How theACLU gradually changed for the worse and has been taken over by those who wish to undermine USA
The following has been taken from the website of the ACLU. It shows you how it has been trying to help the average citizen survive government and corporate power. What has now happened is that it has been taken over by powerful people with large sources of money, even from Foundations which are tax shelters, and those who control them have been born into wealth only to use their guilty conscience to undermine the goodness of America. You can see that so many wealthy people who have only their parents to thank for it need to feel sorry for those that do not have it but when the power goes too far it becomes anti-Creation and self-destructive. There is also a Communist element here which had been predicted 75 years ago to happen where the infiltration of socialistic ideology has now found its way nto the American society through guilt and the liberal attitudes. Bigger government itself is just another form of Communism and the influx of illegals permitted by government lene=ds to further undermining of this once great country, now on the slide in most of the social indices.
Bill O’Reilly Fox News Channel Cable TV:
The left versus the right in the Schiavo war, that is the subject of this evening’s “Talking Points Memo.”
One of the most committed progressive secular writers in the country is Paul Krugman, a columnist for “The New York Times.” Krugman is almost fanatical in his dislike for President Bush and conservatives in general.
Today, Krugman writes about the threat that religious Americans pose to the country, demonstrated by the Schiavo controversy. Krugman says, “Nobody wants to talk about the threat posed by those whose beliefs include contempt for democracy itself, but it’s also true the United States, where dangerous extremists belong to the majority religion and the majority ethnic group, and wield great political influence.” Krugman, of course, is referring to white Christians. And for a guy like him to complain about extremism is like Eminem complaining about obscene rap lyrics.
Now to be fair to Krugman, which is difficult, because he’s such an unfair guy himself, some far-right Christians have behaved badly throughout the Schiavo case. Telling people they will “rot in hell” doesn’t exactly help Ms. Schiavo or her family. It just gives guys like Krugman an opportunity to say things like this: “One thing that’s going on is a climate of fear for those who try to enforce laws that religious extremists oppose...George Greer, the judge in the Schiavo case, needs armed bodyguards.” So let’s tell the truth, shall we, Paul? Fanaticism exists on both sides. And the far left thumbs its nose at the law, just as the far-right does. Got it, pal? Krugman wraps up his frenzied column by saying, “What we need — and what we aren’t seeing — is a firm stand by moderates against religious extremism.”
And what exactly is that extremism, Paul? A belief that abortion is wrong? That the state has a responsibility to make sure a person isn’t killed unnecessarily? That marriage between a man and a woman remains the law of the land? Is all that religious extremism? How about saying Merry Christmas?
Krugman and his vicious far-right pack — far-left pack I should say— want to control the USA by diminishing their opposition allowing judges to make rather than interpret the law. In the Schiavo case, it just so happens that Judge Greer was correct, in my opinion. And the feds agree, but you can disagree and we will respect that. Krugman should as well. Americans who believe Terri Schiavo has a right to live shouldn’t be attacked by anyone, period. This is a very complex and difficult matter. All views should be respected.
And that’s “The Memo from the Factor.”
Liberals now represent the “moral minority,” the 49% of Americans who now have no real voice in the House, the Senate, or the White House. We are the people who think it’s morally wrong to lie to the American people about something as serious as war, that it’s morally wrong to give tax cuts to the rich while millions of Americans don’t earn a living wage. We think it’s morally wrong to curtail citizens’ rights because of religion, sexual orientation, and absolutely shameful to burden our great-grandchildren with national debt. We are some of the more than 50,000,000 Americans from all walks of life who were disenfranchised by political gerrymandering through the recent elections. And we’re not going away.
When Roger Baldwin founded the ACLU in 1920, civil liberties were in a sorry state. Citizens were sitting in jail for holding anti-war views. U.S. Attorney General Palmer was conducting raids upon aliens suspected of holding unorthodox opinions. Racial segregation was the law of the land and violence against blacks was routine. Sex discrimination was firmly institutionalized; it wasn’t until 1920 that women even got the vote. Constitutional rights for homosexuals, the poor, prisoners, mental patients, and other special groups were literally unthinkable. And, perhaps most significantly, the Supreme Court had yet to uphold a single free speech claim under the First Amendment.
The ACLU was the first public interest law firm of its kind, and immediately began the work of transforming the ideals contained in the Bill of Rights into living, breathing realities.
75 Years of ACLU Highlights
1920: The Palmer Raids
In its first year the ACLU worked at combatting the deportation of aliens for their radical beliefs (ordered by Attorney General Palmer), opposing attacks on the rights of Industrial Workers of the World and trade unions to hold meetings and organize, and securing release from prison for hundreds sentenced during the war for expression of antiwar sentiments.
1925: The Scopes Case
When Tennessee’s new anti-evolution law became effective in March 1925 the ACLU at once sought a test of the statute’s attackon free speech and secured John T. Scopes, a young science teacher, as a plaintiff. Clarence Darrow, a member of the Union’s National Committee and an agnostic, headed the ACLU’s volunteer defense team. Scopes was convicted and fined $100. On appeal, the Tennessee Supreme Court upheld the statute but reversed the conviction.
1939: Mayor Hague
Mayor Frank (“I am the law”) Hague of Jersey City claimed the right to deny free speech to anyone he thought radical. The ACLU took Hague to the Supreme Court, which ruled that public places such as streets and parks belong to the people, not the mayor.
