Stop the ACLU Blogburst 12-21-06
Dec 22, 2006 Political
There is no doubt that a certain amount of transparency is essential for a modern democracy to function honestly. However, taken to the extreme, complete transparency would effectively make our National Security impotent and threaten the ability of the democracy to secure its very existence. There is a line that must be carefully walked. We must maintain common sense, especially in times that enemies threaten our very existence. We can not be so transparent that our enemies can see through us, and know our techniques and plans to fight them and protect ourselves against them. We should never cede our security to exist over to a utopian ideological dream of a completely transparent government. It is also important to have government watchdogs keeping an eye on government from abusing and overclassifying information that the public has a right to know. The danger lies in allowing too much liberty, especially to absolutist organizations like the ACLU, in that decision making process.
The Investor’s Business Daily bring up some very good points in reference to the recent backing down of the government in trying to obtain a classified document from the ACLU.
“The government blinked,” gloated ACLU executive director Anthony Romero.
Judge Rakoff is notoriously liberal, having declared the death penalty unconstitutional in 2002 (a ruling quickly overturned), and earlier this year forcing the Pentagon to make public thousands of pages of information on suspected terrorist detainees at Guantanamo Bay. So it’s understandable for prosecutors to not want to fight an unwinnable battle.
Are we nearing the day, however, when the ACLU has our legal system so wrapped around its finger that government secrets can no longer be kept from terrorists? Consider these points:
The ACLU’s Romero called the subpoena battle “a fight not over a document but over the principle that the government cannot and should not be allowed to intimidate and impede the work of human rights advocates like the ACLU who seek to expose government wrongdoing.”
But if leftist activist groups or journalists, rather than the freely-elected U.S. government, decide what is legitimately secret and what is “intimidation,” there’s little that will remain secret.
Indeed, the government did blink. However, they caved in because they had a losing legal argument, not because they have no right to supress secret information from activist groups and the public at large. Before we hand the decision making process of what should or shouldn’t be secret or in the public interest to extreme partisan organizations like the ACLU, we should really take a look at just how reckless they have been with such information in the past. Indeed, if we leave it to groups like the ACLU we might as well write the suicide note of our nation on the back of the Constitution.
There is probably no other issue as fragile to the preservation of our liberties than a careful balance between civil liberties and our national security. To its credit, the ACLU recognizes the danger if the scales are tipped too far to the side of national security, however it doesnt seem to acknowledge the danger if the scales are reversed. So, let us take a look at some of the extreme examples where the ACLU’s absolutist views actually endanger our national security.
In particular let us look at their attitude towards the intelligence community and secret information in general.
When it comes to drawing the line between classified information and national security the ACLU’s record has never leaned toward the side of caution or national security. They consistently defend leakers as brave “whistleblowers.” Even after the NY Times leaked details about the vital NSA program, the ACLU wanted more to come out in the open. They have even defended leaks on vital programs like SWIFT, in which we track terror finances, where there was absolutely nothing that even suggested government wrongdoing. They have even fought for accused enemy prisoners to be allowed to see classified evidence against them. The fact that our enemies learn and adjust from such traitorous leaks never seems to phase them.
More Points from the Investor’s Business Daily:
The ACLU boasts that its legal efforts have made public “more than 100,000 pages of government documents” regarding the interrogation of suspected terrorists. It has posted many of these documents on its Web site in an effort to shut down the program.
But President Bush’s policy of tough interrogation has secured information that has foiled numerous terrorist plots, saving thousands of lives. They include jetliner hijacking schemes targeting buildings on both the East and West coasts, another targeting Heathrow Airport in London, plus plots to destroy ships in both the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, and Jose Padilla’s plan to blow up high-rise apartment buildings in the U.S.
Intelligence information key to preventing terrorist acts has also come from the president’s other homeland security policies, like the National Security Agency’s wiretapping program. But ACLU lawyers are aggressively trying to shut those efforts down in several jurisdictions.
So, let us take a look at the ACLU’s real attitude towards the intelligence community.
To the ACLU, CIA means “Controlling the Intelligence Agencies.” That’s the title they gave to Policy #117. But even that is an understatement of what this particular policy calls for. “Completely undermining the Intelligence Agencies” would be a more appropriate title. It starts out badly and then gets worse.
“Control of our government’s intelligence agencies demands an end to tolerance of “national security” as grounds for the slightest departure from the constitutional boundaries which limit government conduct in other areas.”
Of course, its been obvious for nearly 70 years that protecting America’s national security is certainly not something the ACLU favors.
