. Brewton
The View From 1776 http://www.thomasbrewton.com/
No problem. BTW, I'm not a lawyer either- I just play one on BBSs. :) But it is easy to miss the distinction between opposing a position and opposing the right to express that position.
"Andy &Reader, the information on the Stop the ACLU site is "wrong-headed, misleading, and if followed, would result in bad policy", in your opinion. But it is not in the opinions of others."
Exactly. Others have the right to criticize the ACLU as they see fit- Eugene's point here is that some of these criticisms are poorly reasoned and based not on fact but on spiteful invective.
As Justice Learned Hand once put it, "Every idea is an incitement..." Our duty as a civilized society is to strive for insightful incitement.
No. Sometimes two people each have opposing positions which are both rational and malleable. Under those circumstances, discussion and comment makes sense, because one or both sides can benefit from an exchange of information.
In other cases, the amount of work necessary to produce meaningful discourse makes the endeavor foolish. See Thomas Brewton's post, for example. It is neither rational - it is full of logical errors, non-sequiters, and historical inaccuracies, not is it malleable - his rhetoric belies a mind entirely unreceptive to change. What would be the rationale for responding to it?
I don't think that the "taxpayer-funded ACLU" portion has been explained well at all in this thread. I don't really understand how it would be taxpayer funded except in the sense that ACLU attorneys would receive attorney's fees when they win a case against the government. It seems that people are implying that all civil rights cases have their fees paid for by the federal government? I don't know if this is the case, but I will remain skeptical until someone can explain what statute authorizes this or show an example of where the ACLU was compensated for their attorneys fees when they lost.
As long as ACLU critics are here, I do have a few questions. Why do you oppose the ACLU instead of lobbying Congress to change laws or enact constitutional amendments? After all, the ACLU has no authority to make policy, they can only present their legal arguments courts. The court decisions that these ACLU-led cases lead to were not decided by the ACLU, they were decided by judges who were interpreting the law. Attacking an organization that brings lawsuits seems like an odd strategy rather than trying to change the Constitution or the laws that fuel them.
Now, as a defender of the ACLU, I can easily answer this question. If you are opposed to flag burning (or the right to have an abortion or the right to have consensual gay sex and not end up in jail), you will probably start by getting a local ordinance passed which reflects the position of how you would like the law to be.
And what happens? The ACLU sues and (most likely) wins. Why? Because in your mind, "the law is on their side."
So you try to move up the court system, hoping that a federal or appellate judge will see that you are clearly right and the ACLU is wrong. But, alas, no dice: even the "conservative" judges somehow concur that the ACLU is "right".
So you try to go to congress. But the ACLU sues to block enforcement of the new federal law supporting your position. So finally, you think, "Aha! I'll have a Constitutional Ammendment passed! Not even the ACLU can have an Ammendment found unconstitutional!"
And there is that pesky ACLU, all over TV, urging congress to reject your ammendment! And if it loses by only a handful of votes, who are you going to blame for not being able to get your way?
So it seems very simple from the point of view of the ACLU opponent: get rid of the ACLU, and when you have a majority (but not a super-majority) in Congress supporting your position, AND you have no organized opposition to your ideas, you will get your way, and voila- flag burners and abortionists and gays will be thrown in jail, and all will be right in the world again.
Of course, there is an alternative strategy. Just get your hands on a time machine- a phone booth, a 1984 Delorean, etc - and convince the anti-federalists to leave out the first ammendment and EXPLICITLY STATE that there is no gosh darn right to privacy!
It may seem silly, but it's probably easier than fighting the ACLU... :)
Sorry spanky...you are wrong. While you have fallen for exactly the line they laid out, you are mistaken. Look up "Muslim Terrorist Attacks since 1927" on line. There you will see that it has absolutely nothing to do with the last two or three administrations. Facts speak for themselves. When you are done with that, you can look up the Al Qaeda training manual. In it, you will see that they learned from the Vietnam War and how lefties, like yourself, are this nations own worst enemy. They will cry about all sorts of injustices. Simple fact is, if you want to use their own words, they have stated that they want us all dead. Every man, woman and child because we are not Muslim. And not just any Muslim, but their brand of Muslim.
