January 11, 2013

Johnny Jihad Wins Prison Prayer Lawsuit


Thanks to the ACLU's lawsuit

INDIANAPOLIS — A federal judge ruled Friday that an American convicted of fighting alongside the Taliban must be allowed to pray daily in a group with other Muslim inmates at his high-security prison in Indiana.

Barring John Walker Lindh and his fellow Muslims from engaging in daily group ritual prayer violates a 1993 law that bans the government from curtailing religious speech without showing a compelling interest, U.S. District Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson ruled.

The judge blocked the prison from enforcing its ban on daily group prayer, but she noted that her ruling does not prohibit the prison from taking less restrictive security measures[...]

Prison officials argued that the same restrictions applied to inmates of all religions. They also argued that it would be dangerous, unaffordable and unfair to other inmates to meet Lindh's demands. Government witnesses testified that Muslims, who make up the majority of inmates in the unit, have operated like a gang under the guise of religious activity.

U.S. Attorney Joe Hogsett, whose office represented the prison, said Friday that prosecutors were considering their next step, including a possible appeal.

"This case deals with critically important issues that have significance both inside and outside the walls of our federal prison facilities," Hogsett said. "Our concern continues to be the safety and security of both our federal prison system and the United States of America."[More...]


h/t @IntelGirl111

ACLU related: The ACLU’s Islamist Connections

By Stable Hand at 06:51 PM | Comments |

October 10, 2010

My Inbox:

OFA - Jump on the phone -.png

My replies, when one isn'tenough:




By Stable Hand at 01:40 PM | Comments |

September 03, 2010

ACLU Pretty Much Doing the Work for the Terrorists

Stop the ACLU has a good post summarizing a few cases that the ACLU has brought recently on behalf of terrorists. One of the cases is suing the federal prisons to let convicted traitor Johnny Walker Lindh pray with other Muslim inmates. What could possibly go wrong?

But the more disturbing lawsuit would prohibit the killing of American citizens who are fighting with our enemies abroad.

The ACLU uses the rhetoric of "government assassination of American citizens without trial." Which makes it sound as if men in black are canvassing the world for political enemies. Scary, no? Except that when you look at the details of who we want dead you realize that the ACLU is misleading people.

Who, exactly, are these Americans who we want dead.

Anwar al-Awlaki, spiritual leader of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.
Adam Gadahn, al Qaeda's English language spokesman.

Now, why is killing these guys a bad thing? Is the ACLU really suggesting that an American citizen who is working for a terrorist organization that we are engaged with militarily cannot be killed?

What do they want, a battlefield subpoena?

Subpoena's dropped from Predator drones rather than bombs?

The alternative to killing our enemies is not a serious option. Which is why the ACLU, once a bastion for liberty, is a joke which would be worth a chuckle if they weren't actually dangerous.

By Rusty Shackleford, Ph.D. at 10:00 AM | Comments |

August 16, 2010

Nicholas Merrill, hero of the Democratic Peoples Republic (bumped)

A casual reader might be forgiven for viewing Nicholas Merrill, operator of Calyx Internet Services, as a poor, unfortunate victim of government repression, what with stories such as

Internet firm owner tells of chagrin at FBI security letter
ISP Owner Released from Six-Year FBI Gag Order
Gagged for 6 Years, Nick Merrill Speaks Out on Landmark Court Struggle Against FBI’s National Security Letters

Mr. Merrill may still be under a partial gag order preventing him from discussing the details of this case, but the rest of us are not - and that includes the people currently reporting on it. That those reporting have chosen to leave out certain key facts is telling.

Here are the facts as I know them, having investigated the matter at the time...

1. The time was late August, 2004.

2. The staff of the Republican National Convention had been infiltrated, and the infiltrator came away with a list of the convention delegates, their home addresses, their phone numbers, their email addresses, and the hotels each delegate was staying at.

3. The list was posted at rncdelegates.com, a site which was quickly shut down by its host (the host being someone OTHER than Nicholas Merrill/Calyx). rncdelegates.com was connected to individuals active on the NYC indymedia site.