1942: Japanese Americans
Two and a half months after Pearl Harbor, 110,000 Japanese Americans, two-thirds of whom were citizens, were evacuated from their homes and relocated in a series of inland U.S. concentration camps. The episode was a national tragedy, rightfully called by the ACLU “the worst single whosale violation of civil rights of Americans citizens in our history.” The strongest voices against evacuation and relocation came from ACLU affiliates on the West Coast.
1950: Loyalty Oaths
During the Cold War era after World War II, Congress and many state legislatures oassed loyalty-oath laws requiring one group or another, particularly public school teachers, to swear that they were not Communists or members of any “subversive organizations.” Throughout the decade the ACLU fought a running battle against the government’s loyalty-security program.
1954: School Desegregation
On May 17, 1954, in Brown v. The Board of Education, the Supreme Court issued its historic decision that segregation in public schools violates the 14th Amendment. The ACLU joined the legal battle that resulted in the Court’s decision.
1973: Impeach Nixon
The ACLU was the first major national organization to call for the impeachment of President Richard Nixon. The ACLU listed six grounds for impeachment affecting civil liberties — specific, proved violations of the right of political dissent; usurpation of Congressional war-making powers; establishment of a personal secret police that committed crimes; attempted interference in the trial of Daniel Ellsberg; distortion of the system of justice; and perversion of other federal agencies.
1973: Abortion Decriminalized
In Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, the Supreme Court held that the constitutional right to privacy encompasses a pregnant woman’s decision to bear a child or have an abortion. The ruling struck down state laws that had made the performance of an abortion a criminal act. The ACLU was and remains active in the courts to protect that right.
1981: Creationism in Arkansas
In Arkansas, 56 years after Scopes, the ACLU challenged a statute that called for the teaching of the biblical story of creation as a “scientific alternative” to the theory of evolution. The statute of, which fundamentalists saw as a model for other states, was ruled unconstitutional by District Judge William R. Overton. Creation-science, he said, was not a science but religion, and could not constitutionally be required by state law.
1989: Fall-Out from Attacks
Months after the ACLU had been attacked George Bush during the Presidential election campaign, 50,000 new members signed up in a surge of support for the organization.
1989: Texas v. Johnson
This First Amendment invalidation of the Texas flag desecration statute provoked newly inaugurated President George Bush to propose a federal ban on flag burning or mutilation. Congress swiftly obliged, but the Courts struck down the law a year later in United States v. Eichman — in which the ACLU also filed a brief. Both ruings were big victories for symbolic political speech.
R.A.V. v. Wisconsin
In an important First Amendment victory. A unanimous Court struck down a local law banning the display, on public or private property, of any symbol “that arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender.”
Lee v. Weisman
T he Court ruled that any officially sanctioned prayer at public school graduation ceremonies violates the Establishment Clause.
1993: J.E.B. v. T.B.
In this women’s rights victory, the Court held that a prosecutor could not use peremptory challenges to disqualify potential jurors based on their gender.
1994: Ladue v. Gallo
Unanimously, the Court struck down an Ohio town’s ordinance that had barred a homeowner from posting a sign that said, “Say No to War in the Gulf — Call Congress Now!”
1995: Lebron v. Amtrak
Extended the First Amendment to corporations created by, and under the control of, the government in the case of an artist who argued successfully that Amtrak had been wrong to reject his billboard display because of its political message.
http://www.aclu-il.org
Communist Agenda
Written by Denise Delgado
Saturday, December 04, 2004
The American Civil Liberties Union has done a terrific job of achieving its goals, writes Devvy Kid: To further a communist agenda. In fact, its founder called in a ‘’transmission belt’’ for the Communist Party.
Today, the ACLU is on a relentless campaign to destroy Christianity in America, promote pornography and defend homosexuality. And yes, thousands of lawyers pay dues to this organization, much to the dismay of Kidd. We have excerpted the column below, with a link to the full article following.
‘’To deny the ACLU’s founding was attached at the hip to communist organizations is to deny what can easily be proven as truth. For the past few decades, the ACLU has been on a major crusade to destroy Christianity in America, promote filth under ‘freedom of speech and expression,’ and of course, vigorously defend the homosexual culture of death. On Jan. 10, 1963, Congressman Albert S. Herlong Jr., D-Fla., read a list of 45 communist goals into the Congressional Record. Below are the communist goals being implemented by the ACLU in their quest to destroy America’s culture and traditions. . . .’’
Read the entire article here:
ACLU fulfilling communist agenda
Posted: December 3, 2004
Every day, the headlines scream with some new threat from the American Civil Liberties Union. I believe it’s important to look behind the curtain and discover the origins of groups and organizations to better understand their activities.
The ACLU was founded in the 1920s by Roger Baldwin and Crystal Eastman, described as a “progressive” and “the perfect feminist.”
Earl Browder was general secretary of the Communist Party of the United States from 1930 through its dissolution in 1944. When the party was reconstituted as the Communist Political Association later that year, Browder was chosen as its president. Browder proudly proclaimed that the ACLU functioned as “a transmission belt” for the party. To deny the ACLU’s founding was attached at the hip to communist organizations is to deny what can easily be proven as truth.
For the past few decades, the ACLU has been on a major crusade to destroy Christianity in America, promote filth under “freedom of speech and expression,” and of course, vigorously defend the homosexual culture of death. On Jan. 10, 1963, Congressman Albert S. Herlong Jr., D-Fla., read a list of 45 communist goals into the Congressional Record. Below are the communist goals being implemented by the ACLU in their quest to destroy America’s culture and traditions:
· Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions, by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
· Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
· Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all form of artistic expression. An American communist cell was told to “eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings,” substituting shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms.
