ACLU to Obama: ‘Entire World is Not a War Zone’

[tekisui]

Source: The Raw Story

Targeted killings program could lead to 'foreign governments hunting and killing their enemies within our borders'

The American Civil Liberties Union has sent a strongly-worded letter to President Barack Obama, asking him to end an alleged program that allows 'targeted killings' of terror suspects outside of war zones.

In the http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/2010-4-28-ACLULettertoPresidentObama.pdf">letter (PDF), the civil liberties group argues that the alleged program -- which, according to news reports, is now targeting at least one US citizen -- is unlawful and unconstitutional, and could set a dangerous precedent leading to foreign governments killing people on US soil.

"The program that you have reportedly authorized appears to envision the use of lethal force not just on the battlefield in Iraq, Afghanistan, or even the Pakistani border regions, but anywhere in the world, including against individuals who may not constitute lawful targets," ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero stated in the letter.

"The entire world is not a war zone, and wartime tactics that may be permitted on the battlefields in Afghanistan and Iraq cannot be deployed anywhere in the world where a terrorism suspect happens to be located."

Romero's letter came the same day as a House foreign affairs subcommittee convened to probe the legal issues surrounding the use of targeted killings. It also comes in the wake of a series of news reports suggesting the US's use of targeted killings has expanded significantly in recent months.

In February, Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair announced that the United States may target its own citizens abroad for death if it believes they are associated with terrorist groups.

"We take direct action against terrorists in the intelligence community," Blair told the House Intelligence Committee. He said US counter-terrorism officials may try to kill American citizens embroiled in extremist groups overseas with "specific permission" from higher up.

more: http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0428/aclu-obama-entire-world-war-zone/

[NJmaverick]

1. I wondered where the ACLU was, since they have been glaringly missing in AZ

glad I stopped donating to this joke of an organization.

[tekisui]

2. The ACLU is a joke to you?

I am not surprised as you hold such disdain for true liberals.

You should also look before you open your mouth:

MALDEF, ACLU and NILC to Announce Challenge to Arizona Racial Profiling Law at Press Conference in Phoenix on Thursday

http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2010/04/28-18

[NJmaverick]

3. get off your fake high horse before you get hurt

It's been a long long time since the ACLU has done ANYTHING productive.

[tekisui]

4. .

:cry:

[tekisui]

8. Here a just a few very important accomplishments of the ACLU:

Protecting Individual Rights for Over 90 Years

2009: Protecting the Right to Privacy: In Safford Unified School District v. Redding, the court ruled that school officials violated the constitutional rights of a 13-year-old Arizona girl when they strip-searched her based on a classmate’s uncorroborated accusation.

2005: Keeping Religion Out of the Science Classroom: In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, the ACLU represented a group of parents who challenged a public school district requirement for teachers to present so-called “intelligent design” as an alternative to evolution in high school biology classes. In a decision that garnered nationwide attention, a district judge ruled that “intelligent design” is not science and teaching it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

2003 to 2009: Exposing Torture: After a five-year legal battle, the ACLU’s Freedom of Information Act lawsuit compelled the release of critical documents detailing the extent of the Bush torture program, including long-secret legal memos justifying waterboarding and other abuses and an Inspector General’s report highlighting CIA abuses. The ACLU is leading the demand for full accountability for those who authorized or condoned torture.

2003: Equal Treatment for Lesbians and Gay Men: In Lawrence v. Texas, the U.S. Supreme Court accepted the ACLU’s argument that the court had been wrong when it ruled in Bowers v. Hardwick that the right to privacy did not cover lesbian and gay relationships. It struck down a Texas law that made same-sex intimacy a crime, expanding the privacy rights of all Americans and promoting the right of lesbians and gay men to equality.

2001 to Present: Keeping Americans Safe and Free: Since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the ACLU has been working vigorously to oppose policies that sacrifice our fundamental freedoms in the name of national security. From working to fix the Patriot Act to challenging NSA warrantless spying, our advocates are working to restore fundamental freedoms lost as a result of Bush administration policies that expanded the government’s power to invade privacy, imprison people without due process and punish dissent.

1997: Internet Free Speech: In ACLU v. Reno, the Supreme Court struck down the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which censored the Internet by broadly banning “indecent” speech. Since then, Congress has passed numerous versions of the Child Online Protection Act (COPA), a federal law that would criminalize constitutionally-protected speech on the Internet. Each time the law has been challenged by the ACLU and declared unconstitutional.

http://action.aclu.org/site/PageServer?pagename=FP_about_accomplishments

And, there are hundreds more that don't get the headlines. The ACLU is tireless, and they are liberal. I know that drives you absolutely batshit crazy.

[BklnDem75]

14. Don't forget this one:

U.S. Supreme Court Decision Strikes Down Limits on Campaign Finance

The U.S. Supreme Court today threw out a federal law that, among other things, prohibited certain political speech around election time in a case called Citizens United. The National ACLU had filed a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that the portion of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill banning “electioneering communications” violated the First Amendment and urged the Court to strike it down as unconstitutional. Citizens United is a broad opinion that throws out a number of campaign finance reform laws, including those banning “electioneering communications” and those setting limits on corporate expenditures. While the ACLU is still examining the logic and ramifications of the broader holding in Citizens United, we urged the Court to overturn bans on speech in the form of “electioneering communications,” and applaud the portion of the Court’s decision that does so.


http://www.aclunv.org/aclu-applauds-us-supreme-court-decision-campaign-finance

[NJmaverick]

15. Wasn't the ACLU actually on the side striking down this law?

[BklnDem75]

18. Yes. That's my point

ACLU takes the wrong side of a lot of issues.

