GOD
FAMILY
SELF
COUNTRY
In that order!
"I regret that in the politicization of everything that happens in Washington, D.C., some took offense." That's Homeland Security Secretary Janet A. Napolitano's latest non-apology for her department's report that veterans are a threat to the country. Obviously she doesn't get it. The central issue is not about anyone taking offense but of rights being violated.
Several recent reports suggest an emerging pattern of systematic abuse of federal law enforcement and intelligence assets to target law-abiding Americans engaged in the peaceful expression of political views. The target groups are not domestic terrorists but those who make known certain opinions on abortion, same-sex marriage, guns, immigration, foreign trade, job outsourcing, the federal relationship with states and America's role in the international community. Their crime is that they disagree with Obama administration policies.
The Department of Homeland Security is not the only government agency engaging in intrusive behavior. The New York Times reported that the National Security Agency has been intercepting domestic e-mail and phone calls "on a scale that went beyond the broad legal limits established by Congress." The overcollection was described as "significant and systematic." The Wall Street Journal reported on the FBI's Operation Vigilant Eagle, which is a domestic program focusing on veterans involved in extremist groups. The FBI says that tripwires are in place to protect civil liberties, but there is no need for such an investigation when the FBI itself reported in July 2008 that just 19 veterans of the war on terrorism became involved in extremist movements between 2001 and 2008.
There must be better uses for the FBI's limited resources, yet the Canada Free Press and Northeast Intelligence Network report that directives were issued to all 56 FBI field offices to "coordinate and conduct, either at the field office level and/or with the appropriate resident agency, covert video surveillance and data collection of the participants of the TEA parties ... independently and outside of the purview of local law enforcement." Such monitoring represents a significant abuse of power against law-abiding Americans freely exercising their First Amendment rights - in this case against massive government spending.
The Department of Homeland Security report on right-wing extremism has received more attention than these other transgressions. Ms. Napolitano doggedly supports that report even as questions have emerged over its propriety from her department's own civil rights division. Congressman Bennie Thompson, Mississippi Democrat and chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, has sent Ms. Napolitano a letter stating that the report "appears to raise significant issues involving the privacy and civil liberties of many Americans - including war veterans." He has called for a congressional hearing and reminded the secretary that "freedom of association and freedom of speech are guaranteed to all Americans - whether a person's beliefs, whatever their political orientation, are 'extremist' or not." The report is also the subject of a federal civil liberties lawsuit filed by the Thomas More Law Center.
This abuse of power goes far beyond any of the charges leveled at the Bush administration, but civil liberties groups that were quick to castigate former President George W. Bush have been deafeningly silent as Americans' First Amendment freedoms of speech and association come under assault. That legitimate political differences can become the justification for official action is the type of thing we would expect to see in Iran or North Korea, not the United States.
The ACLU is quick to stand up for the rights of Gitmo detainees,but are hesitant to stand up for American's right to free speech! They were the AMERICAN Civil Liberties Union they last time I checked. They need to start doing what they were founded to do!
Money is better than poverty, if only for financial reasons.
I support the ACLU - sometimes.
The search for people who can answer your question continues for as long as needed - until you find the answer you were looking for.
When an answer is posted by someone who was invited (byYedda or by yourself) to answer your question, their answer is marked with a yellow "invited by Yedda".
To be invited to answer other people's questions in your areas of knowledge and interest, be sure to list your favorite topics:
» My Settings My Topics.
Of course, the more helpful your answers are, the more likely you are to be invited to future questions...
Far away in the sunshine are my highest aspirations. I may not reach them, but I can look up and see their beauty, believe in them, and try to follow where they lead. Louisa May Alcott
I couldn't find a question here....
The question is why does ACLU take a stand on Gitmo 's prisoner's rights, yet when it comes to surveillance of Americans who are doing nothing more than exercising their constitutional right of Freedom of Assembly and Free Speech ,ACLU does NOTHING!Why?
I beg to differ. I am the real Johnny Duncan, civil rights activist, author, professor, minister, litigant, military veteran, etcetera. I am a blue-blooded, 100% true-tried and bonafide patriotic Amer-i-can. In my constitutional fight against the Amite City Police Department, the ACLU was the only civil rights organization that offered to help. Might I add that I am not a terrorist, but rather have been terrorized by some white policemen in Hooterville who saw me eating breakfast with a Caucasian female and were offended. The ACLU is one of the few organizations which still stands for the principles upon which the United States is predicated. To review this claim, search the data base for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana--citation Johnny Duncan vs City of Amite (Civil Action No. 08-4091). Thanks ACLU.
Johnny Lee, my problem with the ACLU that they are selective about which American's rights they are willing to defend! Believe me I would not have the same ACLU backing that you do. Not because I'm not An American with Civil Liberties, just because I am a heterosexual, male, Christian, Caucasian with Civil Liberties.
I do not wear your shoes so I can't say what steps you have taken. I need only to caution that you should try before condemning. In my locality in recent times the very ACLU, about which you harbor reservations, represented in court an individual as similarly situated as you and prevailed. There is so much disrespect for constitutional principles in this country by fellow citizens (natural and unnatural) that the organization is hard pressed financially to assist everyone. By the way, the ACLU only took up my plight because it was a clear cut 1st Amendment, one of the few Bill of Rights that is still sacrosanct. Have you had a situation to happen to you personally that has soured your taste for the ACLU. If so, then perhaps you should discuss it with the organization. Be also mindful of the fact that I have been to court on federal, constitutional issues for almost twenty years before the ACLU intervened in this case.
Got an answer for MarineReconDad? Would you like to comment on the posted answers, or vote for the one which you think is the best?
Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).
Other people asked questions on similar topics, check out the answers they received:
Other people asked questions on various topics, and are still waiting for answer. Would be great if you can take a sec and answer them