· Control art critics and directors of art museums. “Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art.”
· Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press.
· Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio and television.
· Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural and healthy.”
· Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a “religious crutch.”
· Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the grounds that it violates the principle of “separation of church and state.”
· Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of “the big picture.” Give more emphasis to Russian history since the communists took over. Obliterating the American past, with its antecedents in principles of freedom, liberty and private ownership is a major goal of the communists then and now.
· Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture – education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.
· Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
Anyone who has been following the destructive path of the ACLU can easily see how effective these communist goals have been implemented to “promote democracy” and protect your “civil rights.” Lenin stated: “Communism alone is capable of providing really complete democracy.” (See Tucker, “The Lenin Anthology”). James Madison, known as the “Father of the Constitution” had something different to say about a democracy:
Democracy is the most vile form of government ... democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention, have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property, and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.
Perhaps it’s time to recognize the ACLU as the American Communist Lawyers Union instead of their disingenuous “civil rights” stage name.
No organization can exist without memberships and funding. It is inconceivable to me how anyone who claims to be a Christian, lawyer or layman, could belong to such an anti-American organization as the ACLU. Burn your card and get out. Organizations like Working Assets, tobacco companies and big corporations all donate to the ACLU, which in turn uses that money to buy the favors of those who serve in Congress – who vote to unconstitutionally fund the activities of the ACLU under the Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Awards Act of 1976.
If Americans really want to put the ACLU out of business, remove yourself as a member of their organization, boycott companies that donate to them and demand these public servants in Congress repeal the unconstitutional funding of this subversive organization.
There is no justification under Art. 1, Sec. 8, to steal from the people’s treasury to give money to the ACLU or any other organization for “civil rights” lawsuits. Your Congress critter will be in your district during the month of December – make the most of it.
Devvy Kidd authored the booklet, “Why A Bankrupt America and Blind Loyalty,” which has sold close to 2 million copies. She has been a guest more than 1,600 times on radio shows, run for Congress twice and is a highly sought after public speaker. To learn more about Devvy, please visit her website.
osted: March 31, 2005
The attorneys and the judges in the Terri Schiavo case couldn’t get it right after a decade of legal wrangling and civilian court cases. The brain-injured woman whose money was squandered in a protracted effort by her estranged husband to end her life, is now in her 14th day of court-ordered starvation.
Meanwhile, in Germany, a highly regarded U.S. Army captain is facing 20 years in jail for what he believed, under extraordinary battlefield conditions, was a mercy killing of a mortally wounded suspected enemy combatant.
You tell me we haven’t lost our moral bearings as a nation.
Everyone knows about the Terri Schiavo case. It has dominated news coverage throughout the world for the last three weeks. Her case has been debated in the U.S. Congress, the Florida Legislature, federal courts, county courtrooms and on radio and TV talk shows. The case of Capt. Rogelio Maynulet has received scant attention.
He stands accused in a U.S. Army court martial in Germany of taking the life of a mortally wounded suspected Iraqi terrorist in an act of battlefield compassion. He faces 20 years in prison.
Meanwhile, the estranged husband of Terri Schiavo is reportedly received multi-million dollar book, movie and TV deals for his story about his “act of compassion.”
You be the judge.
Maynulet is, according to his superiors, a highly regarded officer who made a split-second decision on the battlefield to commit a mercy killing of a severely injured Iraqi last year.
A medic on the scene, Sgt. Thomas Cassady, conceded during the trial that he “spazzed out” by the severity of the head wound – the worst he had ever seen in four years on the job.
He refused to treat the Iraqi and told the captain he “wasn’t going to make it.” Maynulet, convinced the man would not live, shot him to end his suffering.
Maynulet’s company had been on patrol when it was alerted to a car thought to be carrying a driver for radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and another militiaman loyal to the cleric. They chased the vehicle and fired at it, wounding both the passenger, who fled and was later apprehended, and the driver.
Two Iraqis who worked with Maynulet during his deployment to Iraq described him as compassionate and spoke of his helpfulness to civilians and Iraqi soldiers training for the civilian defense corps.
“Capt. Maynulet has compassion toward the Iraqi people,” Maj. Yehay Haider, said in written testimony read before the court. “Capt. Maynulet cares for the Iraqis.”
I suppose the easy thing to do under such extraordinary circumstances would be just allow the Iraqi to die a slow and painful death. Had he done so, there is little question Maynulet would not be facing disgrace and jail time.
But his intention was to stop the suffering of an enemy combatant.
Why is it that we expect soldiers on the battlefield to act like supermen when decisions of life and death are so hard to make under peacetime conditions and without time constraints?
Why was there such a rush to end the life of Terri Schiavo here in the land of the free and the home of the brave, with all of the great medical care at our disposal, but Capt. Maynulet is facing a stiff prison sentence for what appears to be a true mercy killing when no medical care was available?
This is yet another example of how mixed up America is as a nation right now – up is down, black is white, right is left and right is wrong.
Maynulet made the right call. The decision he had to make was tragic, but understandable.
The judges in the Terri Schiavo case made the wrong call. What they did defies understanding.
RELATED OFFER:
Are you ready for the Second American Revolution? Joseph Farah’s book, “Taking America Back,” exposes the weaknesses in America’s current system and offers practical solutions that are real and doable – solutions that can revive freedom, morality and justice in our nation. Order your copy now in WorldNetDaily’s online store, ShopNetDaily!
