ACLU warns of terror-watch list inflation

Isn't the ACLU on the treason list? Is there a treason list? Theres probably should be...
Actually, while I can't stand most of what the ACLU stands for, I can't imagine that there are millions of suspected terrorist suspects within our borders. Then on the other hand, if there are, then ACLU should watch its steps more carefully or its just aiding the enemy like its done before.

This is the type of abuse that is a direct result of wire taps on American citizens without a warrant, and will most likely make it easier for an actual terrorist to slip through the cracks. This is the precise reason we are less safe today than we were before 9/11, even though I’m not one of these people that buy into the idea that we're in any emanate threat of being attacked. That fear mongering BS is the excuse used for this calculated attempt to turn our free democratic society into a one party dictatorship.

Actually, while I can't stand most of what the ACLU stands for...

Posted by: Steve S | February 27, 2008 10:30 AM

This is the Republic Party in a nutshell class. The ACLU stands for defending the Constitution and ensuring the Bill or Rights are extended to EVERYONE. If you can't stand the ACLU, you can't stand the Constution, you can't stand America, and you are probably are similar to a Fascist authoritarian.

The ACLU is the most despicable association in America.
The lawyers sue people and then, collect money for their fees by the largesse of the nation's liberal judges.
If Congress would pass a law stopping these fat cat lawyers from getting their fees from churches, governments etc.
All this anti Christian behavior would stop the engine is the large legal fees. It's time for Americans to demand these patrasites be stopped.
They are predators like snakes lying in wait of their prey.
Homeland Security is keeping Islamic Jihadists from destroying the civilized world through lists and keeping vigilant to search for these human animaals who kill innocent women and children across the globe.
W has done more in his term than could have ever been done by the slickmeister and his ACLU lovin fat cat lawyers who fought terrorists in court when they were killing Americans left and right during the Clinton years--they have to be fought in battle not courtrooms. Jerry White, Springfield, IL

If the War on Terror was the fantastic success that the Republicans claim, shouldn't the number of "terrorists" be going down, not up?

They probably outsourced the job and pay some GOP party stooge $100 bucks per name to generate and maintain the list. The real surprise is that we aren't ALL on it.

Frank James takes time off from giving moveon.org free publicity to give the ACLU free publicity.

All in the spirit of the Democrat-led Congress that investigates Roger Clemens more than terrorists.

Sorry John John... the ACLU has a undeniable liberal agenda and you've had the sweet wool pulled over your eyes, sucker. They have distorted church and state separation, introduced liberal values as 'rights' that are not listed in the Constitution and assaulted traditional American values that founded the original intent of our leading document.

>>> This is the Republic Party in a nutshell class. The ACLU stands for defending the Constitution and ensuring the Bill or Rights are extended to EVERYONE. If you can't stand the ACLU, you can't stand the Constution, you can't stand America, and you are probably are similar to a Fascist authoritarian.

Posted by: john | February 27, 2008 12:13 PM

This is the Republic Party in a nutshell class. The ACLU stands for defending the Constitution and ensuring the Bill or Rights are extended to EVERYONE. If you can't stand the ACLU, you can't stand the Constution, you can't stand America, and you are probably are similar to a Fascist authoritarian.

"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face! It's just a goddamned piece of paper!" G W Bush November 2005

What a maroon that guy is. Everybody knows the US Constitution is written on parchment.

Unfortunately the criticism of the terrorist watchlist is ill-informed. The dramatic improvement in the government’s ability to screen travelers to identify terrorists or their associates means the overwhelming majority of innocent travelers experience minimal or no screening-related delays, keeping them safe, and on the move. The General Accountability Office, the independent investigative arm of Congress which does not slouch from criticizing federal agencies, said that the "outcomes [of encounters with individuals on the watchlist] indicate the list has helped combat terrorism" and "the watch list has enhanced U.S. government counterterrorism efforts."

News reports and blogs have inflated significantly the number of people actually included in the Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB). Of the slightly more than 300,000 actual people in the TSDB, ninety-five percent are not U.S. persons. It is important to remember that terrorists often adopt aliases, acquire false identifying information such as dates of birth and passports, or steal identities of others. To ensure such tactics do not allow terrorists to escape detection, the TSDB includes a separate “record” for each such alias and false identity. The result is that a single terrorist can generate dozens of records.

