ACLU: Spying for Americas Enemies

#1
Savor the silence of America's self-serving champions of privacy. For once, the American Civil Liberties Union has nothing bad to say about the latest case of secret domestic surveillance -- because it is the ACLU that committed the spying.

Last week, The Washington Post reported on a new Justice Department inquiry into photographs of undercover CIA officials and other intelligence personnel taken by ACLU-sponsored researchers assisting the defense team of Guantanamo Bay detainees. According to the report, the pictures of covert American CIA officers -- "in some cases surreptitiously taken outside their homes" -- were shown to jihadi suspects tied to the 9/11 attacks in order to identify the interrogators.

The ACLU undertook the so-called "John Adams Project" with the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers -- last seen crusading for convicted jihadi assistant Lynne Stewart. She's the far-left lawyer who helped sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, convicted 1993 World Trade Center bombing and N.Y. landmark bombing plot mastermind, smuggle coded messages of Islamic violence to outside followers in violation of an explicit pledge to abide by her client's court-ordered isolation.

The ACLU's team used lists and data from "human rights groups," European researchers and news organizations that were involved in "(t)racking international CIA-chartered flights" and monitoring hotel phone records. Working from a witch-hunt list of 45 CIA employees, the ACLU team tailed and photographed agency employees or obtained other photos from public records.

And then they showed the images to suspected al-Qaida operatives implicated in murdering 3,000 innocent men, women and children on American soil.

Where is the concern for the safety of these American officers and their families? Where's the outrage from all the indignant supporters of former CIA agent Valerie Plame, whose name was leaked by Bush State Department official Richard Armitage to the late Robert Novak? Lefties swung their nooses for years over the disclosure, citing federal laws prohibiting the sharing of classified information and proscribing anyone from unauthorized exposure of undercover intelligence agents.

ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero refused to comment on Project CIA Paparazzi and instead whined some more about the evil Bush/CIA interrogators. Left-wing commentators and distraction artists are dutifully up in arms about such "inhumane" tactics as blowing cigar smoke in the faces of Gitmo detainees. But it's Romero blowing unconscionable smoke:

"We are confident that no laws or regulations have been broken as we investigated the circumstances of the torture of our clients and as we have vigorously defended our clients' interests," he told the Post. "Rather than investigate the CIA officials who undertook the torture, they are now investigating the military lawyers who have courageously stepped up to defend these clients in these sham proceedings."

Courage? What tools and fools these jihadi-enablers be. Civil liberties opportunism is literally a part of the al-Qaida handbook. A terrorist manual seized in a Manchester, England, raid in 2005 advised operatives: "At the beginning of the trial ... the brothers must insist on proving that torture was inflicted on them by state security before the judge. Complain of mistreatment while in prison." Jihadi commanders rehearsed the lines with their foot soldiers "to ensure that they have assimilated it."

Since 9/11, the selective champions of privacy have recklessly blabbed about counterterrorism operations, endangered the lives of military and intelligence officials at Gitmo, and undermined national security through endless litigation. They accused Bush immigration officials of xenophobia for pursuing visa overstayers from jihadi-friendly countries. They accused local law enforcement, FBI and other homeland security officials of "racial profiling" for placing heightened scrutiny on mosques and jihadi-linked charities.

Now, caught red-handed blowing the cover of CIA operatives, they shrug their shoulders and dismiss it as "normal" research on behalf of "our clients."

But don't you dare question their love of country. Spying to stop the next 9/11 is treason, you see. Spying to stop enhanced interrogation of Gitmo detainees is patriotic. And endangering America on behalf of international human rights is the ultimate form of leftist dissent.

http://www.aina.org/news/20090828131751.htm
 
#3
The ACLU was founded by communists in the 20's and it doesnt seem like much has changed. They still are trying to undermine US national security.
 
#4
tomahawk6 said:
The ACLU was founded by communists in the 20's and it doesnt seem like much has changed. They still are trying to undermine US national security.
Spot on--it is very educational to to a study of the founders and the prominent participants since that time.
 
#6
Do you have to be a Communist to support civil liberties? I don't support their tactics, but I'm not happy with the idea of the state spying on everything I do.
 
#8
hairymonster1006 said:
This report speaks volumes about the counter-surveillance abilities of CIA personnel!
What, are they supposed to sneak around in trenchcoats and wide-brimmed hats and peek through holes in newspapers in case some hack is sitting outside their houses? The identities of these officers should be better protected by the authorities, and the ACLU dealt with robustly. Some things should not be used to play politics with.
 
#10
overpromoted said:
Do you have to be a Communist to support civil liberties? I don't support their tactics, but I'm not happy with the idea of the state spying on everything I do.
I agree with you completely my friend. I just don't think the ACLU is the "friend of the people" it portrays itself as. This is the case with many organizations that are quite active on the US political scene at present--their titles and mission statements belie their true purposes.