Joseph Farah is founder, editor and chief executive officer of WND and a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host. He is also the founder of WND Books. In addition to his daily column in WND, he writes a nationally syndicated weekly column available to U.S. newspapers through Creators Syndicate.
The emperor’s new robes
Posted: March 30, 2005
On the bright side, after two weeks of TV coverage of the Terri Schiavo case, I think we have almost all liberals in America on record saying we can pull the plug on them. Of course, if my only means of entertainment were Air America radio, Barbra Streisand albums and reruns of “The West Wing,” I too would be asking: “What kind of quality of life is this?”
There are a few glaring exceptions. On the anti-killing side, to one extent or another, are: former Clinton lawyer Lanny Davis, former Gore lawyer David Boies, former O.J. lawyer Alan Dershowitz, Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman, McGovern and Carter strategist Pat Caddell, liberal blogger Mickey Kaus, Green Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader and Rainbow Coalition leader Jesse Jackson, as well as several of my friends who are pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage but not Pro-Adulterous Husbands Who, After Taking Up With Another Woman, Suddenly Recall Their Wives’ Clearly Stated Wish to Die.
Opinions about the Schiavo case seem to break down less on morals than on basic knowledge of the facts of the case.
There are a lot of telling facts, but two big ones are:
· The only family member lobbying for Terri’s death is her husband, who is affianced to a woman he’s been living with for several years and with whom he already has two children. (Today’s brain twister: Would you rather be O.J.’s girlfriend or Michael Schiavo’s fiancee?)
· Terri’s husband has refused to allow her to be given either an MRI or a PET scan, which are also known as: “The tests that could determine whether Terri is even in a permanent vegetative state.” (I believe his exact words were, “PET scan? MRI? What do I look like, a guy who just won a $1 million malpractice settlement?”)
On the basis of these facts, Pinellas County Judge George Greer found that it was Terri’s wish to be starved to death. She requires no life support; all she needs is food and water. If being (a) on a liquid diet, and (b) unresponsive to one’s estranged husband are now considered grounds for a woman’s execution, wait until this news hits Beverly Hills!
Despite the media’s idiotic claims that scores of courts have made painstaking findings of fact over 15 years that Terri is in a permanent vegetative state and would have wanted to die, only one judge made such a finding. Other courts have not made any factual findings whatsoever. They simply refused to overturn Greer’s findings of fact as an abuse of discretion.
ACLU and Center for Constitutional Rights Argue Prison Rights Case Before U.S. Supreme Court
March 30, 2005
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: media@aclu.org
WASHINGTON — The American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio and the Center for Constitutional Rights today presented oral arguments before the Supreme Court in Wilkinson v. Austin, a case that will determine the due process rights of prisoners at Ohio’s notorious “Supermax” prison.
“This case presents the same issue as the Guantanamo cases decided last spring,” said Staughton Lynd, an ACLU of Ohio volunteer attorney and trial counsel in Austin. “What due process is required before indefinite solitary confinement can be imposed on any human being?”
In 2002, a federal district judge held that confinement at the Ohio State Penitentiary creates an “atypical and significant hardship.” Prisoners housed in the high maximum-security unit are subject to extreme isolation in tiny cells that fail to meet national standards established by the American Correctional Association.
When it was first built, officials sent 100 prisoners to the Penitentiary without notice or hearing, and before the state had written guidelines for the classification of high maximum-security prisoners. Thereafter, the vague guidelines adopted in August 1998 did little to prevent continued arbitrary and haphazard placement. The Supreme Court agreed to hear Austin on the question of whether this lack of procedure amounts to a violation of prisoners’ right to due process.
“The question is whether prison officials can continue to arbitrarily assign prisoners to long-term solitary confinement without basic due process protections such as notice of the charges against them and a decision explaining the reasons for such placement,” said Jules Lobel, a Professor at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law and counsel for the Center for Constitutional Rights. Lobel delivered oral arguments today before the Court.
The ACLU has successfully challenged “Supermax” confinement in several states including Connecticut, Virginia, Wisconsin, New Mexico and Ohio since 2001. These institutions commonly require 23-hour solitary confinement in cells with limited access to rehabilitative programs. The stark living conditions have led to mental deterioration in some prisoners and have proven dangerous to prisoners with preexisting mental illness. In February, the ACLU’s National Prison Project and Indiana affiliate filed a lawsuit regarding Indiana’s Supermax unit because conditions at that facility had spurred four suicides and numerous self-mutilations by mentally ill prisoners.
More information on the Indiana lawsuit is available at: http://www.aclu.org/Prisons/Prisons.cfm?ID=17413&c=121.
The ACLU’s brief in today’s case is online at:
And yet despite ample evidence that the ADA is working, people with disabilities are still, far too often, treated as second class citizens, shunned and segregated by physical barriers and social stereotypes. They are discriminated against in employment, schools, and housing, robbed of their personal autonomy, sometimes even hidden away and forgotten by the larger society. By and large, people with disabilities continue to be excluded from the American dream:The ACLU continues to fight for the civil rights of the disabled Americans. Use the resources on this page to learn more and take action to protect the rights guaranteed to all Americans by the Bill of Rights.
ACLU Sues Federal Agents for Illegal Arrest and Detention of Iraqi Refugee
The American Civil Liberties Union today sued two federal agents for unlawfully stopping, interrogating, arresting, imprisoning, and seeking to deport an Iraqi refugee who was lawfully admitted to the United States and had broken no laws. As a result of his illegal detention, the man lost his job and suffered serious humiliation and emotional distress.
