Obama Administration In Danger Of Establishing 'New Normal' With Worst Bush-Era Policies, Says ACLU

[IndianaGreen]

Obama Administration In Danger Of Establishing "New Normal" With Worst Bush-Era Policies, Says ACLU

July 29, 2010

Group Releases 18-Month Review Of President's National Security Policies And Civil Liberties

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

NEW YORK – The Obama administration has repudiated some of the Bush administration's most egregious national security policies but is in danger of institutionalizing others permanently into law, thereby creating a troubling "new normal," according to a new report released today by the American Civil Liberties Union.

"Establishing a New Normal: National Security, Civil Liberties, and Human Rights Under the Obama Administration," an 18-month review of the Obama administration's record on national security issues affecting civil liberties, concludes that the current administration's record on issues of national security and civil liberties is decidedly mixed: President Obama has made great strides in some areas, such as his auspicious first steps to categorically prohibit torture, outlaw the CIA's use of secret overseas detention sites and release the Bush administration's torture memos, but he has failed to eliminate some of the worst policies put in place by President Bush, such as military commissions and indefinite detention. He has also expanded the Bush administration's "targeted killing" program.

The 22-page report, which was researched and written by staff in the ACLU's National Security Project and Washington Legislative Office, reviews the administration's record in the areas of transparency, torture and accountability, detention, targeted killing, military commissions, speech and surveillance and watchlists.

"President Obama began his presidency with a bang, signing executive orders that placed the power of the presidency behind the restoration of the rule of law and gave meaning to the president's stated view that America must lead with its values," said Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU. "Unfortunately, since that time, the administration has displayed a decidedly mixed record resulting, on a range of issues, in the very real danger that the Obama administration will institutionalize some of the most troublesome policies of the previous administration – in essence, creating a troubling 'new normal.' We strongly urge the president to shift course and renew his commitment to the fundamental values that are the very foundation of our nation's strength and security."

According to the ACLU's report, the first 18 months of Obama's presidency have been marked by a pattern wherein significant achievements for civil liberties have often been followed by setbacks. For instance, the positive step of releasing Justice Department memoranda that purported to authorize the Bush administration's torture regime was followed by the troubling decision to fight the release of photos depicting the abuse of prisoners in CIA custody. The administration's commitment to dismantle Guantánamo has been undermined by its assertion of the authority to detain people indefinitely without charge or trial. And prohibitions against torture have been weakened by the failure to hold top Bush administration officials accountable for their role in the torture program.

http://www.aclu.org/national-security/obama-administration-danger-establishing-new-normal-worst-bush-era-policies-says-a

[ProSense]

1. Funny how the ACLU thinks

NEW YORK – The Obama administration has repudiated some of the Bush administration's most egregious national security policies but is in danger of institutionalizing others permanently into law, thereby creating a troubling "new normal," according to a new report released today by the American Civil Liberties Union.


<...>

According to the ACLU's report, the first 18 months of Obama's presidency have been marked by a pattern wherein significant achievements for civil liberties have often been followed by setbacks. For instance, the positive step of releasing Justice Department memoranda that purported to authorize the Bush administration's torture regime was followed by the troubling decision to fight the release of photos depicting the abuse of prisoners in CIA custody. The administration's commitment to dismantle Guantánamo has been undermined by its assertion of the authority to detain people indefinitely without charge or trial. And prohibitions against torture have been weakened by the failure to hold top Bush administration officials accountable for their role in the torture program.

You know, change is complex. Bush really screwed up the country and foreign relations. To say the Obama has made "significant achievements for civil liberties," but is in danger of establishing a new norm, is dealing with that reality. The President has a lot more to do and another two and a half years to continue addressing these problems.

In other words, the administration's efforts are a work in progress.

[IndianaGreen]

3. Ordering the assassination of American citizens violates the Constitution

It is an abuse of power! The Framers never wanted the Presidency to enjoy the same powers as the Sovereign. This is why they split those powers into three branches of government, and why the Constitution would not had been ratified had it not had the Bill of Rights.

[ProSense]

5. Ordering the government to take up arms against traitors foreign and domestic isn't

Terrorists get no sympathy.

[IndianaGreen]

6. Terrorism against your own people is what assassination certainly is

Do you want a President to order the assassination of anyone he or she wants?

I don't!

