Georgia Firearm Forums - Georgia Packing banner
1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,798 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
While I know that a majority of the people (who are gun owners) probably disapprove of the ACLU, I thought it was an interesting blog post.

ACLU v. NSA
I am a trial lawyer by profession and understand that lawyers are supposed to represent clients with whom they do not always agree. Indeed, I was at one time a government lawyer and defended state actions and policies with which I personally disagreed. That is what we do. That is what we are supposed to do. I understand and accept that. That is the way our legal system is supposed to work.

But on Wednesday January 31, in a federal court in Cincinnati, listening to an argument before the U.S. Court of Appeals in a case entitled ACLU v. NSA, I found myself responding with anxiety, dismay and outrage as I listened to a lawyer from the U.S. Department of Justice, MY Department of Justice, defend the President’s secret and illegal Terrorist Surveillance Program. Even though I as a lawyer am supposed to be detached from these things, I found myself taking it personally, as personally as if I was had been the subject of secret eavesdropping by the government. Because I heard the government, MY government, argue to that court that no one had a right to challenge the legality and constitutionality of the President’s secret surveillance program.

Listening to the argument of the Department of Justice was much like reading Alice in Wonderland. You see, it is the position of the Department that (1) no person can challenge the government surveillance program unless they can prove they were the subject of surveillance, (2) the government will not tell you if you were surveilled and the court has no power to require it to do so, (3) even if you were surveilled the court has no legal right to review the legality of the program because the decision of whether the program is warranted and legal is exclusively within the authority of the President. And all of that is justified, according to the Department of Justice, to fight the so-called “war on terror.â€

James Madison, architect of the U.S. Constitution, co-author of the Federalist Papers and later President wrote: “If tyranny and oppression come to this land it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.†The statement is as true today as it was 200 years ago.

Frankly, it is all chilling. And all reminiscent of the abuses of the CIA, NSA and FBI during the fight for civil rights, the opposition to the Vietnam War and the Watergate cover-ups in the 1960’s and 1970’s. I had thought we had put this all behind us. Apparently not.

Madison also wrote: “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive and judicial in the same hands, whether one or many . . . may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.â€

Let’s hope the Court of Appeals agrees.
Source

Your thoughts?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
160 Posts
Rammstein said:
While I know that a majority of the people (who are gun owners) probably disapprove of the ACLU, I thought it was an interesting blog post.
Be careful what you think you know. Many gun owners (myself included) approve of much of what the ACLU does. Unfortunately, they ignore the second amendment because of some of the political beliefs of their biggest supporters.

It's actions like these that have made me disgusted with Bush. The phrase, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" comes to mind. In his pursuit of 'the enemy' he is ignoring our constitution and ignoring our freedoms and vastly increasing the power of the government. He may use this power responsibly (I don't know if he is or not) but those who come later may not.

It is scary that it is the position of our President that we the people do not have the right to question his policies. We really should've put something like "no law abridging the freedom to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." in our Constitution. Or maybe even a paragraph that says "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Maybe those two items would've prevented this situation.... :cry:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,172 Posts
Rammstein and WWOMACK, I agree fully with your statements.

It was a little late arriving, but "1984" is finally here, complete with eavesdropping and domestic spying on ordinary citizens.

We need the NRA to protect our 2nd ammendment rights, but we really need the ACLU to protect all the others. It's just too bad those organizations can't work together more frequently.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
780 Posts
"1984" has been here for a very long while.
It's just that more people are finally seeing it for the first time.

But there still far too many people that happily chew on the "blue pill" and are quite content to refuse to see what happens outside their own pathetic existence as long as they have "American Idol" to vote for rather than actually getting off of their butts and voting for people in their own government to change things.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,798 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
wwomack said:
Be careful what you think you know. Many gun owners (myself included) approve of much of what the ACLU does.
It's always been my experience when talking with other gun people that the vast majority viewed the ACLU as a threat and that they were a bunch of hippy/commy/[insert pejorative here].

With regard to Presidential power in war time, I would like to direct you to a book called All the Laws but One by William H. Rehnquist. It's a great book. The title comes from a quote from Lincoln.

"Are all the laws, but one, to go unexecuted, and the government itself to go into pieces, lest that one be violated?" - President Lincoln to congress on 4 July 1861

The book goes through the instances in American history where civil liberties were abridged, and how the judiciary reacted to this. I highly recommend the book.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
414 Posts
Thank you Rammstein , I think I will pick this book up for a read.
as far as A.C.L.U. , THEY CAN KISS MY BUTT! :evil:
happy holidays ba humbug its MERRY CHRISTMAS
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,322 Posts
As I read more and more about the abuses of our government, and the consolidation of power to one branch of the government, I get more and more fearfull every day.

In the 1980's, a writer penned a story for a graphic novel called "V for Vendetta" heavily influenced by the policies of the British government at that time. If you have the chance, please pick it up and read it, the parrelells between the backstory of this novel, and modern events is, unerving at a minimum.
The movie is good as well, but with the expected Hollywierd flair thrown in for good measure.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,798 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
Want another book?
http://tinyurl.com/35ld24 (redirects to BN.com)

This one had me pissed off for a solid week.

slabertooch, How different is V for Vendetta (the book) from the movie?
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
69,743 Posts
Rammstein said:
This one had me pissed off for a solid week.
You should try The Tempting of America, by Robert Bork. That book is why I went to law school (it's the reason why I even enrolled in college).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,322 Posts
Rammstein
The Graphic Novel (from what I remember, last time I read it was in high school) is significantly different from the movie in many area's. In the book V is not the superhero, more of an anarchist and an idea, something alluded to by Evey in the final moment of the movie. Also V is more of a vigalante in the book than the superhero that is shown in the movie, less concerned with the people and more interested in his little crusade of revenge.

Also Evey, is a prostitute in the comic, who approaches a Fingerman as a first client which results in her meeting with V. She does not work in the Ministry of Broadcasting as shown in the movie.

All said and done though, the movie captures the idea behind it, even if it has been Americanized. As a matter of fact the creator Alan Moore emphatically had nothing to do with the movie.
"The movie has been "turned into a Bush-era parable by people too timid to set a political satire in their own country.... It's a thwarted and frustrated and largely impotent American liberal fantasy of someone with American liberal values standing up against a state run by neo-conservatives â€" which is not what the comic 'V for Vendetta' was about. It was about fascism, it was about anarchy, it was about England. "

Taken as they are, the movie's purpose is to entertain, while the graphic novel was Alan Moore's way of speaking out against the path he perceived England was going down.

more information can be found here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_for_Vendetta

p.s. something I was not aware of, but quite interesting (from above source)
Actor John Hurt, who played as High Chancellor Adam Sutler in the film "V for Vendetta," also played as Winston Smith in the 1984 film adaptation of George Orwell's novel, 1984.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,593 Posts
Whatever you do don't read Atlas Shrugged. It will ruin your whole outlook.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,798 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
ber950 said:
Whatever you do don't read Atlas Shrugged. It will ruin your whole outlook.
It's already on my extensive "to read" list. MP's suggestion of The Tempting of America just made the list.
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Top