“Federal agents singled out a legal refugee from Iraq solely based on his race and ethnicity. It is important that government officials be held accountable for such abuses of power,” said ACLU of Washington Executive Director Kathleen Taylor.
Abdul Ameer Yousef Habeeb, who came to the United States as a refugee after suffering persecution by Saddam Hussein’s government in Iraq, was stopped at a train station in Havre, Montana on April 1, 2003. Habeeb was en route from Seattle to Washington, DC, to begin a new job with an Arabic-language newspaper. Along with other passengers, Habeeb had stepped off the train to stretch his legs during a 30-minute station stop at Havre. He was singled out by two agents of the United States Customs and Border Patrol who demanded to know where he was from. After Habeeb responded that he was from Iraq and produced a copy of a form showing his admission into the United States as a refugee, Agents Thomas Castloo and Darryl Essing asked whether he had gone through “special registration,” a program requiring that certain non-citizens be fingerprinted and photographed. Although Habeeb’s refugee status meant that he was not required to undergo “special registration,” the agents nonetheless arrested him when he answered that he had not registered.
Habeeb was questioned at length by additional customs and FBI agents and detained overnight. The next day, Agent Essing initiated deportation proceedings against Habeeb based on the charge that he failed to appear for special registration. The agent erroneously stated that Habeeb “failed to appear for special registration on or before February 7, 2003, as mandated by the order of Attorney General published in the Federal Register,” even though refugees were not required to do so.
As a result of the officers’ illegal actions, Habeeb spent three nights in detention at the Hill County Jail in Montana. During that time, he was forced to strip naked in front of a government agent and was humiliated by other detainees who called him “Saddam.” Then he was transported publicly through the airport in handcuffs and flown to Seattle where he spent four more nights in a detention facility, terrified that he would be sent back to Iraq. The deportation proceedings against him were not formally terminated until May 16, 2003.
The controversial special registration program, which the agents cited when detaining Habeeb, required men and boys from 25 predominantly Muslim countries to report for registration, and thousands were put in deportation proceedings as a result. Although certain registration requirements continue, components of the program were suspended by the Homeland Security Department in December 2003 after some officials criticized the program for diverting resources from more pressing needs.
Several national security experts and civil rights organizations charged that the program did little to make the country safer and instead only strained relations with Arab and Muslim communities.
“Mr. Habeeb’s mistreatment in this case is the inevitable outcome of a program that targets people for suspicion based on where they were born or what they look like, rather than individualized conduct,” said Robin Goldfaden, staff counsel with the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project.
Habeeb’s treatment at the hands of U.S. agents is especially disturbing given the circumstances that brought him to the country, according to the ACLU.
Habeeb’s brother Abdallah was executed by Saddam Hussein’s regime in 1982, and Habeeb was imprisoned twice, most recently in 1997. His hands and face bear the scars resulting from the torture that he endured during these incidents. Habeeb’s father, who was a prominent business and community leader among the Rabia tribe, which had supported the monarchy that was supplanted by Saddam Hussein and the Baath party, was killed in a suspicious car crash in 1999. The U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees determined that Habeeb had a well founded fear of political persecution in Iraq and granted him refugee status. Habeeb was admitted to the United States in July 2002 and took up residence in Kent, Washington.
The lawsuit was filed in United States District Court of Montana at Great Falls and seeks compensation and damages for Habeeb’s losses and suffering. Handling the case are ACLU of Washington cooperating attorney Jesse Wing of the firm MacDonald Hoague & Bayless, ACLU of Montana attorney Andrew Huff, ACLU of Washington staff attorney Aaron Caplan, and ACLU Immigrants Rights Project attorneys Goldfaden and Judy Rabinovitz.
American Civil Liberties Union and Northwest Women’s Law Center Back Woman’s Right To Divorce
The ACLU of Washington, the National ACLU’s Women’s Rights Project, and the Northwest Women’s Law Center today filed a friend-of-the-court brief with the Washington Court of Appeals backing a woman’s right to end her marriage regardless of whether she is pregnant. In the appeal of a case that has drawn media attention – and shocked reactions – around the nation, the organizations are supporting a Spokane woman seeking a divorce from her abusive husband.
“Domestic violence is a widespread problem in our society. It is especially difficult and often dangerous for pregnant women. Rights should never be based on a person’s reproductive choices. A woman’s ability to divorce simply should not depend on whether she is pregnant,” said ACLU-WA Legal Program Director Julya Hampton.
“In addition to the domestic violence issues, the Court of Appeals must consider and acknowledge that all people in Washington have the right to be divorced.” said Lisa Stone, Executive Director of the Northwest Women’s Law Center. “Preventing Ms. Hughes or any woman from divorcing because she is pregnant not only endangers her, it also discriminates against her in violation of our Constitution.”
Shawnna Hughes was married to Carlos Hughes, and they have two minor children. Mr. Hughes became abusive, and he was ultimately imprisoned for crimes of domestic violence. Concerned that Mr. Hughes would soon be released from prison and fearing renewed violence, Ms. Hughes filed a Petition for Dissolution in April 2004 and several weeks later obtained a default order entitling her to obtain a divorce. Mr. Hughes did not object to the divorce petition.