[ProSense]

7. A terrorist is a terrorist.

Stop trying to act as though the administration decided to target someone for protesting. A person who takes up arms against the country in a foreign country along side terrorist who wish to do Americans harm is a terrorist. If a armed robber came into the neighborhood, the police would try to apprehend that person, and would not hesistate to take action if threatened.

[IndianaGreen]

8. May I remind you that Nelson Mandela and Jomo Kenyatta were once labeled as terrorists

No one is above the law, least of all the President. There is a due process in the Constitution, and it was put there for a reason, to prevent tyranny.

[ProSense]

9. You're comparing Mandela to al Qaeda?

Preposterous.

[IndianaGreen]

10. Not at all, and you know it!

The US is currently involved in 75 conflicts across the world. Nothing to do with Al Qaeda, and much to do with keeping in power oligarchs that serve our purposes.

[depakid]

11. Under this precedent, who will the next president consider "a terrorist?"

or a "member of a terrorist organization?"

Someone from Greenpeace?

or card carrying members of the ACLU?

[KingFlorez]

13. It's very telling the comparisons some will make

:crazy:

[IndianaGreen]

15. Consider a President Glen Beck labeling his opponents as terrorists

and ordering their assassination. That's the underlying issue here!

[depakid]

29. Having the power to act and declaring the right to do so are two entirely different things

Had Obama (the one time adjunct professor of law) quietly gone out and assassinated this guy- well, that wouldn't be a first. And under the Obama Doctrine of no accountability, nothing would have been done.

Declaring the right to do so- and then touting that in the media with chest thumping "tough talk" raises far more dangerous concerns down the line.

(now... que the "your concern is noted" posts).

[GOTV]

36. Wow. Way to pretend not to get the point so you can attack a strawman instead ...

... just because the administration says someone is a terrorist shouldn't make it so.

[TheKentuckian]

33. No, you are foolishly conflating an accusation with a conviction

Due process is for all crimes not just for the ones you pick and choose.

This targeted citizen doesn't even have an indictment.

The Constitution specifically addresses treason and it calls for a trial not for the President to have them bumped off at his discretion, no oversight required and no actual crime proven.

Like reactionary Reich wingers you folks are trying to set up a system that if the accusation is severe enough that justice may be bypassed. You are calling for the destruction of due process and habeas corpus, you are working for such ends. It is despicable and indeed treasonous it's self.

[GOTV]

40. It's the apporoach one takes while hiding under a bed ...

... I'm not yet afraid enough to give up due process.

[Exilednight]

66. Then by your own words ......

The government has the right to use deadly force and target the following US citizens belonging to these groups:
kkk
world church of the creator
army of god
animal liberation front
PETA (yes the FBI is investigating PETA as a domestic terrorist group)


All are considered, or being investigated, as domestic terrorists.

You honestly believe that the President should have the power to have any individual belonging to these groups killed?

[depakid]

4. Attempts to expand widespread warrantless surveillance of Americans is indeed a work in progress

[truedelphi]

56. And the Wikileaks affair might well fan the flames of that

Movement.

[GOTV]

37. If the work in progress is institutionalizing bad policy by making it law ...

... it's not work that should be in progress.

[BootinUp]

2. Obama fails to undo 9/11 disaster. nt

[Pirate Smile]

27. There you go. I think that is the point. It wont be Bush but it wont go back to pre-9/11.

[vaberella]

48. This is a good way of summing up what's resulting from 9/11.

Most people don't see this though.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

12. The New Normal

What the ACLU fails to take into account (because of they don't care) is that the definition of National Security has changed dramatically over the past twenty years. The odds of any foreign national openly attacking the United States of otherwise challenging us militarily are wildly remote. Consider that in 1990, Saddam Hussein had the 4th Largest Military in the World and the United States and its allies crushed them in less that four weeks. That was the 4th Largest Military in the World.

Are the Chinese going to attack us? Feh. Good luck collecting on all of that American debt you've been buying, fellas. The Russians? Hardly - even if the Kremlin could get the Russian military to act in a coordinated fashion for more than 15 minutes, they have bigger fish to fry. That leaves India. Again the strength of our military and economic ties makes conflict with India more than just highly unlikely.