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/
 
#11
tomahawk6 said:
The ACLU was founded by communists in the 20's and it doesnt seem like much has changed. They still are trying to undermine US national security.
This is bollocks.

The ACLU's roots are in isolationist politics dating from WWI. That's was code for Germans, ironically mainly Jewish. They barred communists in 1940.

At this date this is a decidedly timid group of centrist liberals that has regularly cow-towed to whatever administration is in DC. These are not vigilant watchmen even by South American standards.
 
#12
harareboy99 said:
Shami Chakrabati would fit in at the ACLU methinks.
I wouldn't mind fitting right in Shami Chakrabati!
 
#13
Funny the calls for Bush, Cheney and Scooters head over Valerie Plame and now silence from the left over outing CIA agents and their Families by the Left on a large scale.
 
#14
alib said:
tomahawk6 said:
The ACLU was founded by communists in the 20's and it doesnt seem like much has changed. They still are trying to undermine US national security.
This is balls.

The ACLU's roots are in isolationist politics dating from WWI. That's was code for Germans, ironically mainly Jewish. They barred communists in 1940.

At this date this is a decidedly timid group of centrist liberals that has regularly cow-towed to whatever administration is in DC. These are not vigilant watchmen even by South American standards.
This is from the Congressional record. The Communist Party of the US is not a banned organization nor is being a communist against the law. At one time being a communist would exclude you from getting a government job as the Party sought the overthrow of the US government.

I would say they have been very successful in infiltrating the news media and the democrat party. For proof of that just check the views of top democrats which for the most part do not reflect the views of the average democrat voter. This can be seen in the town hall meetings and declining polls for Obama. They are losing support from their own voters.

http://www.geocities.com/graymada/aclu.html
 
#15
Michelle Malkin?

Really? The woman who was let go from Fox News for being too crazy?

She's going on one report, from one source and the Justice Dept investigation is ongoing and the ACLU doesn't seem to be too bothered. Nobody's been arrested and nobody's been charged and yet Malkin's just jumped to a conclusion.

Original article- which is a lot shorter than her tirade:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/20/AR2009082004755.html
 
#17
tomahawk6 said:
alib said:
tomahawk6 said:
The ACLU was founded by communists in the 20's and it doesnt seem like much has changed. They still are trying to undermine US national security.
This is balls.

The ACLU's roots are in isolationist politics dating from WWI. That's was code for Germans, ironically mainly Jewish. They barred communists in 1940.

At this date this is a decidedly timid group of centrist liberals that has regularly cow-towed to whatever administration is in DC. These are not vigilant watchmen even by South American standards.
This is from the Congressional record. The Communist Party of the US is not a banned organization nor is being a communist against the law. At one time being a communist would exclude you from getting a government job as the Party sought the overthrow of the US government.

I would say they have been very successful in infiltrating the news media and the democrat party. For proof of that just check the views of top democrats which for the most part do not reflect the views of the average democrat voter. This can be seen in the town hall meetings and declining polls for Obama. They are losing support from their own voters.

http://www.geocities.com/graymada/aclu.html
How nice to see you back, dumbass. I think you'll find that all you need is a representative to say something on the floor for it to be entered into the record. It doesn't have to be based on anything resembling fact. It doesn't even have to be validated by the rest of the House or Senate in a resolution. In short, it's about as authoritative as some guy you met in a bar.
 
#18
Goldbricker said:
Thats funny, she was on a segment the other day.
Really? Interesting. Still, I guess any standards they had were dropped when they brought Glen Beck in. Either way her grip on reality is tenuous at best.
 
#19
crabtastic said:
Goldbricker said:
Thats funny, she was on a segment the other day.
Really? Interesting. Still, I guess any standards they had were dropped when they brought Glen Beck in. Either way her grip on reality is tenuous at best.
Er...and have you watched Glenn at all? Seems you continue to use the ad hominem (attack the speaker) tactics instead of actually citing to their alleged errors and providing factual refutations. I will not hold my breath for a substantive response.

Yours sincerely etc etc
 
#20
jumpinjarhead said:
crabtastic said:
Goldbricker said:
Thats funny, she was on a segment the other day.
Really? Interesting. Still, I guess any standards they had were dropped when they brought Glen Beck in. Either way her grip on reality is tenuous at best.
Er...and have you watched Glenn at all? Seems you continue to use the ad hominem (attack the speaker) tactics instead of actually citing to their alleged errors and providing factual refutations. I will not hold my breath for a substantive response.

Yours sincerely etc etc
I've already responded to Malkin's assertion in this case... namely the fact that she's jumped from unwarranted assumption to foregone conclusion on the basis of a single report. She and Beck are a pair of clown shoes as any 5 second Google search will reveal.I tried watching Beck, but he just makes my piss boil. He has described himself as an entertainer and a rodeo clown, rather than a reporter. In short, he's a rabble rouser. I'm sure it makes for great TV but it does fcuk-all to inform and elevate public debate.

As with any intelligence recieved, once should always consider the source.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top