During the summer of 2004, Ms. Hughes became pregnant through her relationship with another man; the baby is due in March 2005. In October, a court commissioner signed the final orders to implement the divorce. Spokane County Superior Court Judge Paul Bastine revoked the dissolution decree when he learned from the County Prosecutor’s Office that Ms. Hughes is pregnant. In his oral ruling, the judge said that pregnant women could not divorce their husbands until after giving birth. The judge believed he was acting to protect the interest of the future child by insuring that he or she would not be born out of wedlock. The Spokane County Prosecutor’s Office, acting on behalf of the state, agreed with the judge. State officials asserted that granting the divorce would leave the state unable to pursue the father for financial support.
However, there is no statutory authority for the judge’s action. Washington is a no-fault divorce state, and the Court has no discretion to deny a properly made petition for dissolution. The judge’s action reflected an archaic view of illegitimacy. By law, a child born to parents who are not married to each other has the same rights as a child whose parents are married. Further, the state’s Parentage Act provides that any questions about parentage can be resolved by a paternity test, and the man determined to be the father will have financial responsibility regardless of marital status.
View the Brief *
* - Note: Requires free PDF reader:
The friend-of-the-court brief was written by ACLU-WA board member Trilby Robinson-Dorn, Northwest Women’s Law Center cooperating attorney Kristin Boraas, and Law Center staff attorney Nancy Sapiro. Several organizations advocating for women’s rights have joined the brief, including the Refugee and Immigrant Forum; the Washington State Coalition against Domestic Violence; NARAL Pro-Choice Washington; the National Coalition against Domestic Violence; Washington NOW; the Washington Coalition of Sexual Assault Programs; Stop Family Violence; and the Family Violence Prevention Fund.
View the Brief *
* - Note: Requires free PDF reader:
The friend-of-the-court brief was written by ACLU-WA board member Trilby Robinson-Dorn, Northwest Women’s Law Center cooperating attorney Kristin Boraas, and Law Center staff attorney Nancy Sapiro. Several organizations advocating for women’s rights have joined the brief, including the Refugee and Immigrant Forum; the Washington State Coalition against Domestic Violence; NARAL Pro-Choice Washington; the National Coalition against Domestic Violence; Washington NOW; the Washington Coalition of Sexual Assault Programs; Stop Family Violence; and the Family Violence Prevention Fund.
House Holds Hearing on Bill To Improve System for Restoring Voting Rights
On Monday, February 28, the House State Government Committee held a hearing on legislation backed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington to fix our state’s unfair and ineffective procedures for restoring the right to vote to ex-offenders. HB 2062, sponsored by Representative Jeannie Darneille, ensures that offenders who have completed all other aspects of their sentence are not denied the right to vote solely because of financial reasons.
“Our current system is so complex and unreliable that many people are wrongly being disenfranchised permanently. We need a simpler, clearer system that enables voting officials to track accurately who has lost and who has regained their voting rights,” said Jennifer Shaw, Legislative Director for the ACLU.
Problems in the 2004 election have made clear that the state’s system for restoring voting rights to ex-felons needs a serious overhaul. Washington law disenfranchises individuals convicted of any felony offense. Even after serving a full prison sentence, many ex-offenders are unable to vote because they have not paid off all their legal financial obligations. It does not matter that they may have lived successfully in society for years since their release from incarceration, or that interest amounts accrued faster than payments could be made. Further, the system is so unmanageable that many ex-offenders have not been able to get their rights to vote restored even after they have paid off their financial obligations.
To address this problem, the ACLU is supporting legislation to allow individuals to regain the right to vote automatically once they have completed the conditions of their sentence, even if they still have to pay legal financial obligations (filing fees, fines, court costs, court-appointed attorney fees, etc.). The bill does not eliminate financial debts; it simply reinstates the franchise. Under this bill, the state can collect legal financial obligations from ex-offenders the same way it does from anyone who owes debt to the state, such as child support or student loans. The state does not strip these individuals of the right to vote, and it should not treat people with debts relating to criminal judgments differently.