National security threats aren't coming from foreign governments who dispatch Boris Badanov-type spies to gain information about our military and technological secrets. Its happening with small groups -- Al Queda may have no more than 5,000 armed combatants -- and even smaller splinter cells who act semi-autonomously. And National security threats can come from just a handful of individuals -- think Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols. Think of every lunatic fringe individual or group that has threatened the President in the last 18 months.

The game has changed, and the way the government interdicts terrorists has changed as well. If the ACLU had its way, we'd keep fighting a 21st century enemy using 19th century legal tactics.

[IndianaGreen]

14. And what happens when the government becomes the terrorist?

Who will protect us from those charged with our protection?

I don't buy for one minute the Unitary Executive doctrine. It is un-American, un-Constitutional, and a path towards tyranny.

Do you want a President Glen Beck to label his opponents as terrorists, and order their liquidation? That's what is at the end of the path we are headed.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

30. You're confusing FISA with the Unitary Executive

FISA still requires the government to go before a judge and make its case before obtaining a warrant. And in case of an emergency, I believe the government can go ahead, but must appear in the FISA court within (guessing from memory here) 3 days to explain why they did what they did. The principle difference between FISA and any other court is that FISA Courthearings are ex parte and records are sealed to prevent the suspects from knowing that they're under surveillance.

In the interest of protecting against abuse, the FISA judges should are nominated by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Judges on the FISA Court are not specifically confirmed by the Senate, but that's because in order to be appointed, one has to be a sitting federal judge (the FISA Court is a seven-year term that cannot be repeated). The Court is required to provide quarterly reports to the Chief Justice and to Congress (probably the Senate Judiciary Committee).

What Bush did was to circumvent the FISA Court altogether and engage in a program of secret and thoroughly illegal wiretapping without a warrant. Considering that FISA allows the government a good deal of latitude in these matters, those illegal wiretaps conducted by the Bush Administration must have been particularly egregious.

But seriously. President Beck? Really?

[SunsetDreams]

16. Thank you Jeff, pleasure to read your post

The game HAD to change, when you have the likes of Timothy McVeigh, and the lunatic fringes out there who would attack us.

Sorry I won't take up for a terrorist anyday, foreign or domestic.

[IndianaGreen]

17. We didn't have to set the Constitution on fire!

If you want a tyrant, continue on the present course and see what happens.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

-- Benjamin Franklin

[SunsetDreams]

18. So you are ok with terrorists whether they are American or Foreign

being allowed to kill our citizens, without any consequences whatsoever?

OK, let them reign free.

[IndianaGreen]

19. I stand with the Constitution and due process

What you are defending are the sort of stuff that the death squads we train at SOA are notorious for doing.

Strawman argument on your part!

[SunsetDreams]

20. So you don't think Timothy McVeigh should have been put to death?

[IndianaGreen]

21. Tim McVeigh was arrested, tried, convicted, and executed. It is called due process!

Why don't you read up some on the US Constitution?

[SunsetDreams]

22. exactly, which is where I was coming from

Only you went with set the Constitution on Fire! That is not setting it on fire, and I will not take up for a terrorist, American or Foreign EVER! I don't agree with torture, but put to death they should be.

[IndianaGreen]

23. We were discussing the assassination of Americans

Read the thread!

[SunsetDreams]

24. Yes which has to do with Terrorist, not ordinary innocent Americans

[IndianaGreen]

25. No, it has to do with the warning issued by ACLU

in the OP.

[SunsetDreams]

26. yes and I still stand in agreement

with Jeff's post.

This whole thing has been spun and twisted so much. It's all about FEAR!

"Oh noes! Obama is going to kill you, you are an innocent American, but that don't matter."

[TheKentuckian]

43. Terruh, terrah, terror isn't fear mongering? Leading the band to flush due process down the toilet

isn't fear based capitulation to the terrorists?

I guess up really is down here through the looking glass.

[TheKentuckian]

35. Shouldn't you determine if they are guilty of the accusation or are we returning to Salem?

Hell, they at least put on a show trial with fake science to prove their case.

In your world a secret accusation is all the trial needed. I'll take my chances with the witch hunters.

[SunsetDreams]

46. Timothy McVeigh was guilty

As are your other comments which are to twist, distort, what I said. So I will just respond to this one.
Timothy McVeigh was hardly a show case with fake science. There was NOT just accusation.
But that's surely not what you are saying? You just wanted to divert with some nonsense about Salem, trying to distort what I said?
Right?