It's true, the TSDB is now the world’s most comprehensive and, importantly, widely-shared list of known and suspected terrorists. The names it includes are there because of credible information developed by our intelligence and law enforcement agencies, or those of our foreign partners. While the vast majority of people in it likely will never attempt to enter the United States, the TSDB gives our allies, consular officers, airlines, and border screening agencies the ability to make an informed decision about granting admission to the U.S.

We work hard to ensure that the list remains effective even as it grows. The government does its best to populate the TSDB with the identities of only those who are known or appropriately suspected of being involved in terrorism. In addition, TSC employees constantly review the database to remove the identities of those who have been cleared of any suspicion of engaging in terrorist activity. During fiscal year 2007 alone, TSC employees removed over 100,000 records from the database of individuals that had been cleared of having any nexus to terrorism.

Unfortunately, in a name-based system innocent persons will inevitably be inconvenienced because their name is similar to that of a person properly included in the TSDB. Those experiencing problems because of a coincidental association with someone properly placed in the TSDB can work with the government to rectify the situation. The Department of Homeland Security has created an electronic, on-line system – DHS TRIP -- that allows persons to seek redress and have their names placed on a “cleared” list.

This list helps protect Americans. We're always at work to do it in the most effective, least intrusive way we can, adhering to our important Constitutional principles in the process.

You sissy. Maybe you should be watched just for your rediculous attitude. Don't the liberals want to protect us from ourselves and you obviously need some help.

>>>>They probably outsourced the job and pay some GOP party stooge $100 bucks per name to generate and maintain the list. The real surprise is that we aren't ALL on it.

Posted by: Tom O | February 27, 2008 12:54 PM

Separated at birth;

Jerry White and Bushman

"This is the Republic Party in a nutshell class. The ACLU stands for defending the Constitution and ensuring the Bill or Rights are extended to EVERYONE. If you can't stand the ACLU, you can't stand the Constitution, you can't stand America, and you are probably are similar to a Fascist authoritarian."

Posted by: john | February 27, 2008 12:13 PM

Really, john? Then explain how it is that they are so selective about defending the Constitution? How is it that they never defend anyone’s right to free exercise of religion (which IS in the First Amendment), or the right to Keep and Bear Arms (which IS in the Second Amendment). Why, then, have they been on record opposing the rights of some organizations to freedom of association (guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments)? How, then, is it that they defend those who distribute child pornography, and practice bigamy, and polygamy (and, by extension of reasoning, polyandry) – none of which are protected by the letter or spirit of the Constitution?

The answer is simple, john. The answer is that the A.C.L.U. has an agendum detailing which social issues it supports and those it opposes, and it uses the Constitution and laws to further that agendum. It is not the general guardian of Constitutional rights that you portray it to be. If you think it is, then maybe you copy of the Constitution isn’t the same as mine.

So Chad,

When did the Bush administration ever care about "Constitutional principles"? And if we are ill informed, could it be because this is the most secretive, deceptive, and least accountable Administration in U.S. history? Just wondering?

John W-

The ACLU has defended the free exercise of religion in a number of cases.

http://www.aclu.org/religion/discrim/index.html

In this instance you are simply factually wrong.

In the other instances you mention, you need to try and understand that people can have understandings of the Constitution differing from yours. The opinion of John W is not the final determination of Constitutionality.

http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html

NEWFLASH for John W, Jerry White, Steve S and others.
The ACLU has filed a friend of the court brief supporting the right of a student in Bolingbrook, Il. to wear a tee shirt (he was asked to remove it in school) that was interpreted by the student's school administrators as being anti-gay.

Yup,
They're on the list. Is there anything these guys aren't afraid of?

http://extras.sltrib.com/bagley/Archive.asp?Vol=content&Num=3

Steve S., What's the matter, does that scenario sound all too familiar? Outsourcing government services to a GOP bribe factory like Halliburton or Blackwater and then watching the fraudulent bills and the bodies pile up? Or are you the paid GOP stooge padding the watch list? Yes, I do need help, but watching the Democrats win in November and boot out the GOP is all the help I need.

Luke,

I am pleased to learn that the A.C.L.U. has championed the right to free exercise of religion. This comes as a pleasant surprise to me, in consideration of all the A.C.L.U. members I met who viewed any form of public religious expression as “offensive.” So, I stand happily corrected.

