Back to Basics

December 1944. American artillery near the Belgian village of Losheim opens fire on advancing German troops during the Battle of the Bulge. Suddenly a jeep pulls up and a lawyer jumps out waving a piece of paper. “Stop what you’re doing immediately! I represent Obersturmführer Gunther Stoltz down there, and I have an order here from Federal District Court Judge Gantz forbidding you from killing my client without due process in an American courtroom.”

Insane yes, except that’s just what the ACLU is after. Captured Muslim terrorists have never lacked for civil liberties lawyers in the past. Whether it was collective organizations like the ACLU or the CCR, or pro-terrorist lawyers like Lynn Stewart or Stanley Cohen, there has never been any shortage of lawyers eager to fight for terrorists in or out of a courtroom. From enthusiastic defenses for terrorists on trial to fighting for the rights of terrorists detained in US military custody outside the United States, groups like the ACLU have served as Al Queda’s legal department before. But the ACLU and the CCR are no longer satisfied with fighting for the release of captured terrorists. Instead they’re fighting to provide terrorists in the field with immunity from US attacks.

The ACLU’s lawsuit on behalf of Anwar Al-Awlaki, a terrorist leader operating in the field, moves beyond protecting captured terrorists, and toward protecting active terrorists on the battlefield. It’s the equivalent of that jeep pulling up during the Battle of the Bulge with a stop firing order. The ACLU and its allied organizations have always hidden behind the argument that they were protecting the rights of defendants in the court system. But there is no court system here. Al-Awlaki is not in US custody. He’s conducting a terrorist campaign of attacks that includes the Fort Hood Massacre and the attempted Christmas Day bombing of Northwest Flight 253. What the ACLU is doing is arguing that the United States cannot kill Al-Awlaki on the battlefield, even though he’s trying to kill Americans.

The ACLU has actually filed court papers asking to allow them to provide “legal services on a pro-bono basis to Nasser Al-Awlaki, the father of Anward Al-Awlaki, as representative of the interests of Anwar Al-Awlaki.”

That’s an American organization providing pro-bono representation to prevent US forces from killing a terrorist on the battlefield, who continues participating in acts of terrorism against American civilians. And you might think that the pro-bono representation is because poor Anwar and Nasser are dirt farmers. Not the case. Not the case at all.

Nasser Al-Awlaki is Yemen’s former Minister of Agriculture and a relative of Yemen’s current Prime Minister, Ali Mohammed Mujawar. Ali is from the Shabwa province, and that is also where Al Queda and Al Awlaki are currently located in Yemen. The Awlakis are part of Yemen’s political elite. Their influence freed Al-Awlaki from prison once and continues to shelter him from the United States. Which leaves America no option but to either invade Yemen and capture him using ground forces, or take him out using a drone.

How does the ACLU justify their actions in protecting a wanted terrorist leader from US forces on the battlefield? By claiming that since Al-Awlaki is a US citizen, the government should have to win a case in court against his father’s ACLU lawyers– before US personnel can actually shoot at him. (This incidentally highlights the importance of Lieberman’s Denaturalization bill when stripping US born terrorists like Al-Awlaki of their citizenship. The bill has been opposed out of ignorance by people like Beck, who are ignorant of the fact that Denaturalization was standard until the 1950′s when the Warren Court created another imaginary Constitutional right that had never existed until 1958.)

According to ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero, “This is a dual blow to some of our most precious liberties, and such an alarming denial of rights in any one case endangers the rights of all Americans.” Apparently “our precious liberties” involve the right to join Al Queda, murder Americans and then have the right not to be shot by American soldiers or bombed by American planes or drones. And killing a terrorist on the battlefield, whose mother happened to have dropped him in a hospital bed on US soil endangers “the rights of all Americans“.