:eyes:

[TheKentuckian]

53. Okay, great we might be getting there. Now you do know that McVeigh had charges filed,

had a trial where he was able to face his accusers, he was sentenced in accordance with our laws, and had the ability to appeal.

There is a wide gulf between what happened with McVeigh and what you are supporting. It isn't close.

Due process and no due process????? What is it not to get?

[SunsetDreams]

57. No, here it is

There is no "we". "You" might be getting somewhere, this is true. My words were distorted into some made up nonsense.
If you start with my very first post. I really didn't feel like I had to add anything about going to court, on a Democratic board.


Again you are misrepresenting what I said. "what you are supporting"
NOWHERE did I say that I supported NO due process. I guess you have to spell that out on Democratic site now? Really? Nonsense.

Now if you don't mind, I don't have time for this game, over parsing over what you think I said.

[TheKentuckian]

60. When due process is at the heart of the matter then it can't be assumed

Due process is obliterated by the program in question.

If due process is assumed then what point were you so emphatically raising?

[TheKentuckian]

34. Who said any such thing? Fear based hysteria and/or willful dishonesty

[GOTV]

38. OMG - Hilariously bad response!

Yeah, IndianaGreen, why do you hate America!

Is there an anti-DUzy award?

Thank god we're changing those laws to make killing citizens illegal! Good on Obama!

[Ignis]

44. "It's just a goddamn piece of paper"

You're advocating a system wherein the Executive branch gets to play judge, jury, and executioner over those who have been accused of terrorism.

:dunce:

Why the fuck do we need judges and courts? Let's just "trickle down" this brilliant legal framework to the local levels, so Sheriff Joe Turdknuckle from Bumfuck, Nowhere can decide you're a terrorist and summarily execute you!

:banghead:

One expects RW assholes to cheer on frontier "justice," but I'm shocked to see DUers falling for the TERRA TERRA BOOGA BOOGA 911 911!!! crap so hard that they're willing to throw out almost a thousand years of legal tradition.

[SunsetDreams]

47. try reading

DISTORT! Misrepresent, what someone says, so you can be like fake outraged. OH NOES!

[Ignis]

51. Try reading WHAT? FFS, try to make a little sense.

You can project whatever Bad Qualities you want on me, but it counts for a hill of beans unless you can construct a logical argument that presents your position clearly. So far, I haven't seen you present a single compelling reason why we should execute American citizens accused of terrorism without a trial.

And FYI, I've been involved in the peace movement for over 30 years--which is most likely longer than you've been alive, judging by the maturity of your responses. I'm not feigning outrage over anything; this is an issue that I--and many other DUers--take quite seriously. I also believe in the rule of law, and I think every single American citizen deserves a trial by jury before being summarily executed.

Just because you don't agree is no reason to act petulantly or to belittle others. :hurts:

[SunsetDreams]

52. LOL

see how that works?

You in fact distorted what I said in a really bizarre way.

You might think about how you "question" what someone is saying.

[Ignis]

54. What PRECISELY did I distort? Can you answer that one simple question?

Can you do that without wiggling, dancing, dodging, obfuscating, LOLing, or any other means of distracting from the real issue?

Hopes aren't high, but I'd be delighted to be proven wrong in my opinion of you.

[SunsetDreams]

58. Ignis, I am done

My posts are there, I am not going back over what I've already said.

If you would like to continue to distort and parse over what you think I said, feel free.

But I will not be answering, when my posts are there. BEGIN with the first one, all the way through this one.

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ignis]

65. Indeed, you are done.

So you are ok with terrorists whether they are American or Foreign
being allowed to kill our citizens, without any consequences whatsoever?

OK, let them reign free.

This is a classic false dilemma, and it's a perfect example of the Black-or-White thinking that has led to the erosion of our civil liberties over the past few decades.

"Gotta give up a little freedom so the Commies don't get us!"
"Gotta give up a little freedom so the Hippies don't get us!"
"Gotta give up a little freedom so the Druggies don't get us!"
"Gotta give up a little freedom so the Muslims don't get us!"

There's no need to "distort and parse" a logical fallacy, because it is by nature...*drumroll*...fallacious!

:dunce:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=false+dilemma&l=1

[Exilednight]

67. No one is saying that terrorists shouldn't be accountable, but no one, not ..............

even the President, has the right to play judge, jury, and executioner.