CLU-WA Home > MarriageEquality > 03-09-05 Press ReleaseMarch 9th, 2005Olympia, WAACLU Urges Washington Supreme Court To Uphold Marriage Equality In a case filed on behalf of 11 couples across the state who wish to marry in Washington or to now have their marriage recognized under Washington law (Castle v. State), the American Civil Liberties Union today appeared before the Washington Supreme Court to urge the court to uphold marriage equality for same-sex couples. Plaintiffs include a police officer, a firefighter, a banker, a nurse, a retired judge, a college professor, a business executive, and others. They reside in communities from Seattle to Spokane and from Port Townsend to Hoquiam. “Same-sex couples make the same kinds of commitments to each other as different-sex couples and need the many protections for their families that marriage provides,” said Kathleen Taylor, Executive Director of the ACLU of Washington. “This case is about basic fairness for all families.” The state is appealing the ruling in September 2004 by Thurston County Superior Court Judge Richard Hicks that legal barriers to marriage for same-sex couples violate the state constitution’s guarantee of equal treatment for all citizens. The government cannot give the legal benefits of marriage to one group of adult citizens but not to another. In his ruling, Judge Hicks rebuffed arguments that same-sex marriage destabilizes the family, noting that same-sex couples have already been found to serve as capable foster and adoptive parents. He pointed out that granting marriage equality to same-sex couples strengthens the community, saying, “Our fundamental principle is that we share the freedom to live with and respect each other and share the same privileges or immunities. We need each other.” The case has been combined for purposes of the hearing with a lawsuit filed by eight same-sex couples who sued King County for refusing to give them marriage licenses (Anderson v. King County). In that case, King County Superior Court Judge William Downing ruled in April 2004 that Washington’s law limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violates the state constitution. Current state laws provide hundreds of benefits to married couples that are not available to same-sex couples. Among these are community property rights; access to family court; joint assessment of income and needs for determination of state assistance programs; access during health care emergencies and the ability to participate in health care decisions; survivor benefits; and authority to make decisions regarding funeral arrangements. Working for the ACLU on the case are Paul Lawrence, Matthew Segal, and Amit Ranade of the law firm Preston Gates & Ellis; Karolyn Hicks of the firm Stokes Lawrence; Roger Leishman of the firm Davis Wright Tremaine; and ACLU-WA staff attorney Aaron Caplan. Representing the eight King County couples are the Northwest Women’s Law Center and Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund.The ACLU has long worked to secure equal treatment under the law for all citizens. In 1971, the ACLU of Washington represented John Singer and Paul Barwick when they sought to obtain a marriage license in Washington. Unfortunately, the state court of appeals sided with the state, ruling that marriage is the “appropriate and desirable forum for procreation and the rearing of children” and therefore not applicable to gays and lesbians. Judge Hicks, however, said that “the community, and its values, has substantially changed from the times of Singer” and that the Singer case “cries out for reexamination….” The couples represented by the ACLU include:
· Brenda Bauer and Celia Castle of Seattle: Brenda is an attorney and Director of the Fleets and Facilities Department for the City of Seattle. Celia has been a firefighter for 25 years. They have been together 16 years. They are parents of two girls ages 8 and 11. Although they were married in Portland, Oregon on March 16, 2004, Brenda would not be treated as Celia’s survivor under Washington law if Celia were to die in the line of duty as a firefighter. Celia and Brenda want Washington to recognize that they are married. In the alternative, Celia and Brenda want to be married in Washington.
· Jeff Kingsbury and Alan Fuller of Olympia: Jeff has been Artistic Director for the Capital Playhouse for 18 years. He works extensively with youth and their families and is active in the downtown business community. Alan is a mortgage lender for the Washington State Employees Credit Union. The couple has been together for 12 years. Alan has observed how the inability to get married has affected them and others in housing opportunities.
· Judy Fleissner and Chris Gamache of Seattle: Judy is a police officer. Chris is an attorney. The couple has been together for 14 years. They are parents of a seven-year-old boy and a four-year-old girl. They were married in Portland on March 19, 2004. Judy was not able to use family leave like other officers when their daughter was born, and Chris would not be considered her spouse if Judy were to die in the line of duty. Judy and Chris want Washington to recognize that they are married. In the alternative, Judy and Chris want to be married in Washington.
· Marge Ballack and Diane Lantz of Spokane: Marge and Diane have shared their lives together for 25 years. Marge is a kitchen designer, and Diane works at a publishing company. They were married in British Columbia, Canada on July 21, 2003. Marge and Diane are treated as married by their children and grandchildren, but not by their government. Marge and Diane want Washington to recognize that they are married
· Tom Duke and Phuoc Lam of Port Townsend: Tom is a clinical psychologist and served in the Navy as an interpreter in Vietnam. A native of Saigon, Phuoc arrived in the U.S. as a refugee and now owns a hiking and outdoor equipment store. The couple has been together six years. Tom and Phuoc love each other, and believe that the State should not limit marriage on the basis of race, gender, or sexual orientation. Tom and Phuoc want to be married in Washington.
· Gary Murrell and Michael Gyde of Hoquiam: Gary is a writer and History professor at Grays Harbor College. Michael is an antiques dealer. The couple has been together for 25 years. Gary and Michael want to marry in order to ensure that they will be able to take care of each other and that they will be adequately protected as they get older.
· Karrie Cunningham and Kathy Cunningham of Graham in Pierce County: Karrie is a consultant. Kathy is currently unemployed. The Cunninghams have been together 11 years and have raised Karrie’s 18-year-old son together. In February 2004, Kathy and Karrie were married in San Francisco. The Cunninghams want Washington to recognize that they are married. In the alternative, Kathy and Karrie want to be married in Washington.
· Kevin Chestnut and Curtis Crawford of Seattle: Kevin is an executive for a software company. Curtis is a photographer. They have been together 19 years. They were married in British Columbia in October 2003. When Kevin’s appendix burst a few years ago, the hospital would not let Curtis make emergency health care decisions for him without obtaining verification from Kevin’s mother on the east coast. Kevin has recently been diagnosed with cancer, which made the couple even more aware of the impact of legal inequalities. Kevin and Curtis want Washington to recognize that they are married.
· Pamela Coffey and Valerie Tibbett of Friday Harbor: Pamela is a photographer. Valerie is a retired administrative law judge. They have been in a committed, loving relationship for 31 years. When Pamela was recently airlifted to a hospital on the mainland, she and Valerie faced anxiety and uncertainty because they did not have copies of documents confirming their relationship. Pamela and Valerie want to be married in Washington.
· Allan Henderson and John Berquist of Seattle: Allan is an international consultant in the areas of hunger, health, and third world development. John is a nurse. They have been a couple for 23 years. Over the years, Allan and John have taken advantage of legal tools like wills, power of attorneys, and private domestic partner benefits. But they have seen the limitations of private contracts. Marriage for them is about the importance of recognizing that they are a family.
