ACLU Drops PATRIOT Act Suit:
Today's Washington Post reports that the American Civil Liberties Union is dropping its lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of provisions of the USA Patriot Act, citing "improvements to the law" recently made by Congress.
"While the reauthorized Patriot Act is far from perfect, we succeeded in stemming the damage from some of the Bush administration's most reckless policies," Ann Beeson, the New York-based associate legal director of the ACLU, said in a written statement.
UPDATE: The ACLU press release is here.
This headline should read ACLU drops A Patriot Act suit: they have more than one against it. The ACLU cites the exact change to the bill that they think makes it acceptable, no matter what you have to say about "nearly no substantial" changes. So... and wait, your parroted argument is that the ACLU are just Democrats who are big on only doing what's popular. The "Nazi/NAMBLA" loving ACLU? I have that right? Thanks for playing.
From what the story says apparently the changes they are talking about are the ones that allow the subject of a national security letter to consult with a lawyer and challenge that letter in court, i.e., a librarian served with such a letter can now fight it if they feel it is unjustified.
In my opinion these letters should be automatically made public after some period of time (five years?) with a possible extension they can recieve by applying to the courts. However, this is really a policy question and not the sort of thing one is likely to win on in the court.
Someone who knows more about the constitutional/legal answers could probably offer a better tactical analysis of why they gave up this suit after the changes. Then again since Romero took charge of the ACLU I don't trust them to be as principled anymore (i.e. making unpopular/money losing moves out of principle).
With regard to the PATRIOT Act, the ACLU hopes the Supreme Court "rejects by '08 or it's too late"
Because in our system of jurisprudence, the nature of rulings made has effects a lot farther reaching than "I don't like this organization, so let's punish them!" Again, this is a point that conservative jurists make all the time: it's all well and good if you think some ruling benefits a group you like in the here and now, or hurts a group you don't like. But if you establish such a precedent, then there's no guarantee that you are always going to be the one imposing this the next time. Teacher led prayers in public schools might seem all fine and dandy when the school happens to share your belief. But what happens when the school board suddenly becomes dominated by a sect that doesn't like your own?
If the basis is that simply telling someone how to do something that's a crime is a crime, it's not so just for NAMBLA. It could be applied to all sorts of conduct that you might not want to see so heavily restricted: perhaps even musing about crimes even if your motive is to better prevent them.
Where did you check? The ACLU was started by a leftist and today it follows the Democratic Party talking points closely. No school choice, no Second Amendment rights.
As for the ACLU's defense of NAMBLA's right to advocate for changes in the law, see the YouTube video at: Daily Show Reminds Us NAMBLA is a Joke
I just don't buy it. I don't think the ACLU believes it, either. They just like the controversy. They're completely cynical and nihilistic and have abandoned any sort of values (as evidenced by their support for campus speech codes).Perhaps a particular bad motive should be an element of the crime. I know that's a radical notion (introducing specific intent mens rea into our criminal justice system as an element of a crime), but I'll bet we could adapt. (yes, I know the Curley case is a civil tort, but the same intent rules could be applied)
If NAMBLA members wanted to march, I'd let them (the only thing keeping a formal NAMBLA contingent out of gay pride parades is the parade organizers)
If the Nazis made a lynching manual, I wouldn't have any problem holding them responsible for lynchings committed pursuant to its instruction and incitement.
So you were in favor of holding William Pierce (now dead) responsible for the Oklahoma City bombings, since he write The Turner Diaries, which inspired Tim McVeigh?
Well, hey, I didn't say that I expected you to understand ho the law works. I was just explaining it in the hopes that rational people might be listening.
In the case that ACLU took defending NAMBLA, they were being charged basically with advocating lowering the law of consent. The legal question involved was: can the state charge someone for advocating for changing the law so that something now illegal no longer is? This was the issue they got involved on, and they won. They didn't get involved in "we love NAMBLA!" In our system of laws, the legal principles are often what matter more than the client.
"I just don't buy it. I don't think the ACLU believes it, either. They just like the controversy. They're completely cynical and nihilistic"
I hear they also eat babies! Seriously dude, now you're really sounding a bit over the top. I mean, wow, you don't think your sworn enemy has good motives? I'm like, totally shocked that you have nothing good to say about the imaginary picture of them you have in your mind!
"and have abandoned any sort of values (as evidenced by their support for campus speech codes)."
Er..... what?
I think one local branch of the ACLU might have supported a speech code at one point, but the national organization is pretty dead set against them. So..... try again!
"Perhaps a particular bad motive should be an element of the crime."
Ah, soo.... now you're FOR hate crimes?
"I know that's a radical notion (introducing specific intent mens rea into our criminal justice system as an element of a crime), but I'll bet we could adapt."
That's nice and all that you have some radical theories on how to alter the justice system, but in the meantime, we'll work with what we've got.
"If the Nazis made a lynching manual, I wouldn't have any problem holding them responsible for lynchings committed pursuant to its instruction and incitement."
On what legal basis, other than a very very strained version of "incitement"?
"Everything they fight for, can be taken away - without the 2A. Thats THE most fundamental right."
Even most defenders of the full force of the 2nd don't buy that logic. A fully armed populace doesn't seem to have prevented or helped much in places like Iraq (unless you mean helping the insurgency). Words and ideas remain far more powerful and effective than guns when it comes to preserving democratic societies.
Words and ideas remain far more powerful and effective than guns when it comes to preserving democratic societies.
You mean, for example, taunting and belittling everyone who dares to disagree with the Almighty plunge?? I have a feeling that your idea of "talking" with your "enemies" has started more fistfights than it has avoided.
Take a chill pill, and be more civil, please!
Snide remarks about "bazookas" and nukes and whatnot in this blurb on why ACLU is "neutral" when it comes to gun rights/control. Nowhere is it mentioned that the bill of rights doesn't guarantee the freedom of the radio, TV or internet, just the "press".
Yes, they are not technically "against" it. Thats why I put it in quotes. But If I say I am not going to support gay rights (claiming to be "neutral"), its very likely that im "anti-gay" even though i provide you with mountains of "logic" as to why I'm allegedly neutral. Its even more "curiouser", if an ORGANIZATION engages in such sophistry. ;)
Very disingenuous - not unlike the states' rights arguments put forward by the republicans when it suits their own agenda and then trying to amend the constitution when it doesn't.