Friday, August 18, 2006

ACLU and CAIR sway Judge Taylor

Hat tip to Cox and Forkum for the cartoon. You can read their related commentary and links HERE. An excerpt from one of their links, at the WSJ:

As for the First Amendment, Judge Taylor asserts that the plaintiffs--a group that includes the ACLU and assorted academics, lawyers and journalists who believe their conversations may have been tapped but almost surely weren't--had their free-speech rights violated because al Qaeda types are now afraid to speak to them on the phone.

But the wiretapping program is not preventing anyone from speaking on the phone. Quite the opposite--if the terrorists stopped talking on the phone, there would be nothing to wiretap. Perhaps the plaintiffs should have sued the New York Times, as it was that paper's disclosure of the program that created the "chill" on "free speech" that Judge Taylor laments.

(bold emphasis mine) I should think we would WANT al Qaeda types to be afraid to speak on the phone. But if you are a Democrat, I guess not.

Related link:

I have to confess, I am predjudiced against judge Anna Diggs Taylor. I really do have a problem with women who shave off their eyebrows, then paint them on again, but halfway up their forhead instead of where they used to be. This gal looks like she should work in one of those ticket booths of the sleazy porn theaters one sees on Market Street in San Francisco. But no, she's a federal judge. Who appointed her?

If that is too judgemental, then I apologise in advance. ;-)

Picture of the judge is courtesy of Nealz Nuze. Boortz asks some relevent questions, you can read his commentary here:

...Here's something I want you to think about though. Let's consider a scenario. U.S. Intelligence forces are eavesdropping on the cell phone conversations of an Islamic terrorist in Pakistan. It is starting to become clear that this Islamic terrorist is in the final steps of implementing a terror attack on a U.S. target ... let's say a large shopping mall. Our intelligence agents are on pins and needles because it looks like this man is preparing to call the Islamic goons who will carry out the attack and give them the go-ahead. As our intelligence people watch their monitors it suddenly becomes clear that the terrorist is making a phone call to the United States. This could be it! He may be calling his contact to discuss the final details and timing of the attack!

Under Judge Taylor's ruling will our intelligence folks have the authority to listen to the conversation, or will they have to hang up? If they can listen, fine. If they have to get a warrant a few days later from that super-secret court, fine. If they have to hang up .. not fine. ..

Yep... partisian politics (and high eyebrows) aside, that is the crux of it.

UPDATE 8:40am 08-19-06 :
OK, I was joking about her eyebrows, to be fair I've seen worse (they aren't in the middle of her forehead), but I'm still not sure they are in the place where God had originally put them. I suppose they might be. She's also 73 years old, and I think perhaps there are many of her generation that favor high eyebrows. But I still don't understand why some women think it looks more attractive to move them up? At best, it makes them look perpetually suprised. At worst, it looks like a face lift gone wrong.

But on to the real purpose of the update: Yes, she was appointed by Jimmy Carter. No suprise there. It's also worth noting that Dearborn, which is in her district, has the highest concentration of Muslims in the US. The ACLU could have filed this case anywhere, but they chose Detroit. Why?

Publicity. Judge Taylor is a real Bush hater, who asked to judge this case. The 6th Circuit is predominantly conservative, and her decision is likely to be overturned. You can read more about it HERE. They didn't really "sway" judge Taylor; they picked her. I suspect the ACLU and CAIR worked together to orchestrate this as a publicity stunt. They got the headlines they wanted.

Author Tammy Bruce, in her latest book "The New American Revolution", had a great deal to say about the ACLU and their real agenda, much of it quite shocking. But so as to not just curse the darkness, but to light a candle instead, she is also advocating support for three alternative organizations to the ACLU, that work to help ordinary Americans. Here are the links to their websites:

The Alliance Defense Fund ( )
Founded to respond to the urgent need for the legal defense and advocacy of religious freedom, they now lead in countering the malevolent agenda of the ACLU.

The American Center for Law and Justice ( )
Specialising in Constitutional law, the ACLJ focuses on national security, protecting America's families, and protecting human life.

The Young America's Foundation
Described as the Voice of Freedom on Campus, YAF is dedicated to making sure the marketplace of ideas remains so, and is committed to ensuring that increasing numbers of young Americans understand and are inspired by the ideas of individual freedom, a strong national defense, free enterprise, and traditional values. The foundation introduces thousands of American youth to these principles. They accomplish their mission by providing essential conferences, seminars, educational materials, internships, and speakers to young people across the country.