I guess the ACLU has become America’s travel advisor.  I just read an article titled “ACLU Issues Travel Warnings to Arizona” because of SB1070, which they claim could lead to racial profiling and warrantless arrests.  What really got me was this quote from Alessandra Soler Meetze, executive director of the ACLU of Arizona:  “There is a tremendous amount of misinformation out there about the law,” Soler Meetze said. “It’s a very complicated piece of legislation that gives police unprecedented powers to stop and question people about their identity and their citizenship.”

Wow! Has Meetze even read the law?  Unlike the laws passed by the federal government that “We need to pass ObamaCare so that the public can find out what’s in the bill” or “No one will know until this is actually in place how it works” (of the financial overhaul), the Arizona law is 17 pages of pretty straight-forward text.  Anyone actually listening to the governor of Arizona would know that the law strictly prohibits racial profiling, but I guess that concept is over the heads of the ACLU and other anti-Arizonan protestors.

A statement released by Brewer’s spokesman said the ACLU’s actions proved how “hopelessly out of touch they are with the vast majority of Arizonans, as well as most Americans.”

“The legislation includes very specific language that makes it abundantly clear that racial profiling is and will continue to be illegal in Arizona,” wrote spokesman Paul Senseman. “Instead of spreading fear, hate, and disinformation about the legislation, it would be helpful for the ACLU to instead join Governor Brewer’s demand that the federal government stop discussing and begin implementing an honest plan to secure our nation’s border.”

But, as I found out today, the rest of the United States is really out of touch with the problems of illegal immigration and the impact it has on the state and US citizens.  In a conversation I had with someone who has recently moved to Arizona from Ohio, when I mentioned the problems of illegal immigrants in the public schools, her response was “They let them attend school!  How are they allowed to get in?”  Really!  What planet has she been living on!

I guess that isn’t much different than the Milwaukee County Board Supervisor Peggy West who doesn’t think Arizona actually shares a border with Mexico, “but this is a state that’s a ways removed from the border…”

However, the warnings might be warranted, not from fear of the police, but from the violence from drug cartels and human smugglers.  The ACLU just doesn’t know the difference or could it be that their group might be classified as part of the latter group?

“Free Speech:
Freedom of speech is protected in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights and is guaranteed to all Americans. Since 1920, the ACLU has worked to preserve our freedom of speech. Learn more and take action to protect the right to free speech.”

This quote was taken directly from the ACLU’s website, right off their home page. Yet when I checked their website I found nothing on the government’s blatant attempt at silencing our freedom from Linda Douglass’s communication on August 6, 2009. ACLU where are you?

The relationship with the ACLU might be described as a love/hate relationship. They are constantly in everyone’s face over every little infraction of the constitution. Depending on what side of that particular battle you are on you may love their efforts for standing up for what you believe in, or you may hate them for causing you so much grieve over something so trivial. They have served a purpose and got results. Where are they today? How could they remain quiet when the government is asking us to snitch on our neighbors, family and friends?

The White House has issued a warning to Americans.
From the White House.gov website:
“FACTS ARE STUBBORN THINGS”:
There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.

Sen. John Cornyn of Texas challenged this action and has asked President Obama to stop this effort.
From Senator Cornyn’s Website:
SEN. CORNYN SEEKS ANSWERS TO PRIVACY CONCERNS; ALSO SUBMITS “FISHY” CLAIMS TO THE WHITE HOUSE
Friday, August 7, 2009
U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, released the following statement responding to the White House’s claim that “no one is collecting any names” as well as their apparent refusal to make clear what steps they are taking to purge all names, email addresses and other personal information that they have collected on private citizens as part of their data collection program.

“Of course the White House is collecting names. As I wrote to the President, it is inevitable. Anyone with access to the flag@whitehouse.gov account has access to the names and email addresses that are collected in that account.

“The question is not what the White House is doing, but how and why. How are they purging names and email addresses from this account to protect privacy? Why do they need the forwarded emails, names, and ‘casual conversations’ sent to them instead of just the arguments that they want to rebut?”