4. The list was also posted at the NYC site of indymedia, and in fact the list continues to reside on their server to this very day. Here is an entry at indymedia announcing the creation of the rncdelegates.com site and the availability of the delegate list at the NYC site of indymedia:


5. The NYC indymedia site was hosted by Mr. Merrill and Calyx.

6. The list was not generally available on the Internet. In fact, I am not aware of any other location of the list other than the two discussed here. In addition, much of the information in the list was not part of the public record.

7. The listing of which delegates were staying at which hotels in NYC was at a minimum for the purpose of intimidating those delegates. Whether said intimidation would reach the level of physical violence was a matter that the authorities had every right and reason to investigate. Physical violence is not required in order to violate the law in question.

8. The law is Title 18 U.S.C. 594, intimidation of voters:

Whoever intimidates, threatens, coerces, or attempts to intimidate, threaten, or coerce, any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right of such other person to vote or to vote as he may choose, or of causing such other person to vote for, or not to vote for, any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, Delegate from the District of Columbia, or Resident Commissioner, at any election held solely or in part for the purpose of electing such candidate, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

9. The context within which the list was made available for download on the indymedia site makes it clear what the individuals who posted it had in mind:


10. Were I to explain this to a judge, I would say the following: I have extensive experience with left-wing and environmental extremists, and with the work of American folk singer Bruce "Utah" Phillips. I am familiar with the use such activists make of Mr. Phillips' statement that "The earth is not dying, it is being killed. And those that are killing it have names and addresses." The intent is to intimidate and to strike fear into those named in whatever list accompanies the quote from Mr. Phillips.

By Hetz Shahor at 11:30 AM | Comments |

June 30, 2010

News: ACLU Sues to End No Fly List
Report: Terrorist Still Plan to Use Airplanes for Terror

One of these things might inform the other.


A former Air Force officer will be one of 10 plaintiffs included in a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union today against the U.S. government challenging the country's no-fly list.
National Terror Alert:
Despite billions of dollars spent on securing our nation’s airports since the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, experts say terrorists are still testing and targeting aviation security because an attack could kill a lot of people, undermine public confidence and cause significant economic damage.

“It remains an incredibly high target for terrorists,” Erroll Southers, President Obama’s first choice to head the Transportation Security Administration, said. Southers had to withdraw his name from consideration due to political reasons. “It’s still vulnerable… and it would be a decisive economic blow to our country.”

Yeah, let's end the no fly list.

Let me go back to the first ABC link to show you what an incredibly shoddy job at reporting they do. Most of it is the kind of tragic human interest angle that you expect from journalists these days, but then there are statements like these thrown in throughout:

no government official or agency has offered any explanation for Plaintiff's apparent placement on the No Fly List or any other watch list. Nor has any government official or agency offered any of the Plaintiffs any meaningful opportunity to contest his or her placement on such a list." ...

If the United States government is going to maintain a watch list and prevent people from flying, there has to be some way for people to confront the evidence against them and rebut it." ...

"This is really something out of Kafka where you show up at an airport, you're told you can't fly, you not even told any reason for this ordeal, and you're not given any way to get off the list."

So, at least three times the article says there's no way to get off the list. And all of these statements are given in the context of horror stories -- seemingly legitimate ones -- about people finding themselves on the list.

No way off the list? They wait until the second to last paragraph of the story to reveal the ugly truth, which destroys the entire narrative:

Individuals who find themselves on the list can submit a complaint to the Department of Homeland Security's Travelers Redress Inquiry Program (TRIP). The complaint is reviewed by the agency and referred to the Terrorist Screening Center redress team.
I have a feeling they simply got a presser from the ACLU, made one or two quick phone calls for quotes, edited the presser, and then printed. Biased or lazy?

How about biased and lazy?

Thanks to herr for one of the articles and Chief for the other.

By Rusty Shackleford, Ph.D. at 03:00 PM | Comments |

April 01, 2010

Good News: ACLU Sets Up Special Unit to Protect Muslims

Both Robert Spencer and Andrew McCarthy have it exactly right here.