We have courts for this very purpose, and Obama promised to try terrorists in civilian courts.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

31. Oh, that tiresome Ben Franklin quote.....

The dude's dead. Has been for years.

Remains to be seen what Ben would think about the current situation.

And since you're a lover of history (or at least slinging historical quotes), do you know WHY the FISA Courts were created?

The principal author if the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was Ted Kennedy and the law was signed by Jimmy Carter. FISA was a direct result of the recommendations made by the Church Committee, chaired by Frank Church and including Walter Mondale and Gary Hart.

The purpose of the law was to REIGN IN the future actions of a corrupt administration after it became known that the U.S. Government had been engaging in a string of domestic surveillance and spying activities. It forces the government to go BEFORE A JUDGE before they engage in domestic surveillance rather than engage in an endless series of Black Ops jobs with no restraint.

[TheKentuckian]

32. Idiotic statement. Dude has been dead for years...bleh

[vaberella]

49. You know..Franklin wasn't around when buildings were falling with 5000 people.

What I'm trying to say is that situations like this is similar to the Bible. The Constitution for all it's goodness doesn't answer all questions. Why? If I stood by the Constitution as written by the forefathers I'd be slave and if you're White---you'd probably own me---or I'd be your half relative but still a slave. This is why we have amendments and this is why laws are redefined and elaborated upon. Nothing is ever written to address all situations and decisions are made based on present day events. This is why it's unrealistic to even compare things 200 years ago to today ---- some of this is beyond the idea of burning the Constitution but in some cases set in place to address the situations today.

[Ignis]

55. But it certainly was around for the Civil War, the Great War, etc.

You don't think horrors were perpetrated in any of those conflicts? :shrug:

Is there something magically delicious different about Saudi Arabian terrorists and/or the destruction of skyscrapers that you think the Constitution simply cannot cover? If so, what exactly?

[vaberella]

61. They were and those situations were 100% different for each situation.

And again during each time there are amendments and policies added, removed and changed to accomodate each time period and that is my point. To quote the Constitution as something stagnant and unchanging and that in some way someone is butchering it---is ludicrous. It is not sacred in the sense of being untouchable. It is sacred because it is the list of our laws and policies that protect and defend the rights of Americans. <---Admittedly in some cases it's infringing on rights ----or in the case of Blacks before the Civil War---and not homosexuals---not providing rights.

So in response to your question, you're decidedly ignoring my point. The Constitution has never been stagnant---if so there would NEVER have been amendments and that is my point. So to use the forefathers as creating this untouchable piece of legislation is absurd. And as such, I wonder how the forefathers would have acted if there was a terrorist attack and were dealing with potential attacks electronically, biologically, and so forth.

[Ignis]

62. So the technological method of the attack is the difference?

I'm trying to follow your argument, so perhaps you'll allow me to rephrase/summarize:

"The Constitution, as currently written, cannot encompass terrorist attacks that involve technology not in place during the latter half of the 18th Century. In order to deal with these new methods, we must amend the Constitution."

Is that about it? :shrug:

[vaberella]

63. Hardly.

You're limiting what I'm saying. The Constitution established that I as a Black woman would not have a vote and didn't even count as a person. I was cattle. That was the Constitution? What happened? A Civil War erupted and the Constitution was amended...in order to recognize Blacks what was done?! They amended the constitution. And in order to meet the situations that have evolved---yes the Constitution in and of it self has historically been amended and evolved to face the changes of the 21st century. If you think it was adequate as it was----thanks for letting me know that Slavery is good and was good on it's face.

The Amendments are perfect example as to how the Constitution has changed in order to meet the situation and events that affect policy. So generally speaking, there would be no amendments if the Constitution was all perfect and met all events--and these changes set to meet those challenges. However, at this point we're entering a circular conversation because I've said this three times.

[Ignis]

64. Er...are you really accusing me of supporting slavery?

Really? Simply because I asked whether you think the method, the technology, or the result of 9/11 is something the Constitution is ill-equipped to handle without an Amendment?

Really? :wow:

Well, because I'm a nice guy, I'll wait for an answer before I simply click Ignore and move on. But I'll give you credit: That is far and away the most repellent thing another DUer has ever said about me.

