Warning: main(/home/b4v/public_html/wp-content/themes/blixed/above.php) [function.main]: failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/b4v/public_html/wp-content/themes/blixed/single.php on line 5
Warning: main() [function.include]: Failed opening '/home/b4v/public_html/wp-content/themes/blixed/above.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/usr/lib/php:/usr/local/lib/php') in /home/b4v/public_html/wp-content/themes/blixed/single.php on line 5
The Al Qaeda Chapter of ACLU
February 19th, 2008 at 10:29pm Matt Margolis
When groups like the ACLU challenge the terrorist surveillance program in the courts, we get yet another example of the left actively trying to make it more difficult to fight terror. I’m glad to report that the Supreme Court rejected the ACLU’s appeal of their challenge of the program, but I can’t help noting their bizarre rationale for the lawsuit:
The ACLU sued on behalf of itself, other lawyers, reporters and scholars, arguing that the program was illegal and that they had been forced to alter how they communicate with foreigners who were likely to have been targets of the wiretapping.
So, I guess the ACLU regularly communicates with terrorists overseas? Is there an Al Qaeda chapter of the ACLU?
Why are so many on the left determined to stop the war on terror? Why are they hellbent on lying about the program in order to stop it? I just heard that moron Keith Olbermann claim that the program allows the government to listen in on phone calls of Americans in this country when it doesn’t.
Entry Filed under: War on Terror
47 Comments
1. LiberalMind | February 19th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
The “War on Terror” is a complete farce, a lie, a ruse.
I fully support the ACLU’s ongoing effort to protect the my rights against an out of control government.
2. neocon | February 19th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
Mindless,
In an earlier thread you stated that millions had died to protect and defend our constitutional rights. Why did they have to do that? You’ve never answered that question.
3. liberalT | February 19th, 2008 at 10:44 pm
right Matt - anyone who tries to fight terrorism within the bounds of the constitution is obviously a terrorist. How do you sleep at night. Perhaps when you grow up you will understand what America really stands for.
4. neocon | February 19th, 2008 at 10:51 pm
LibT,
What does America stand for?
5. Arctic Fox | February 19th, 2008 at 11:32 pm
That’s actually a very good question, Neocon. I know what America USED to stand for, before this administration proved it was possible to maintain a high degree of corruption in the highest offices in the land.
I know what average Americans WANT it to stand for. Land of the free, because of the brave.
What I can’t figure out is how Bush and his neocon corporate feeding buddies are still mistaken for patriotic Americans, when they’ve run the country into the ground with flawed fiscal and foreign policies.
I suppose I shouldn’t have been surprised by the hate-filled spin put on this story by Matt, it seems to be the average kind of twisting that goes on in the presentation of information here. Of course there’s not an “Al Qaeda wing of ACLU” - both the ACLU and the EFF have been continuing to do what they’ve always done - bringing class action cases against corporate bodies on behalf of Joe Public who isn’t rich enough or powerful enough to bring a case themselves.
To suggest that in some way makes them in league with terrorists is just a sense of the desperation which this administration and it’s supporters have been reduced to.
6. Matt Margolis | February 19th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
I can’t help laughing when a liberal tries to lecture me about the Constitution.
7. liberalT | February 19th, 2008 at 11:43 pm
and the world can’t help laugh at you every time you open your mouth matt…
http://www.sadlyno.com/index.php?s=matt+margolis
you do know that the sole purpose of the aclu is to uphold the bill of rights.
Ah Matt - too dumb to realize that his own words damn him to global humiliation on a daily basis.
8. Matt Margolis | February 19th, 2008 at 11:55 pm
LiberalT, are you so stupid to believe that I actually give a damn about what some liberal blog says about me?
I don’t need or desire the approval of liberals, as I’m sure you don’t need or desire the approval conservatives.
9. John Ryan | February 20th, 2008 at 12:15 am
In 9 months we will in all likelihood have a Democrat in the White House. Which of your Constitutional rights would you like to give up to them in order to “fight terror” ?
How about the right to bear arms ? You know if it was in order to fight terror.