But what I want to know is how is questioning a Muslim a violation of his or her civil rights? The last time I checked law enforcement agents can ask any one anything.

Let's say, for instance, that some "Islamaphobe" calls up the FBI and says that his neighbor is a terrorist. What is the FBI supposed to do, nothing?

Worst case scenario the innocent Muslim is inconvenienced. Sorry about that. This is the world we live in post 9-11. Learn to live with it.

Now, let us suppose that the "Islamaphobic" neighbor calls in the threat and the FBI does nothing. But, this time the "Islamaphobe" is right, his neighbor really is a terrorist -- or, let's make this more plausible, gives donations to a charity which is really a front for terrorists in, say, Kashmir.

Worst case scenario people die in the disputed Indian territory because the ACLU had created an atmosphere where it became more problematic to follow up on a far fetched lead than to ignore it.

This is the problem of needing to act based on incomplete information. Decisions are always based on incomplete information and therefore many decisions need to be made based on the worst case scenario of the underlying theory being wrong.

In the post 9/11 era law enforcement must investigate any and all leads, even if they seem improbable. Because the consequences of being wrong are too horrific to be imagined.

I will admit that there are paranoid people out there who think that most Muslims support terrorism or are terrorists themselves. They see Muslim conspiracies behind every rock. Some of these freaks even believe that our President is a secret Muslim involved in one of these secret plots.

The Boy Who Cried Wolf comes immediately to mind here and is an apt comparison. There may very well be a lot of false leads given to the FBI and other law enforcement agents.

But lest one forget the entire story, in the end there really was a wolf.

And Muslims need to be reminded that although, yes, terrorists do come in many stripes -- there are eco-terrorists and white supremacist terrorists and communist terrorists -- that the vast majority of them are or claim to be Muslim.

All white supremacists and neo-nazis do not support the terrorist campaigns of the KKK. But I pray to God that the FBI is keeping a close eye on neo-nazis and white supremacists. Because -- and call me a bigot or an Anglophobe or whatever you want -- but I have this hunch that the FBI will have a lot more success at stopping the next Timothy McVeigh by monitoring their activities than, say, keeping tabs on AIPAC.

I'm sorry if that hurts your feelings. I'm sorry if you feel unfairly singled out. Your feelings do matter to me.

I just don't value your feelings as much as I do human life. Protecting human life takes precedence over your overdeveloped sense of justice.

By Rusty Shackleford, Ph.D. at 11:36 AM | Comments |

March 17, 2010

Does the ACLU Love the Taliban or Just Hate America?

I'm thinking the latter. Oh, they'll tell you they love America, but they don't. They love the idea of America, not the reality. They love America only to the extent that America meets some ideal. And ideals, by definition, can never be met in the real world.

Hardcore Leftists like this "love" America like an abusive husband "loves" his wife. And if you talk to abusive husbands they almost always claim a deep affection for the person they are constantly beating up.

He loves the idea of a wife. He loves it when she does things exactly the way he wants. But when she crosses the line? Well, that b*tch just deserved it, right?

Just like the leftists at the ACLU. They'll claim they want to defeat al Qaeda and the Taliban. But only on their terms. And since their terms are unattainable, then should they ever be implemented: check mate, we just lost the war.

Ideally every person we kill in war would be an enemy combatant. But this can never happen in the real world. In the real world innocents die. Not because we want innocents to die, but because we have no choice.

If we want to fight al Qaeda innocents will die. Preventing this is not a call for justice, it is a call for surrender.

Here's the story: ACLU sues government over drone strikes in Pakistan.

By Rusty Shackleford, Ph.D. at 09:20 AM | Comments |

March 05, 2010

Illinois State Police: Oops, Should Have Done A Thorough Background Check On Our Muslim Chaplain Sheikh Kifah Mustapha

sheikh kifah mustapha.jpg
Never fear, C.A.I.R. & ACLU to the rescue.