If you visit the websites of these organizations, you will see the many ways that they ARE making a difference, and why they are worth supporting.


Senor Cheeseburger said...

I'll give you three guesses who appointed her but you will only need one... Hint: The ex-president most likely to be invited to an Al-Quaeda bar-b-q.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, because getting a warrant is too much to expect from our government. Sorry there are people in this world who believe that our president should have some accountability and not be able to make it up as he goes. I guess being a Republican involves being a complete moron nowdays

Joubert said...

Carter appointed her.

Anonymous said...

Re: Judge Taylor's decision in ACLU, et. al. v. National Security Agency, et. al.,

Plaintiffs here contend that the TSP [”Terrorist Surveillance Program”] has interfered with their ability to carry out their professional responsibilities in a variety of ways, including that the TSP has had a significant impact on their ability to talk with sources, locate witnesses, conduct scholarship, engage in advocacy and communicate with persons who are outside of the United States, including in the Middle East and Asia. Plaintiffs have submitted several declarations to that effect. For example, scholars and journalists such as plaintiffs Tara McKelvey, Larry Diamond, and Barnett Rubin indicate that they must conduct extensive research in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia, and must communicate with individuals abroad whom the United States government believes to be terrorist suspects or to be associated with terrorist organizations. In addition, attorneys Nancy Hollander, William Swor, Joshua Dratel, Mohammed Abdrabboh, and Nabih Ayad indicate that they must also communicate with individuals abroad whom the United States government believes to be terrorist suspects or to be associated with terrorist organizations, and must discuss confidential information over the phone and email with their international clients. All of the Plaintiffs contend that the TSP has caused clients, witnesses and sources to discontinue their communications with plaintiffs out of fear that their communications will be intercepted.

WTF? "Believes to be terrorist suspects?"

Translation: The plaintiff leftists are communicating with terrorists.

There, fixed that.

All of the opinions on this judicial farce seem to miss one important point. Why would a judge be so eager to reach such a conclusion so as to potentially jeopardize her career? Who is she serving? (The opinion subjects her to considerable ridicule, and deliberately ignoring precedent has been cited by some as grounds for sanctions, for example.)

Here's a good reason:

The leftist "plaintiffs" have admitted they've been communicating with likely terrorists. They know they're dirty, and they suspect or know the NSA has the goods on them and that prosecution is likely.

Having shopped for and found a friendly in-the-pocket leftist federal judge to almost whimsically and arbitrarily declare the NSA surveillance program unconstitutional, and injunctioning it to stop immediately, is about the only way for the "plaintiffs" to avoid being destroyed and jailed.

Of course, you and I may get killed as a result, but what's a little death and destruction to good leftist malignant narcissists in their pursuit of their dreamy Marxist utopia?

It is also certainly in the Public Interest to know exactly who these "plaintiffs" were communicating with, why, what was said, and what messages they may have relayed for their "overseas clients" and to whom.

Chas said...

The first anonymous comment in this thread said:

"Yeah, because getting a warrant is too much to expect from our government. Sorry there are people in this world who believe that our president should have some accountability and not be able to make it up as he goes. I guess being a Republican involves being a complete moron nowdays"

Normally I wouldn't publish a comment like this, but I made an exception because of the irony; the poster is complaining about accountability, yet he/she hides behind anonimity to allow themselves to be abusive without consequeses. Isn't it rich?

How many liberals are agitated by this issue, because they themselves wish to be unaccountable for what THEY do?

It's also ironic because I specifically linked to the commentary by Neal Boortz about this; Boortz is a conservative libertarian, who is also concerned about government power overreaching its authority; yet he also realizes we are at war, and American lives hang in the balance. It is possible to be concerned about civil liberties, and still realize that exception measures are required to battle this enemy.

Many of these same measures have been used to fight against criminal activity by various mafia groups, who were too organized and powerful to be subdued by conventional law enforcement. Only since they have been applied to terrorists, have the Democrats started to complain and blame Republicans, even though Democrats have used these same measures themselves in past Administrations.

To any more anonymous people contemplating posting insults, please don't bother; you are wasting my time and yours. Save it for your psycho-therapist. They get paid to listen to your crap.

To the 2nd anonymous poster in this thread:

Your points are well-taken. Thanks for sharing that.

lilfeathers2000 said...

Chas I am glad you explained the annoying mices comments.
Overall this couldn't have come at a worse time.
You are right about the eyebrow and what she looks like.
All that aside have a good rest of the day.