But, with regard to the other points, I am not simply expressing my own opinion. The U.S. Supreme Court has taken positions on the issues of Child Pornography, Free Association and Polygamy (and Bigamy) that are opposed to those advocated by the A.C.L.U. (See New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982) and Osborne v. Ohio, 495 U.S. 103 (1990) [Child Pornography]; Boy Scouts of America et al. v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000) [Free Association]; and Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 145 (1878), and Cleveland v. United States, 329 U.S. 14 (1946) [Bigamy/Polygamy].) So have a large number of State and lower federal appellate courts (the decisions of which I will refrain from collecting here out of concern for space and readability). You may be right that, “[t]he opinion of John W is not the final determination of Constitutionality,” but the opinion of the United States Supreme Court often is. The A.C.L.U. is 0 for 3 on these issues with that body.

With regard to the Second Amendment, the A.C.L.U.’s explicit policy (Policy No. 47) states:

“The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms."

The problem with this viewpoint, of course, is that the United States Supreme Court never interpreted the Second Amendment in this manner. In United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), the Court merely reached the unremarkable conclusion that only “arms” whose "possession or use . . . has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" would qualify for Second Amendment protection. (Id., at 178.) If the Court had decided the Second Amendment protected only a collective right, it would have dismissed the defendants’ claims by observing that no evidence existed to show they were belonged to a militia. The discussion regarding evidence of a suitable military use for a sawed-off shotgun – upon which the case was actually based - would have been a waste of time. The A.C.L.U.’s misreading of Miller, when viewed in light of its advocacy of less well founded “Constitutional Rights” shows that Second Amendments rights simply do not fit its social agendum.

I might add that the Fifth Circuit, in United States v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203, 218-21 (5th Cir. 2001) and the D.C. Circuit in Parker v. District of Columbia,478 F.3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2007), cert. granted March 18, 2008, sub nom. District of Columbia v. Heller , both held that the Second Amendment protects a personal right rather than a collective one. Both opinions were very scholarly and well reasoned. In which case, the opinion on the subject of the Second Amendment is, again, not simply my personal opinion.

Luke,

Right on bro. The ACLU has defended many cons, Larry Craig for one.

Fact is the cons in America want Amerika.
They don't want the US Constitution to be a living, working, CHANGING document. That scares them,,,,badly. They want it to be feel good, historic document, displayed with the Ten Commandments in the courthouse, as quaint as the Geneva Conventions.

*****
Posted by: johnf | February 27, 2008 5:03 PM

So? What's so surprising about that? A t-shirt can contain material that is protected speech under the First Amendment. Kids have First Amendment rights that they don’t lose when they go to school.

Lets get this straight. I only said the A.C.L.U. pursues an agenda that seeks to promote some constitutional rights, not protect some, and even denigrate others. My point was to refute the notion, supplied by john – that the A.C.L.U. can be equated with the protection of the Constitution in all instances. I never said the A.C.L.U. was wrong 100% of the time. It very well could be right in this instance.

What kind of country have we become where we actually have a list of people we won't let enter without questioning? The "Gee, he looks friendly" method seemed sure-fire.

“What kind of country have we become where we actually have a list of people we won't let enter without questioning? The "Gee, he looks friendly" method seemed sure-fire.”

Posted by: whatnow | February 27, 2008 7:15 PM

We’ve done it for a long time – at least since the presidency of John Adams (who was President right after Washington). The Alien Enemies Act of 1798 provided for the capture and expulsion of foreign nationals when their native country was at war with the United States. The Alien Act of 1798 permitted the expulsion of any non-naturalized aliens who were deemed dangerous even in peacetime. These acts, along with the hated Sedition Act (of the same year) were the reason why the Federalist party of John Adams was soundly defeated in the ensuing elections.

I might add that the Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795 limited citizenship to free, whites. Other people could enter, but not gain citizenship. This excluded all non-whites and indentured white people from citizenship too. Even then, the law required the candidate for citizenship to be questioned and only granted to citizenship upon satisfaction that they were of good character and conformable to the principles in the Constitution.

There have been other instances in our history where aliens have been categorically excluded. Congress enacted a law in 1882 to categorically exclude all Chinese people from entry into the United States. That act wasn’t repealed until 1943.