10. winnowhead | February 20th, 2008 at 12:17 am
“When it doesn’t” is your refutation? This is precisely why so much of what you say is total garbage: you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Not only does the presidential claim that warrants are not required when surveilling potential terrorists obviously imply that Americans could be wiretapped without a warrant, but the more recent argument the administration has made (very publicly) that the PAA act, which legally gave the president the authority to wiretap without a warrant, should be made permanent.
You need to get your facts straight. You guys are all over the place with your “logic.”
11. Diana Powe | February 20th, 2008 at 12:48 am
If there is any fault line that really counts between the faux-conservatives who are the primary constituents of the George W. Bush cult of personality and genuine conservatives is the former’s unquestioning trust of and fealty toward the Executive Branch. Matt speaks of “the terrorist surveillance program” and claims knowledge of what it does or does not do, when, in fact, only the sketchiest of information is known about a single program which has been referred to by the President as the Terrorist Surveillance Program or TSP. What is not known is anything about the nature and scope of the other program or programs ordered by the President.
We do know that there was at least one additional program as recently as 2004 because of the testimony of former Deputy Attorney General James B. Comey. He did not reveal any details of the program but did state unequivocally that it was apparently so overreaching and so patently illegal that then-Attorney General John Ashcroft and the rest of his senior staff at the Justice Department were prepared to resign their positions because of it. The idea that a conservative Republican like John Ashcroft was unable to rationalize whatever was being done in the name of fighting al Qaeda to the point of being ready to step down should chill the blood of anyone who wasn’t completely in the thrall of the notion of a king-like presidency. However, that is precisely the situation with a huge number of people who like to style themselves as American conservatives in 2008.
The fact that President Bush somehow felt the need to gratuitously lie about the nature of the programs he’d ordered when he spoke on April 20, 2004 - “When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so.” - should raise a question in the minds of all Americans. Why, when he wasn’t even in the process of answering a question, did President Bush add that key detail? He remarked at length at length about the new tools that were now available for monitoring terrorist communications and we were getting warrants to do so because “nothing has changed”, he said. Yet, that statement was not only an unnecessary detail in the context of what the President was saying, but, as we learned when the New York Times broke the story on the TSP a year and a half later, it was a lie. Why did he lie? Real conservatives obviously cared about that question.
12. Arctic Fox | February 20th, 2008 at 12:50 am
That’s actually a very good question, Neocon. I know what America USED to stand for, before this administration proved it was possible to maintain a high degree of corruption in the highest offices in the land.
I know what average Americans WANT it to stand for. Land of the free, because of the brave.
What I can’t figure out is how Bush and his neocon corporate feeding buddies are still mistaken for patriotic Americans, when they’ve run the country into the ground with flawed fiscal and foreign policies.
I suppose I shouldn’t have been surprised by the hate-filled spin put on this story by Matt, it seems to be the average kind of twisting that goes on in the presentation of information here. Of course there’s not an “Al Qaeda wing of ACLU” - both the ACLU and the EFF have been continuing to do what they’ve always done - bringing class action cases against corporate bodies on behalf of Joe Public who isn’t rich enough or powerful enough to bring a case themselves.
To suggest that in some way makes them in league with terrorists is just a sense of the desperation which this administration and it’s supporters have been reduced to.
13. Arctic Fox | February 20th, 2008 at 12:53 am
“I can’t help laughing when a liberal tries to lecture me about the Constitution.” - Matt
And there you have it. That’s what separates you, and the few who think like you, from the rest of America.
You think you know all about the Constitution. When someone tries to put forward their point of view, you laugh.
Patriotic Americans take the Constitution AND what it stands for very seriously. They defend it. They fight those who would disregard it, like this president who is on file as calling it just a “piece of paper”.
To most people, the Constitution and the way it interacts with the law still means something.
14. Mark Noonan | February 20th, 2008 at 12:56 am
liberalT,
“Sadly No” is still in busines?
15. Mark Noonan | February 20th, 2008 at 12:58 am
Diana Powe,
Yes, indeed - if you think of President Bush as a bigger threat than our armed enemies. If, on the other hand, you’re not a paranoid, conspiracy-theorist, you’re not too worried about a wartime signals intelligence program.