Here are some of the specific controls called for in Policy #117:
Limit the CIA, under the new name of the Foreign Intelligence Agency, to collecting and evaluatiing foreign intelligence information. Abolish all covert operations.
Limit the FBI to criminal investigations by elimimnating all COINTEL-PRO-type activity and all foreign and domestic intelligence investigations of groups or individuals unrelated to a specific criminal offense.
Prohibit entirely wiretaps, tapping of telecommunications and burglaries.
Restrict mail openings, mail covers, inspection of bank records, and inspection of telephone records by requiring a warrant issued on probable cause to believe a crime has been committed.
Prohibit all domestic intelligence and political information-gathering. Only investigations of crimes which have been, are being, or are about to be committed may be conducted.Twilight of Liberty
Two former members of the ACLU, Richard and Susan Vigilante, conducted a thorough analysis of the ACLU spelled out by the Union’s Center for National Security Studies.
They wrote:
Read the rest of this entry »
Tags: Political
Sandy Burgler Admits Guilt and Skates
Dec 21, 2006 Political
Sandy Burgler admitted in court today that he deliberately stole documents from the National Archives and that he destroyed those documents. This revelation contradicts his earlier statements that he made a mistake and that it was not deliberate. He made a deal so that he would not get jail time. This man was the National Security Adviser and he knows that what he did was wrong and he knew it when he did it. How can this man get away with no jail time and a $10,000 fine which is one tenth of what he could have gotten?
For months, he called it an honest mistake.
But on Friday, Sandy Berger (search) pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor in federal court. Berger, who served as President Clinton’s national security adviser, is acknowledging that it wasn’t an honest mistake and that he intentionally took and destroyed copies of classified documents from the National Archives (search) and cut them up with scissors.
Berger acknowledged to U.S. Magistrate Deborah Robinson that he intentionally took and deliberately destroyed three copies of the same document dealing with terror threats during the 2000 millennium (search) celebration. He then lied about it to Archives staff when they told him the documents were missing.
“Guilty, your honor,” Berger responded when asked how he pleaded. Fox News
Burgler claimed that he was just trying to get ready for his 9/11 testimony. Let me tell you what actually happened. Burgler DID NOT make a mistake. A mistake is when you add incorrectly but when you deliberately break the law it is a crime, not a mistake. He was taking documents and destroying them in order to keep items that were embarrassing to the Clinton Administration from reaching the Commission. Burgler was destroying documents in order to preserve this so called “legacy” that Clinton is worried about. There were documents that showed Clinton was not as tough on terror as he wants people to believe and this information would run contrary to the lies we have been told. This information probably would have confirmed the items displayed in The Path to 9/11, the movie that all the Clintonistas got their shorts in a wad about.
Of course, these are my opinions but they make more sense than the lies we are being told. Burgler claims the originals are still in the Archives but how does anyone actually know? They should do a 100% inventory in order to account for everything. If anything relating to Clinton is missing they should lock Burgler up for the rest of his life. They should also charge Burgler for the expense of the inventory. This guy is a worthless scum and he committed an act that would have landed the average guy on the street in jail and probably on some terror watch list.
Burgler broke a law, one with which he was very familiar. He was probably working on behalf of the former criminal in chief Clinton. They should send this man to jail for the maximum amount of time and they should fine him the max. You can bet the farm that if a Republican did this he would get the max. Tell Pelosi that this is the kind of ethical dilemmas that she will face in her party, especially as long as anyone named Clinton is still around trying to clean up their messes.
I would have made him face a firing squad. I bet this judge was appointed by Clinton or Carter.
Tags: Political
Dems Want Ethical Changes in Government
Dec 21, 2006 Political
So what is a party to do when it runs on a (bogus) platform of reforming government and making changes to increase the ethical standards that they claimed were in jeopardy? Well of course, make Pelosi’s ascension to Speaker a gala event and a $1000 per ticket fund raiser in order to “increase the Democratic majority.” There is a gala bash planned of San Fran Nan and it will only cost a donation of $1000 per ticket. Naturally, no one who can afford this kind of ticket would expect anything in exchange for his generosity. That would be a bad ethical problem.
Ethical irregularities abound in the Congress and on both sides of the Congress. Members from both parties engage in behavior that would land most people in jail. Sure, the Democrats deny that they do anything wrong, and to their credit, they were able to blame it all on Republicans and make it stick. Now it is their turn to step up to the plate and given that they have the likes of Jefferson, Murtha, Reid, and Hastings it is a safe bet that ethical considerations are out the window. Pelosi herself is not immune since she backed Murtha as Majority Leader knowing full well he is corrupt and she wanted to elevate Hastings to a position despite his checkered past.