March 3, 2010 (CHICAGO) (WLS) -- The Illinois State Police Department currently has 37 chaplains or volunteer clergy who provide spiritual support for troopers, other employees and their families. Most are Christian; some are Jewish; and until last December, none was Muslim. That is when a Chicago Islamic leader named Kifah Mustapha went through the training and became the department's first Muslim chaplain, its 'pillar of the state police.' [..]

Early this year, Steve Emerson's terrorism research project Web site began posting videos and documents critical of Mustapha and questioning his appointment as an Illinois State Police chaplain.

"His appointment in Illinois is one of the most shocking developments and demonstrations of government ineptitude that I have ever seen," said Emerson.

When that criticism of Mustapha trickled back to Illinois State Police, things changed.

According to a police statement, "in early January, the ISP became aware that Mr. Mustapha was potentially identified as a member of the Muslim Brotherhood's Palestine Committee. An immediate review of our background process began."[...]

As for Mustapha himself, despite being a very public figure on radio and TV, he asked CAIR to speak for him until the state police determine whether to allow him as a chaplain[More..]

Naturally CAIR & ACLU is trying to discredit Emerson. Facts don't lie, but when does CAIR or ACLU worry about solid proof?

Be sure to read it all and watch the video. I tried to embed but it wouldn't work.

By Stable Hand at 11:47 PM | Comments |

January 15, 2010

Friday Night Whitehouse News Dump: U.S. Releases Secret List of 645 Detainees Held at Afghan Military Base

Gawd, screw up economy and give out secrets. Damn.

WASHINGTON -- The United States has released a long-secret list of 645 detainees held at a military base in Afghanistan, providing the information as part of a lawsuit seeking details of the government's treatment of terror suspects.

The list was just a small part of roughly 2,000 pages of documents released by the government Friday night related to various lawsuits seeking government records about detainees.

The identities of the detainees at Bagram Air Base had been sought by the American Civil Liberties Union.

ACLU lawyer Melissa Goodman said the government also should provide details of how the inmates were captured and why they are being held.

M. Goodman GFYS.

By Stable Hand at 08:21 PM | Comments |

December 10, 2009

The Post in Which I Praise the ACLU

The ACLU is defending the right to wear Islam is of the Devil shirts. Apparently equivocating Christians and terrorists sometimes has its benefits.

By Rusty Shackleford, Ph.D. at 05:00 PM | Comments |

August 21, 2009

Good News: ACLU Identifying Covert CIA Agents to Terrorists

I'd comment, but Stop the ACLU and Michelle Malkin have the bases covered.

No, I will comment. How is it, you might ask, that a self-identified libertarian would so adamantly and consistently oppose the ACLU?

That's easy: I believe in liberty. The ACLU believes in heightened procedural due process.

One might argue, as the ACLU does, that the two are intertwined. I don't agree.

One may have a judicial system with any number of procedural safeguards, and yet the people living under that system are no more or less free.

For instance, let us assume that Saudi Arabia's sharia courts were full of procedural safeguards and that the vast majority of those convicted in these courts were therefore guilty of the crimes they were accused of. In such a scenario, Saudis still are not free because the sharia is inherently antithetical to liberty. One cannot be both 'free' and forbidden from leaving Islam.

The ACLU is not so much interested in liberty as they are in procedural due process. While I applaud the ACLU when they get things right, usually they serve only as a mouthpiece for liberal causes and not libertarian ones.

Thanks to John from STACLU for the tip.

By Rusty Shackleford, Ph.D. at 10:07 AM | Comments |

May 07, 2009

Happy Prayer Day (Featuring the ACLU)

Steven Crowder's Thursday Special:

By Stable Hand at 10:10 PM | Comments |

April 14, 2009

Left Targeted by DHS

Just a reminder from a recent ACLU complaint about the DHS, through the use of "fusion centers", monitoring the activities of the Left (and Right):

* A May 7, 2008 report entitled “Universal Adversary Dynamic Threat Assessment” authored by a private contractor that labeled environmental organizations like the Sierra Club, the Humane Society and the Audubon Society as “mainstream organizations with known or possible links to eco-terrorism”;