16. Mark Noonan | February 20th, 2008 at 12:59 am
John,
None of them - and I’ll fight any President tooth and nail who tries to usurp my rights, or the rights of any of my fellow Americans…and just as soon as something like that happens, I’ll get up in arms about it.
17. Mark Noonan | February 20th, 2008 at 1:01 am
Artic,
Actually, the ACLU was originally created in order to defend communists and assorted lefties in the 1920’s - it was never concerned with civil rights, as such, but only with advancing a leftwing agenda…with the odd defense of a Nazi or two thrown in to make it seem like the ACLU is interested in civil rights.
18. Magnum Serpentine | February 20th, 2008 at 1:06 am
Not another fundamentalist attack on the ACLU…
YAWN.
next
19. winnowhead | February 20th, 2008 at 1:08 am
Mark, so is the ACLU wrong for believing that it’s a constitutional right for Americans to advocate for a “leftist agenda” or a “kkk agenda” or anything else?
20. Mark Noonan | February 20th, 2008 at 1:20 am
winnow,
No, the ACLU is free to do what it wishes - just as long as no one is fool enough to believe they are actually batting for civil rights, as a thing; and as long as everyone understands that when it comes to the free exercise clause, the ACLU is a fanatic enemy of the constitution.
21. winnowhead | February 20th, 2008 at 1:34 am
Now it’s about religion?
Your example of the ACLU destroying the constitution is.. what? Which religious right is the ACLU destroying?
The religious right to have your religion promoted by displays in a federal courthouse? Or the “right” to force children to recite a mandated prayer in a public school? Which one, exactly?
22. Diana Powe | February 20th, 2008 at 1:36 am
One of the things that it is important to note about the “rejection” today by the Supreme Court is the fact that the Court declined to take up consideration of the case does not constitute a judgment on the merits of the 2-1 ruling by the Sixth Circuit panel which led to the appeal. In fact, the Sixth Circuit itself has not ruled on the legality of the program but the panel of three judges simply split over the government’s contention that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the lawsuit. The Sixth Circuit was hearing the government’s appeal of a ruling by U. S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor who found that the program was illegal in August 2006. However, one of the Sixth Circuit judges, Judge Robert Gilman, in his written dissent over the question of standing added this about the legality of the TSP:
So, we have one minimally-known program about which the President of the United States lied, which two judges have assessed to be illegal and which no judges has ruled as legal. Then we had, at minimum, one more program that conservative Republicans in the Justice Department, including Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller, were prepared to resign over because it’s unknown scope was so extreme and unconscionable. However, this, for some, is simply not a difficulty because the most important thing for them is trust in and obedience towards their leader. This is the hallmark of what passes for “conservatism” with some Americans in 2008.
23. Mark Noonan | February 20th, 2008 at 1:46 am
winnow,
We’re getting a bit off topic here - suffice it to say, for now, that the ACLU has been relentlessly hostile to religion in the public square. Tell ya what - some time in the next few days, I’ll find some absurd thing the ACLU is up to vis a vis religion and we can have a nice debate over that subject.
24. Diana Powe | February 20th, 2008 at 1:47 am
Mark,
I invite you to spare us the “wartime signals intelligence” framing. Despite the comparison you’re trying to make, rational people realize that this is obviously a far cry from your own analogy of radio messages between U-boats and Nazi saboteurs. In fact, it’s hard to imagine what must have been so shockingly illegal in the program going on in 2004 as to cause the Attorney General and FBI Director to prepare to resign over it, but people who actually care about the Constitution (that thing which the President has taken two Bible oaths to preserve, protect and defend) would like for someone outside the Executive Branch to have a chance to look into it and not hide it away forever from the prying eyes of mere American citizens.
25. Mark Noonan | February 20th, 2008 at 1:47 am
Diana,
Yes, its completely clear that no amount of facts will move you from your contention that there is a vast criminal conspiracy by President Bush to usurp the rights of the American people.
26. Diana Powe | February 20th, 2008 at 1:52 am
Mark,
I don’t know that many facts. Then-Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller had far more facts at their command than either of us and those facts led them to consider the highest form of protest against the reality those facts presented to them. I note with interest your lack of interest in that.