[Flaneur]

26. What a cranky crock of shit.

I understand: You get irritated when they interfere with your perpetual war hard-on. Sorry about that.

[jefferson_dem]

6. "...disdain for true liberals"?

:rofl: Whatever that means...it's funny.

[tekisui]

9. He said it himself.

You know there is a reason that the liberals only make up 20% of the population while conservatives make up twice that at 40%. Liberals have a bad habit of being self destructive. I suspect a major reason for this is that they are younger and lack the wisdom that comes with life experience.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=388&topic_id=17936

[NJmaverick]

10. and we are seeing proof of concept

Instead of the ACLU taking the lead in AZ protecting AMERICAN'S CIVIL LIBERTIES, (Hispanic rights groups have picked up the dropped ball) they are playing political GAMES over international law.


I am glad you memorized my quote Tekisui. Now the next step is to take the lesson learned from it and put it into action.

[tekisui]

11. You are still ignoring that the ACLU

has taken a lead in suing AZ over their law.

Oh and you think challenging drone strikes carried out by the CIA in countries we are not a war with political game? That tells me more about you. Not that I needed anymore to go on.

[NJmaverick]

12. The National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders is filing the first suit

NOT the ACLU (who is too busy in Pakistan to actually be protecting American civil liberties).

[tekisui]

13. You know that the ACLU is not a single individual?

Jeezus, you are dense. The ACLU is filing a suit. It is intellectually dishonest of you to ignore the FACT that the ACLU is defending American civil liberties.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

19. Or it might be that some liberals are self-serving jackasses that only accept their own brand...

of liberalism, driving otherwise strident liberals away from wanting to identify themselves as being part of that cabal.

[tekisui]

21. Are you accusing the ACLU of that?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

23. No.

I rather like the ACLU, their stance on this mostly aside (there's some validity to their argument, but I differ.)

[IndianaGreen]

27. Conservatives of any stripe hate the ACLU

and some of them sport the letter D after their names.

[jefferson_dem]

5. I'm still a card-carrying member but they are really testing my will...

I'm starting to wonder...what happened to the Great ACLU? They are trying to reduce their image to that of any base-level hack operation.

More civil liberties defending and less political grandstanding, please.

[NJmaverick]

7. That's why I left,they have forgotten what they are suppose to stand for

Years ago this was a fine organization that did important work and the nation has missed their role as defender of our civil liberties.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

20. No fight, no donations.

That's an unfortunate reality for fundraising these days. I take the grandstanding with a grain of salt, but I sure don't appreciate it.

Edit: I am a current, longstanding donor to the ACLU.

[Forkboy]

28. ACLU Plans To Challenge AZ Immigration Law In Court

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/

Yeah, they suck.

glad I stopped donating to this joke of an organization.

Like you ever did anyways.

[treestar]

16. While this is true

the "capture or kill" order is regular police procedure; if a dangerous felon flees. If they can capture them peaceably, fine. But if they flee to do more destruction, the police don't have to let them do that.

[tekisui]

17. Drone strikes by the CIA are not regular police procedures.

[Robb]

22. Actually, I think the more interesting argument against "drones"

...is the question of whether CIA pilots are considered combatants, and thus offered protection under the rules of warfare.

Frankly, the notion that the entire world is not a war zone is lamentably uninstructed.

[tekisui]

24. I agree that the question of combatant status is the stronger

argument. And, it raises several questions about CIA actions beyond the operation of drones. I do, however, think the definition of the war zone is an important question. If we accept that the war zone is wherever our enemies are, then what is to stop us from using drone strikes in Germany, Saudi Arabia, Australia or even the US, if we find labeled terrorists there?

[truedelphi]

25. That is the whole point of the idea of the "War on terrorism"

To make everyone everywhere unable to assume any individual rights.

Our military is taught that the War on Drugs exists because the drug problem is such a threat to the health of this nation that anyone using drugs may be considered terrorist. (This doctrine was put into effect even in the mid eighties. Under "Just Say No" Ronnie and Nancy Reagan.)

In one ten year period alone, over 400 households ** had their doors busted in, and SWAT team members invade their homes. Illegally. The SWAT teams were at the wrong address, or were at the address that a snitch made up as part of a plea bargain.

For whatever reason, SWAT teams don't actually investigate to see if the information they have is correct. They wait till 4 Am and then smash in the doors, and then throw a percussion flare in, and many times that fare causes the entire dwelling to catch on fire. So imagine someone's ninety year old Granma, at home alone, and her front door is smashed open. She runs to see what is happening, or maybe she hides in the closet - how in the world is a person to know that this is their own Government's people coming in? If she doesn't have a heart attack, she may live to see her entire dwelling and possessed burned "accidentally" to the ground.

In any case, many people have their dogs shot, in front of their eyes, while people in heavy duty combat gear move in and throw everyone to the floor - toddlers included!

And if it turns out later that "Gee we are sorry - we thought the perp lived at 3560 Aspen Drive and only now do we realize they lived at 3650 - too bad we killed your dogs, and gave your elderly mom a heart attack.!

But all this is okay because drugs = terrorism, and terrorism = the right of the militarized police to do whatever they want with few controls over them.

** The statistics are hard to find. The researcher who accumulated the facts about the 400 cases knows that he was only able to arrive at those by searching through newspapers. SO any instances of these things happening and being reported in newspapers he didn't read, or of cases that went unreported remain uncounted.