Yep, it will be an interesting couple of years but like I said, it will be good to be able to point out all the problems, problems that they can not blame on the Republican Majority because there is no longer such a thing. Everything evil that happens will be the fault of the Democrats, especially since that is the standard they have set.
Tags: Political
Biting the Hand that Feeds Them
Dec 21, 2006 Political
The DNC has put off a decision as to where it will host its next convention. The two cities in contention are New York and Denver. The decision to delay is no big deal and with the Christmas season it makes sense. However, one of the reasons that there is a delay is because of some labor issues in Denver. Seems that local unions are not playing nice with regard to their friends in the DNC:
Denver, which has mounted an enthusiastic campaign to win the convention, has struggled with labor issues, fundraising and logistical challenges such as finding sufficient hotel rooms. Democrats thought Denver had resolved some of its labor problems when Colorado’s AFL-CIO approved a resolution last month in support of Denver’s convention bid.
But problems suddenly emerged this week when Jim Taylor, head of city’s influential stagehand union, refused to sign an agreement promising not to strike if the convention came to Denver. Breitbart
The Democratic Party is a big supporter of unions and unions overwhelmingly back Democratic candidates so it is interesting that labor unions in Denver are playing hardball in a fashion that might remove their city from the competition. It would seem that the union would be much more accommodating considering the way they are courted and provided for by the Democrats.
It goes to show that labor unions are a dying breed and they will do anything to gain an upper hand including biting the hand that feeds them.
Tags: Political
Will Republicans Abandon Their Principles?
Dec 19, 2006 Political
It appears that the wheeling and dealing is in full swing now that the Democrats have taken control. It is a given that George Bush will try to get some sort of amnesty/guest worker program through now that he has a Congress sympathetic to that cause. This will, of course, be a disaster and give us more of the same in that millions more will sneak in awaiting their chance at such generous give-aways. Now a new devil is appearing on the horizon and that devil is names taxes.
The Washington Times is reporting that George Bush is considering raising taxes and that there are Republicans on board with the idea. There are tax watch dog groups calling for the President to iterate his pledge not to increase taxes but the President has been silent on this. White House Press Secretary Tony Snow would not rule out tax increases when asked about the subject. It seems that Republicans are abandoning their principles because they were beaten in the last election.
Increasing taxes will not help the country. We already pay more in taxes than is needed to run the country. If more money is extorted from us then it will give Congress more money to waste, and waste it they will. Congress will look at the increased revenue as a child looks at presents on Christmas and they will abuse the hell out of the money that they get. There will be more pork spending not less and there will be more programs that are developed and paid for with the increased revenue. An increase in taxes will also hurt the economy and will decrease the already pathetic rate at which Americans save money.
It is high time Americans said no to taxes and it is high time for us to hold the line against those who would extort our money especially given their track record of waste and abuse. The time is at hand for us to refuse to pay more in taxes and it is time for us to demand fiscal responsibility from those in Congress. If Congress keeps its thirst for more money it will not be long before we have another revolution. That just might be what we need to stop the illegal exploitation of the American worker.
Now is the time for people to start planning. Put as much money as you can in non taxable accounts. Contribute as much as you can to plans that take the money pre-tax so you will have less taxable income at the end of the year. We must find creative (yet legal) methods to keep our money from becoming the government’s money. We worked for it and we deserve to keep it.
There is talk that this is a move to sure up Bush’s legacy. I don’t give a damn about his legacy and if he raises taxes he will have the same one as his father who broke a no new tax promise and lost pathetically to Bill Clinton. Bush can not be reelected but members of Congress can. I will not vote for nor will I support any member of Congress who votes to raise taxes. This includes ANY Republican who wants to be President. You raise my taxes and you will not have my vote nor will you have my support. Those of us involved in America’s Victory 08 will not support candidates who vote to raise taxes regardless of how they stand on other issues.
If they want to fix Social Security then privatize it so people, not the government, can control their retirement. If they want to reduce the deficit then cut out unnecessary spending and programs. If they want to reduce the deficit they can consolidate similar programs and they can stop sending money to foreign countries. We are not the world’s welfare department. If they really want to reduce the amount of money they need then they can cut ALL pork barrel spending.
These are the conservative values that will make this country strong and we as taxpayers should not settle for anything less.
Tags: Commentary, Political