27. McCain \'08!!! | February 20th, 2008 at 6:18 am
I don’t need or desire the approval of liberals,…
Anyone who needs or desires the approval of so-called liberals is a waste of oxygen. I mean, who wants to be liked by lemmings such as libretardTHC and plaindumbcowjane?
Not I, and not anyone who understands what this country stands for. And who cares what these parrots think? Very few do…
28. McCain'08!!! | February 20th, 2008 at 6:19 am
Where are these slashes coming from in my nic?
29. McCain\'08!!! | February 20th, 2008 at 6:22 am
Patriotic Americans take the Constitution AND what it stands for very seriously.
Yeah, and so-called liberals distort the crap out of this document to suit their needs. It’s what libs are indocrinated to do…
30. TiredofLibBullSh** | February 20th, 2008 at 6:43 am
libt:
“you do know that the sole purpose of the aclu is to uphold the bill of rights.”
Can you say “gullible”?
As far as the ACLU is concerned there are only 2 rights. They never sue on behalf of the other eight.
They have bastardized the first as “Freedom from religion”. They have yet to sue on behalf of an individual who has been denied their right to worship. They are highly selective when it comes to freedom of speech. They never challenged McCain-Feingold and the “Fairness Doctrine”.
The second amendment does not exist as far as they are concerned. The unconstitutional gun bans that are in place are never challenged.
The tenth amendment does not exist when the feds use strong arm tactics to force states to pass laws it has no desire to.
Another mindless USEFUL IDIOT, who swallows the propaganda.
Can you stay conscious when Obama speaks?
31. Christian Wright | February 20th, 2008 at 7:07 am
Al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army is among the most powerful militias in Iraq. The crux of the message being sent by the organization was that al-Sadr followers would be free to resume their activities if no message was sent by the cleric on Feb. 23.
The ceasefire of the Mahdi Army was falsely portrayed as the surge at work. What Bush called the surge was this ceasefire and paying protection to our enemies so they would stop attacking us.
It looks like it is all over on Saturday. Our enemies used Bush’s protection money to buy more arms to use against us. They used the break in action to rebuild their numbers and better organize their chain of command.
Come Saturday, Iraq becomes Hell again.
32. plainjane | February 20th, 2008 at 8:19 am
What does America stand for? neocon | February 19th, 2008 at 10:51 pm
Go get a copy of the Constitution and read it. Don’t just put it in your pocket and say you carry it with all the time so therefore you know what it says.
I just love the ACLU bashing. I believe even Limbaugh used the ACLU to protect his right to privacy in his doctor shopping scheme. ACLU, group of lawyers many working for free bring cases before a court system that decides the merits of the case. Isn’t this how the system is supposed to work in a democracy? But if in your soul you have deep roots in favor of American Facism the ACLU just might be a thorn in your side and something you need to get rid of.
33. SEW | February 20th, 2008 at 9:19 am
After reading this thread, is there any doubt that the libs support the troops?
34. Diana Powe | February 20th, 2008 at 10:50 am
Mark,
I’ve noticed that one of the ways you deal with the difficulties that this situation presents for genuine conservatives is to dismiss concerns about the Constitution as equivalent to paranoid conspiracy theorizing. You claim the power of facts and yet you don’t present any facts. What you offer is your conclusory framing about a set of activities about which almost no facts are out in the public realm. The few facts we know are the reactions to some of those activities by a U.S. District Court judge, a U.S. Circuit appellate judge, former Attorney General John Ashcroft, FBI Director Robert Mueller, former Deputy Attorney General James Comey and the fact that the President of the United States lied about the nature of the programs.
It is quite striking that you and Matt don’t even attempt an explanation for the utterly astounding testimony of James Comey. The Republican-controlled Executive Branch was doing something so far beyond the pale that senior Republicans within that same branch were prepared to resign in 2004 if whatever it was didn’t stop. However, this apparently doesn’t provoke any concern on your part whatsoever. The President says that all is well and that’s all you need to know.