· Lauri Conner and Leja Wright of Seattle: Lauri Conner is a high school English teacher at Seattle Academy for Arts and Sciences. Leja is a medical assistant at the Country Doctor Clinic. The interracial couple has been together for three-and-a-half years. They hope to have children together soon. As part of educating high school seniors, Conner teaches about divisions that exist on the basis of race and sex. She sees the current Washington law’s refusal to respect their relationship in the context of other historic examples of discrimination.
ACLU Urges Eastern Washington U. To Allow Ward Churchill To Speak
February 15, 2005
Dr. Stephen M. Jordan
President
Eastern Washington University
President’s Office
SHW 214
Cheney, WA 99004
Re: Cancellation of Churchill Event
Dear President Jordan:
The ACLU of Washington urges you to reconsider the decision to cancel the scheduled April 5 campus appearance of guest speaker Ward Churchill due to concerns over security. Canceling the appearance makes Eastern Washington University complicit in a “heckler’s veto,” where any group of protesters that is big enough or violent enough can silence their outnumbered opponents.
Mr. Churchill has recently been the subject of considerable criticism for some of his earlier statements about the terrorist attacks of September 11. We do not support his views, but the First Amendment protects Mr. Churchill’s right to say unpopular or objectionable things, just as it protects his detractor’s rights to criticize him.
One important role of a public university should be to create a neutral forum where students, faculty, and the general public can consider competing ideas and opinions. A university should not seek to avoid grappling with the controversial ideas of a guest speaker out of fear that he might attract a hostile crowd.
The ACLU believes that with proper consideration, the EWU administration can convey to the EWU community the importance of tolerating – and even listening to- opposing views. We also believe that campus security forces, aided if necessary by neighboring police forces, have the capacity to keep the peace. Since the announced topic of Mr. Churchill’s presentation had nothing to do with his controversial statements about September 11, there is even less reason to believe that the event will be unsafe.
US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis once explained that under the American system, the remedy for speech one dislikes is “more speech,not enforced silence.” Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 377 (1927). EWU recognized this when it arranged for competing presentations in the “Eastern Dialogue” series that is to include Ron Jeremy. It should follow the same principle here.
Sincerely,
Kathleen Taylor
Executive Director
Cc: Dr. Patricia Chantrill, President of the Faculty Organization
Dr. Anthony Flinn, President of the United Faculty of Eastern Washington Univ.
April 1st, 2005
Olympia 2005:
The ACLU’s Legislative Agenda
The 2005 session of the Washington Legislature began on January 10. Here are some key issues the ACLU anticipates working on during the session. This listing will be updated regularly as bills are introduced and as the status of bills changes.
To find out who represents you and their contact information, please visit the ACLU Action Center by clicking the button below (the action center will open in a new web browser window, allowing you to continue to easily return to the 2005 legislative agenda
October 21, 2004Seattle, WALawsuit Challenges Modern Form of Poll TaxThe American Civil Liberties Union of Washington today asked the courts to restore the vote to ex-felons in Washington who have served their prison terms but are denied the right to vote solely because they owe money. The lawsuit was filed in King County Superior Court on behalf of five citizens from around the state who would like to vote but are unable to do so.“Citizens should never be stripped of their basic rights, and the right to vote is as fundamental a right as there is in a democracy. Yet even when people have completed their prison time and have been released back into society, our state puts up barriers to voting – barriers that are based strictly on economics. Washington must end this modern form of the poll tax,” said ACLU-WA Executive Director Kathleen Taylor. “The state should not hold hostage the right to vote in order to collect legal system debts,” Taylor added. Under current state law, even though individuals have finished their prison terms, they are not allowed to vote until they completely pay a variety of monetary debts to the legal system that are imposed at sentencing. The “legal financial obligations” can include docket and filing fees, court costs, restitution, and costs of incarceration. Interest on these legal system debts accrues at the exorbitant rate of 12% a year. According to Washington’s own statistics, more than 90% of felony defendants are indigent at the time of charging. It is no surprise that many ex-felons find it difficult to pay these financial assessments upon release. Sadly, the problem is widespread and hits people of color especially hard. Overall, more than 150,000 people in Washington cannot vote because of a prior felony conviction, according to The Sentencing Project, a public policy organization. In 2002, according to the Department of Corrections, 46,500 ex-felons in Washington were unable to vote just because of outstanding “legal financial obligations.” Disenfranchisement affects about 3.7% of eligible voters in Washington – almost double the national average. And, given the racial disparity in Washington’s incarceration rate, the state disenfranchises almost 25% of all adult African-American males. “Having the rights and responsibilities of citizenship is an important part of successfully re-entering society. Yet our current laws keep former felons from exercising the most basic right of citizenship,” said the ACLU’s Kathleen Taylor.The ACLU’s lawsuit claims that Washington’s law violates guarantees of the right to vote in both the Washington and United States constitutions. The lawsuit does not seek to eliminate any debts to the legal system or change criminal sentences. It only asks that the right to vote not be limited by one’s financial ability. The state has other means to pursue former felons who fail to satisfy their legal financial obligations. Plaintiffs in the lawsuit are Dan Madison, Sebrina Moore, and Larence Bolden of King County, Beverly DuBois of Spokane County, and Dannielle Garner of Snohomish County.Handling the case for the ACLU are Peter Danelo, Molly Terwilliger, Darwin Roberts, and Darin Sands of the firm Heller Ehrman White & McAuliffe, ACLU-WA staff attorney Aaron Caplan, and Neil Bradley of the ACLU Voting Rights Project
This "file" is under construction and will be "arranged' in the near future
By Dr.Roy Foster