So I guess you have that going for you. :thumbsup: Yay? :shrug:

[depakid]

28. Yours and the poster below's attitudes show that the terrorists have indeed won

All too many Americans have become so cowardly frightened of their own shadows that they've willingly tossed away due process and centuries long legal principles and traditions passed down to over the generations from far braver and more honourable people than themselves.

And for what? Some illusory feeling of security?

For the worship of some politician? (be it Bush or Obama).

Ben Franklin knew these types all too well- and he right... they deserve neither liberty nor security.

[jgraz]

39. Exactly.

Incredible to see this kind of mindless propaganda being parroted on DU. Yet another lowering of the bar.

[Ignis]

68. +1. "Big Daddy will protect me from the Bad Men" isn't good national policy.

I can't believe so many DUers are opposed to the core mission of the ACLU. :argh:

I've been a "card-carrying member" since before Bush the Elder made it a campaign issue, and I'm used to having to defend that membership against RW slings and arrows...but you'd expect DUers to know better.

Now that War is officially Peace, I guess I should have known better. :shrug:

[GOTV]

41. Ah, yes of course, the ACLU are the bad guys!

They defend our civil liberties because "they just don't care".

And comparing the size of military when the technology is no where near equivalent is just silly. We beat Saddam easily because because his 4th place army was feeble in spite of its size.

If the ACLU had it's way we would continue to enjoy guarantees of due process is we are detained.

[ProSense]

42. ACLU opposed the DISCLOSE Act because they support the Citizens United ruling

So don't pretend they're infallible. They made a point, but it's hardly definitive.

[GOTV]

45. The ACLU also defends Nazi's and Rush Limbaugh. I've got no problem with that.

and the ACLU has outlined the deficits in the Disclose act and does not appear to be against the aims of the Disclose act. It only felt that it's provisions were overly broad and unduly burdened small donors. If the dollar amounts were raised much of the ACLU's criticisms would be met I think.

http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/Ltr_to_Senate_re_ACLU_opposes_DISCLOSE_Act.pdf

I welcome their opposition to government adjustments to our rights and I think an ACLU compatible solution to the Citizen's United ruling could be found.

[ProSense]

50. Yeah,

that's why all the cries about bringing back the Fairness Doctrine during the Sherrod incident: because people like Rush Limbaugh needs defending.

Also, the outrage over the Citizens United ruling was telling.

[GOTV]

69. Civil rights are for everyone.

[ProSense]

70. Civil Rights are for everyone, and

hate speech is hate speech. When people advocate injuring others, they should not be defended. When they try to destroy people's lives, they should not be cheered on. I'm glad Shirley Sherrod is going to sue Breitbart. I hope she wins.

[GOTV]

71. His hate speech was not defended by the ACLU

they were defending him against the government seizing his medical records.

Although the ACLU would be right to protect Rush Limbaugh against government censorship as well. The 1st amendment is not there to protect only the speech we all like.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

75. So are civil responsibilities....

A point sadly lost in this society.

We don't have free speech so somebody in a white hood can jump up and down and scream "Nigger, Nigger, Nigger" to his hearts' content.

We have free speech to promote the open and intelligent exchange of ideas and opinions. As a citizen of this county, I have a responsiblity to use my rights responsibly -- and as a liberal I have an obligation to use them in a way that promotes the common good. Every right that you have under the law brings with it an underlying responsibility to the society that preserves those rights.

The ACLU makes no such distinction. They would defend the "free speech" rights of Nazi's who, if left to their own resources and allowed to obtain power, would assuredly NEVER allow an organization like the ACLU to exist. Their insistence on rights without responsibilities is hazaredous to genuine free speech.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

72. They deal in absolutes....

Which leaves them woefully unable to function in society, and it makes them actually dangerous to our civil liberties. They defend "freedom of speech" for corporations because "freedom of speech" is one of their absolutes. But when our electoral system is totally compromised because of their misguided advocacy, when the last seat in the United States Congress has been purchased by corporate interests, do you really think that the ACLU will be allowed to continue functioning? Do you think the corporate-facist interests that control the New American Government will let the ACLU continue filing their precious lawsuits?

[IndianaGreen]

73. Absolutes: Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The Declaration of Independence

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

74. Oh dear...

So liberty is an absolute? Because there are no prisons in the United States, right? And if my pursuit of happiness happens to involve pursuing happiness with thirteen-year-old girls, you're just fine with that, right?