Still another reason to love the ACLU
This is relatively old news but I just came across it and it’s not exactly mainstream. Last fall the ACLU issued a press release about parts of the Patriot Act being shot down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. They were giddy about the decision and called it a great victory against the civil rights violations of John Ashcroft’s justice department. Only one problem: They had the completely wrong law. The law that actually got shot down was (part of) the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 authored by, you guessed it, a Democrat (Pat Leahy to be exact). At the time the Electronic Communications Privacy Act was passed the ACLU supported it since it protected folks from civil rights violations.
I think this is just beautiful! 18 years after a law originally supported by the ACLU gets passed the ACLU gets ecstatic about it’s defeat simply because they (mistakenly) think it’s a law authored by John Ashcroft. If this doesn’t expose them as the partisan phonies they are I don’t know what will.
Sources:
Washington Times
aclu.org
Stumble It!
posted by Mike @ 5/07/2005 08:39:00 AM
10 comments. Click here to view and/or add your own.
10 Comments:
Mike, both Mr. Cornyn and yourself seem to be confused as to what was stuck down. It wasn't from the 1986 act but the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004. This was Ashcroft's puppie.
More
Mike, you have a great blog. Keep up the great work.
I think to shoot down one you have to shoot down the other but the actual Supreme Court Decision was that Title 18, Section 2709 was unconstitutional. It was in place well before the patriot act. My point (and Cornyn's) was simply that the ACLU decided to spin the truth to attack Ascroft and the Republicans. They blatenly practice partisan politics in direct violation of the rules for non-profit organizations.
In the case of Doe and ACLU v. Ashcroft et al., US District Judge Victor Marrero ruled, on September 28th, 2004, that "the compulsory, secret, and unreviewable production of information required by the FBI's application of 18 U.S.C. § 2709 violates the Fourth Amendment, and that the non-disclosure provision of 18 U.S.C. § 2709 (c) violates the First Amendment."
Plaintiffs in this case, "John Doe" - an internet access firm -, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the American Civil Liberties Foundation, "challenge the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 2709. That statute authorizes the Federal Bureau of Investigations to compel communications firms, such as internet service providers (ISPs) or telephone companies, to produce certain customer records whenever the FBI certifies that those records are "relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities".
The FBI demands under § 2709 are issued in the form of national security letters (NSLs), which constitute a unique form of administrative subpoena cloaked in secrecy and pertaining to national security issues. The statute bars all national security letters recipients from ever disclosing that the FBI has issued an National Security Letter.
The Court concluded that § 2709 violates the Fourth Amendment because, at least as currently applied, it effectively bars or substantially deters any judicial challenge to the propriety of an National Security Letter request. And also, that the permanent ban on disclosure contained in § 2709 (c) operates as an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech of the First Amendment.
Interestingly, Rush L. uses the ACLU to protect him from having to turn over his medical records... its been about 15-18 months now... Doesnt that smell of non-partisan organization to you? A man that said "people how use drugs ought to be locked up withour trial, no judge"
doug-e-fresh... which religous freedoms you talking about..? And maybe look up the definition of freedom... freedom is freedom from something... freedom to not be religous.. freedom to be religous..
I couldn't care less about their partisanship or lack thereof. Any organization that aids in perpetuating evil should be stopped.
Here's a good thread on my views on the Rush deal (and the ACLU in general). 20 or 30 other leftwingers already attacked me you may as well be one more....
Knock yourself out!
The ACLU got churchs access to do baptisims in a public park here.
Your sources are one sided, so as a result your views are too.
Doug-E
I served and fought for that same freedom too.
Please don't put service in the rightwing pocket.
Freedom is freedom to speak and freedom to disagree.
He's doing what you fought for so stuff it.
One sided views? I'm just one guy. How many sides can my views actually have? They are my views after all!
Post a Comment
<< Home