* A potential abuse of authority by DHS officials who improperly monitored and disseminated the communications of peace activists affiliated with the DC Anti-War Network (DAWN);

* A report produced on February 19, 2009 by the North Central Texas Fusion System entitled “Prevention Awareness Bulletin” which described a purported conspiracy between Muslim civil rights organizations, lobbying groups, the anti-war movement, the U.S. Treasury Department, hip hop bands and former Congresswoman and presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney to “provide an environment for terrorist organizations to flourish”;

* A “Strategic Report” produced February 20, 2009 by the Missouri Information Analysis Center that described a purported security threat posed by the “modern militia movement” but inappropriately included references to social, religious and political ideologies, including support of third party presidential candidates such as Congressman Ron Paul and former Congressman Bob Barr; and

* A “Protective Intelligence Bulletin” issued by the DHS Intelligence Branch of the Threat Management Division of the Federal Protective Service which improperly collected and disseminated information regarding political demonstrations and inappropriately labeled peaceful advocacy groups and other activists as “extremists.”

Just saying that maybe the DHS report wasn't the best document ever produced by government, but this is government we're talking about here. What did you expect?

By Rusty Shackleford, Ph.D. at 04:26 PM | Comments |

October 29, 2008

Obama: "Rev Wright is the Best of What The Black Church has to Offer"

Via Stop the ACLU In a 1995 interview Barack Obama praises his "mentor" Reverend "God Damn America" Jeremiah Wright.

Obama did finally throw Wright under the bus, or did he?

Wrights small - err - "golf course home"

h/t Mongol

By Stable Hand at 06:34 AM | Comments |

October 08, 2008

ACLU Sues to Remove Restrictions on Sex Offenders

(St. Louis, Missouri) This past summer, a bill was signed into law which specified that convicted sex offenders must avoid Halloween-related contact with children by confining themselves inside their homes from 5 PM to 10:30 PM on Halloween unless there is just cause to leave. "Just cause" was defined as an emergency or a job.

Furthermore, convicted sex offenders must keep the outside lights off and post a sign stating, "No candy or treats at this residence."

As a consequence, the American Civil Liberties Union of Eastern Missouri, representing four Missouri convicted sex offenders, has filed a lawsuit in federal court asserting that the Halloween law is too vague to enforce and it adds punishment to sentences already served.

According to Sen. John Loudon, the bill's sponsor, "It's kind of silly that people are raising the constitutional right of people to hand out candy on Halloween." (more)

By at 11:17 AM | Comments |

August 27, 2008

The ACLU, Enemy of the State

Back in 2004 the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of an unknown internet service provider against the FBI challenging the FBI's use of National Security Letters, NSLs.

National Security Letters allow the FBI to obtain information from third parties, such as telephone companies, financial institutions, Internet service providers, and consumer credit agencies. In these letters, the FBI can direct third parties to provide customer account information and transactional records, such as telephone toll billing records. However, the FBI can't access the content of email/telephone conversions, they can only see the email address sent to or the phone number that was called.

Judge Victor Marrero of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that the NSL statute was unconstitutional under the First and Fourth Amendments. So after the suit Congress had amended the statute.

But now the ACLU is after the gag orders within the amended NSL statute. The gag orders prevent third parties, contacted by the FBI, from revealing that the FBI had requested information about a specific individual.

From Reuters

The appeals courts on Wednesday questioned a lawyer representing the U.S. government on whether the FBI violated free speech rights in placing the gag orders.

The government argues they are in place for national security concerns, such as keeping terrorists from learning what they are investigating.

"You can't tell me that any terrorist is going to make anything out of the fact you issued NSLs to AT&T and Verizon," said Circuit Judge Sonia Sotomayor, using a hypothetical example.

If there are no gag orders then terrorists/would-be terrorists will certainly find out that the FBI is tracking them. The NSLs specifically request information about a certain individual that is connected to an ongoing investigation relating to terrorism. So yes, a terrorist will find out if there are no gag orders.

By at 10:43 PM | Comments |