Contrary to your ad hominem arguments, I’ve never claimed any evil intent on the part of the President in this. Until some evidence presents itself that demonstrates otherwise, I assume that all of the intentions behind the surveillance programs are good. However, as the saying goes, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”
plainjane,
You’re correct. The horrible, terrible al Qaeda-loving ACLU did come to the defense of Rush Limbaugh. I guess they thought he was part of al Qaeda.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108140,00.html
SEW,
That’s just a silly thing to say in the context of this discussion. However, I’d be fascinated if you tried to engage the substance here.
35. SEW | February 20th, 2008 at 11:13 am
What you consider substance is actually delusion. I’ll stay away.
36. SEW | February 20th, 2008 at 11:23 am
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=56494
Here is a report on the substance.
37. Tractatus | February 20th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
I can’t help laughing when a liberal tries to lecture me about the Constitution.
I can’t help laughing when somebody whose role is to make Mark Noonan look like the smart one tries to claim some sort of intellectual superiority.
38. Diana Powe | February 20th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
SEW,
It is absolutely and totally fascinating that your reaction to the substance of simple facts, such as the sworn Senate testimony of former Deputy Attorney General James B. Comey of May of last year, is something that you think is delusion.
As I said, your reaction is truly fascinating.
39. Rana Quijotesca | February 20th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
If the TSP was legal, then why did the FISA law have to be changed to accommodate it?
40. No Such Agency | February 20th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
The NSA has been spying on domestic telecommunications for decades. Nobody disputes this.
The question boils down to this: Do you trust a government bureaucracy with your life?
The agency that determines whether you are a terrorist on the basis of your emails is structurally similar to the IRS and the DMV. Or the folks who shake you down at the airport.
Anyone who has ever held any suspicion that a government agency could be inept or disorganized should regard government wiretapping with extreme intolerance.
“I’m not doing anything wrong. Only the guilty should fear being spied upon.” How many times have we heard this? This is the naive cry of the simpleton who believes the government never makes errors in life and death matters.
41. FmrMarine | February 20th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
I think the NAMBLA and GLT goons who disrupt here, may actually be aclu ( anti christian litigation unit) plants.
VE VILL thrrrrn your names over to CAIR.
Oh wait….they BOTH HATE America! and Christians.
42. FmrMarine | February 20th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
>>>>>why did the FISA law have to be changed to accommodate it?<<<<
SOOOO now it was LAW, and CHANGED?
is it STILL LAW?
Who wrote the LAW?
Who approved the LAW?
Who upheld the LAW?
Oh yeah it was… buschchenyhaliburtonrove, in the basement of the WH in dr frankenstein laboratory lab coats howling at the moon during a thunderstorm while shouting ITS ALIVE !!!!!!!!
43. Diana Powe | February 20th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
FmrMarine,
Nice job of not addressing anything of substance in this thread. Oh, well. It’s only the Constitution and the rule of law, i.e., nothing of importance to faux-conservatives.
44. FmrMarine | February 20th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
DP
see # 41 wink wink
I believe it has all been said.
Constitution???
WHERE is sodomy, homosexual marriage, hate crime laws, police roadblocks, nooses, welfare, health insurance, food stamps, subsidized housing, taxation, in the constitution?
HELLLLOOOOOO all i hear is buschhaliburtoncheneyrove blah blah blah.
GO handcuff your life partner or something, your drivel here makes one sick.
45. Diana Powe | February 20th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
FmrMarine,
As I said.
I guess your Rule #1 is, when you can’t argue on substance go with the weird and fact-free insults.
46. Herman | February 20th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
“So, I guess the ACLU regularly communicates with terrorists overseas?” — Matt Margolis
What makes you think, Matt, that Bushie is spying on terrorists? What part of “I truly am not that concerned” about Osama been Forgotten (The Moron King, March 2002) do you utterly fail to understand???
47. Diana Powe | February 23rd, 2008 at 10:50 pm
Well, the new Attorney General has pointed out something that should clear up a few bogus arguments about warrantless surveillance. In a letter to the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee dated 02/22/08, the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence weave lots of scary stories, but drop in this rather important point:
Thank you, Mr. Attorney General. We may now proceed to dismiss all of this nonsense about Presidential inherent powers and the AUMF because to engage in surveillance outside the framework of FISA “would be illegal”. Any chance you will begin investigations into the Presidentially-acknowledged activities that “would be illegal”? No? I didn’t think so.