Don't take my word for it. Just look up the statements by Zarqoui, Al Zahiwri, and UBL himself.
So go ahead. Blame us...but these people have been pissed off for 1400 years. It ain't gonna stop no matter who is President. And how dare they say we need to leave their land, while they slowly take over the whole world. Look at England. They are bitching about Britain while taking their welfare checks and living in Britain.
McVeigh represented himself, and he then died for his crimes. Like I said, you look at who is threatening us. You look at who we are at war against, and then you justify searching grandma so that Abdul doesn't get his feelings hurt.
Again, read the freaking 9-11 report. In it, it states that one of the key reasons they borded the planes was due to the anti-profiling rules. SOrry guys...but the facts are the facts. Stop trying to "feel" all the way through this and look at the facts.
How disadvantaged are those in Madrid? In London? In Manhattan?
I would rather someone feel picked on and discriminated against than me or mine killed because some little poo-butt didn't want to have his widdle feelings hurt.
They just did a lousy job questioning them, and our policies regarding what to do with "suspicious" people were inadequate at the time.
Sorry, guys, but the (actual) facts are the facts. Stop trying to "feel" all the way through this and look at the facts.
There is a reason why the ACLU was founded by communists. And it was not to promote "freedom".
The chosen way to fight this is with ideas, to change public perception of what some find a dangerous organization. They take their cue from the extreme left, who call the Bush administration "criminals," "murderers," and yes, even "terrorists." While the rhetoric may be extreme, the idas behind it are not. Outrageous liability lawsuits have hurt the community as a whole by driving up medical and legal costs. The potential cost for outrageous civil rights rulings will be counted in lives, not just dollars. When the U.S. is at war with, and under threat from a very real worldwide terrorist group, I doubt that earlier generations of Americans would have responded with the restraint shown by the current government.
STOP the ACLU is using their free speech to oppose injustices done by a group that is using the court system to enable acts that are criminal, even if they have good intentions. To codemn them for doing so puts you in the same position, second guessing someone else's motive and tactics. You have a perfect right to, but so do they. I support STOP the ACLU, though I sometimes agree with the ACLU. The two are not incompatible, if change is the goal. Change in the culture, the courts, and in the ACLU.
Which lawyer got "$5 mil for spilled coffee"? It looks like you're just making stuff up to attack a group you dislike.
Either you're careless with facts or you're "dishonest." I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it was just carelessness.
Yes, describing the "A"CLU as "criminal" is intemperate, especially if looking that the adjective as a legal rather than rhetorical term.
However, corporations have a right to file any lawsuit they want to, also, but do we really find SLAPP tactics either eithical or moral??
No where is a better example that the "A"CLU engages in SLAPP-style intimidation than their suits or threats of suits across the country aimed at cities and counties that dare have even a hint of a Christian symbol on their city/county seal. See city of Redlands, CA or even Los Angeles County.
Just because something is LEGAL doesn't make it moral or ethical. Something that lawyers too often forget.
I no more am bothered by random bag searches if I choose to go on the public conveyance of a subway than I am by security at the airport or sobriety checkpoints or the metal detectors at my own courthouse. I don't labor under some delusion that the right of privacy that exists within my house is an all inclusive bubble when I walk down public streets. I find certain security measures reasonable in balancing individual rights with societal responsibility to protect individuals. People with a lower threshold than mine are free to move to some hinterland cabin and fend for themselves free from any "intrusive" interference from their societal peers.
No. I am not a lawyer, but I work with them (DA office) and have had the privilege to work with a lot of ethical dedicated people. But I've also witnessed the kind of hubris that evolves from some who believe their JD has confered a "higher" status to being one of the chosen whose legal interpretations and pronoucements are SO MUCH MORE legitimate than any opinion of the lesser beings.
I know it's pretty amazing, but us non-lawyer types can be trusted to use the silverware and not our hands at the dinner table, and successfully wipe our own noses.
And we can occassionally spot the bovine excrement, even when it comes beautifully wrapped in legalese, law-cites and all.
Look beyond the sometimes intemperate rhetoric and deal with the real issues raised.