So, I guess the answer to your question is that we have been that “kind of country” for a very long time. Sorry.

John W.

Nice to see you admit your error. Now it would be nice to see you admit that your constitutional positions are just as ideological as the ACLU's.

Pot meet kettle.

*****

“Now it would be nice to see you admit that your constitutional positions are just as ideological as the ACLU's.”

*****

Posted by: Luke | February 27, 2008 9:49 PM

Sorry, Luke, but no such admission will be forthcoming. To the extent I can cite cases with precedential authority to support my positions (as I have shown above), my positions are more than just “ideological.” When, on the other hand, the A.C.L.U. finds itself in the embarrassing position of having to explain away authoritative precedent that is both directly on point and wholly opposed to the position it takes (as I have also shown above), their positions are purely “ideological,” and nothing more. Thus, I have no ground to rationally conclude my constitutional positions are “just as ideological as the A.C.L.U.’s.” And, do you know what else? Neither do you.

* * * * *
Posted by: C.Morris | February 27, 2008 6:46 PM

The Constitution wasn’t intended to be a “changing” or “living” document like some proclaim. It was meant only to be changed by the procedure specified in Article V – and by no other means. This issue of whether the Constitution could be altered or avoided by the mere act of Congress was raised and rejected in the case of Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803). That was the first case to hold that a law could be held “unconstitutional” if it conflicted with the Constitution. On the immutability of the Constititution, the Court specifically stated:

“ . . . The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act.

Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.

If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law: if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.

Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void.

This theory is essentially attached to a written constitution, and is consequently to be considered by this court as one of the fundamental principles of our society. It is not therefore to be lost sight of in the further consideration of this subject.”

(Id., at 177-78.)

One only needs to add that it is just as absurd to ascribe to the courts the power to expand or contract the meaning of the Constitution to adapt to the political winds du jour. The Supreme Court has, in the past, overruled prior decisions on the ground they were erroneous, unworkable or both. But it has never ruled, in the absence of an amendment, anything like, “That was a correct rule now, but we have a new and different rule that is correct for our time.” Just as in the case of a purported change by an ordinary act of Congress, an arbitrary change in judicial interpretation, i.e. unaccompanied by an amendment, would make the theory of written constitutions equally absurd. After all, the Courts have less power than Congress. The power of the Court begins and ends with discovering the law and applying it. They have always denied themselves the power to write or re-write the law. Hence, there is no legal basis to assume the Constitution is a “changing” or “living” document apart from the amendment process.

Luke,

John, You crack me up sometimes.

I'm not going to argue case law with you, but do you really believe that your positions are beyond question, and wholly untainted by your political ideology? If so, I thnk you need to be a bit more introspective.

Peace.

Luke,

I never said my positions were beyond question or wholly uninfluenced by political ideology. [I decline to use the word “untainted” due to its negative connotation in context.] You suggested that I should admit that my “constitutional positions are just as ideological as the ACLU's.” You made a comparison and invited me to agree with it. You didn’t ask me whether my positions on constitutional law are “wholly untainted” by political ideology. Thus, nothing I said could be reasonably interpreted to mean that I viewed them as such.

I answered the way I did because I view legal positions as more than “ideological” once a court decision makes them the law of the land. At that point, they pass from the realm of the purely ideological to that of the pragmatic. Thus, I could not assent to the validity of your comparison owing to the number of Supreme Court precedents which both disagreed with the A.C.L.U.’s positions and supported mine on the same issues.

I admit that I hold a number of positions influenced by my political ideology. I have never denied this. But I only adhere to positions for which I can articulate a principled legal argument. No legal position is entirely beyond question as long as one can articulate a plausible argument against it. This is the accepted view within the American legal system because courts are open to overruling prior rulings if given a good enough reason to do so. That’s what makes law interesting. But it also tells me the A.C.L.U.’s lukewarm attitudes toward certain issues are driven more by their ideological agendum than a concern for everyone’s constitutional rights.

The point I made initially was a very limited one. I merely attempted to demonstrate (with some success, I think) that the A.C.L.U. has an agendum that is not entirely consistent with the protection of everyone’s constitutional rights. I was not trying to take them to task on all of their positions. Indeed, I agree with a number of the A.C.L.U.’s positions on certain issues. I just don’t esteem the people at the A.C.L.U. to be constitutional law heroes like the prior poster did.