IMO, the "A"CLU's threat to sue the county of Los Angeles over a tiny cross on their seal which stood for the historical fact that El Pueblo de Nuestra Senora la Reina de Los Angeles de Porciuncula was founded by deeply religious Spainards and Franciscans is more than worthy of ridicule. This nationwide attempt at Bowdlerize our history of all religious references and symbols is contemptous.
sure they did. but they didn't. they folded like a cheap tent.
So before going crazy about how the ACLU brings all these "dangerous" lawsuits, consider the value to society of requiring the government to argue exactly why a controversial policy is constitutional, in court. Hopefully this policy is constitutional, but at the same time I want to know the limits and why.
You could argue that bringing cases you expect to lose makes them frivolous. But, as many people have pointed out, they're only frivolous if you know (or should know) that you'll lose. The ACLU could win this case, and that possibility makes it not frivolous.
The ACLU provides the pressure to keep the government in line on civil rights issues, just like the NRA does for Second Amendment issues. You can count on the NRA to challenge every single gun control statue ever, via court cases that seem as ridiculous to gun-control advocates as some ACLU cases seem to pro-lifers. All these groups have the same fundamental goal: protecting America from the government. The system seems to work pretty well - just remember that when you attack the ACLU for things like frivolous lawsuits and accepting attorney's fees, your arguments apply just as easily to the people fighting for the rights you care about.
One last thing: the ACLU gets no taxpayer funding! They get attorney's fees when they win cases, sometimes, and they have to pay the other side's fees when the other side wins, sometimes, just like everybody else. They are completely funded by donations and are non-profit. Get that straight! It's on their website!
"sure they did. but they didn't. they folded like a cheap tent."
I agree. I support the ACLU's right to argue in court their position, and was extremely dissappointed by the County's decision not to challenge them (especially since they could have waited to see where the wind is blowing among the big 9 in DC regarding their opinions about the 10 Commandments.)
What's even more galling is that given Breyer's ruling in Van Orden v. Perry, it appears that the LA County would have had good reason to believe that they would have won in court (on the basis of the long time that the Seal-with-the-Cross had existed in county buildings before anyone challenged the symbol.)
The ACLU did their job; shame on LA County for not doing theirs.
Rahul Sinha: When was a member of the Michigan Militia (let alone two of them) ever involved in terrorism?
Rahul again: What part, exactly, of the right to bear arms clause "implies and accepts regulation" of that right?
Both sides: get your facts straight.
Are you serious? The part that says "well regulated".
It's not even an implication. It's explicit.
For all the people who advocate a "strict constructionist" attitude toward the Constitution, they get pretty comfortable reading new rights into the Second Amendment. And they have no problem extending those rights to state law via the Fourteenth.
No, it doesn't say anything about the right being well regulated, or limited in any way. All it says is that the reason why the right shouldn't be infringed is that we need a well regulated militia, and infringing the right in any way would interfere with that. Which makes sense when you consider what "a well regulated militia" actually means - a population that is armed and trained, and able to defend itself against either foreign invaders or domestic tyrants.
India Tracy
Who are the bullies?
Second, the government's duty to to protect its citizens is found in the preamble.
Third, when somebody can make a convincing case that the ACLU's attempts to get more Abu Ghraib photos released somehow serves the interests of the American people, then I may be more willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Fourth, when the ACLU mounts the same sort of consistent and recurring attack on college speech codes as they do on Ten Commandment monuments, then I will be inclined to believe that they are interested in the rights of all of us. The only instance presented of their concern for the free speech rights of college students vis a vis speech codes is a single brief filed 15 years ago?
Fifth, when the ACLU turns its back on the explicitly discriminatory (and therefore unconstitutional, at least to anybody with sense enough to actually read the Constitution itself) practice of Affirmative Action by governmental entities, I can listen to arguments that they're concerned about the rights and liberties of all Americans without a snort of derision.
Sixth, since when does the effectiveness of any given governmental policy have anything to do with its constitutionality?
The question at hand isn't whether or not the ACLU has done, or even continues, to do any "good." Even Mussolini, Sidekick of the Icon of Evil, did a lot of good. Before he took Italy down the toilet.
From where I sit, that's where the ACLU is taking us, and all the good intentions in the world doesn't change that. Calling them to task for their extremism is overdue.