PRO Gainesville going to jail!

As someone who saw the whole original 20-minute video? Per the details of their emergency appeal to the Supreme Court, via Courthouse News? 

It's not just the ACLU and ACLU of Texas that appear to be lying, and lying to the three defendants, as I said a few weeks ago.

The trio themselves — Amara Ridge, Torrey Henderson and Justin Thompson — also appear to be lying.

I saw the whole 20-minute video when it was posted immediately after that march, and wrote about it.

Therefore this statement:

“No evidence showed that applicants themselves intentionally or knowingly blocked any traffic or rendered any street impassable or unreasonably inconvenient or hazardous,” the protesters wrote in their emergency application. “The court below nonetheless upheld applicants’ convictions based on the actions of unidentified others in the march — an unnamed bicyclist and ‘the crowd’ generally.”

Just don't ring true.

Up until seeing that, as I had not read every bit of trial transcript or appeals filing, I thought it was ACLU and ACLUTx leading the trio by the nose. But, at some point, since, contra nutter original attorney Alison Grinter, they're not "kids," contra her claims at that last link, the issue of responsibility for signing off on such an appeal arises. That includes them having plenty of opportunities to have read the ACLU pamphlet about rights for protests — including protest restrictions when you don't have a permit.

As for the claim, in essence that ...

We could serve our entire sentence before the Supreme Court hears our appeal!

There's no guarantee and VERY little likelihood the Supreme Court is granting cert, you Dum Fuqs. (And, yes, we're at that point. Both the trio, and state and national ACLUs.) Get a clue and get a grip. Or don't, and get called out more. As noted in my previous update, SCOTUS didn't give Steve Bannon a stay.

I still support the idea of either moving the Cooke County Confederate statue, maybe to the Great Hanging site, or else putting a motion-activated audio player at the statue's current location.

But, the methodology of PRO Gainesville's leaders has left me colder yet.

PRO Gainesville appeals to Supreme Court as ACLU TX and ACLU national keep lying

What is up with these stubborn Dum Fuqs, who are clearly in the wrong. (More below.)

ACLU and ACLU of Texas have filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, as well as asking for a stay for their clients, three members of PRO Gainesville, an anti-Confederate statue and pro-Black Lives Matter organization in Gainesville, Texas ...

Over a MISDEMEANOR conviction.

You heard that right. A CLASS B misdemeanor. 

Where they were in the wrong, per the ACLU's own pamphlet on protests and marches.

They appealed to the state's Seventh Circuit. And lost.

Then to the CCA. And got their hats handed to them.

And now this.

==

They won't get granted cert, and the request for a stay on their whole seven days of jail time will be ignored. SCOTUS just today rejected Steve Bannon's request for a stay and these folks are a flyspeck compared to him.

And, at some point after that, the PRO Gainesville trio MAY (or still may not) realize they've been led down a garden path.

And, if not? They'll probably distill the ACLU Kool-Aid to Everclear strength and chug harder.

==

That said? Really, this isn't even about PRO Gainesville any more.

No, you say?

No, I say.

It's about fundraising for the ACLU of Texas and national.

I've seen this dog and pony before. About 15 years ago, Center for Biological Diversity was sued after claiming a dirt parking area was actually a western rancher's denuded federal grazing allotment. CBD had multiple chances to settle before the suit went to trial. It consistently refused. And got it ass handed back.

Why? That is, why didn't CBD settle?

Because the battle made for great fundraising. 

Just like Alison Grinter, the original lawyer here, talking about the "three kids." Look at the poor kids, being attacked by the big bad (red state wingnut) gummint. (And, ignoring that the city of Gainesville had already moved its Confederate monument.)

With the ACLU, this opens up again the question of whether it is in part making itself into "just another" liberal interest group along with, or partially instead of, being a civil liberties outfit.

Self-righteous idiots at PRO Gainesville appeal to CCA; self-righteous idiots at ACLU Texas abet them

There's no other way to put it than the headline. 

The PRO Gainesville saga has been going on for three-plus years now. And, not content to lose a Class A misdemeanor case locally, a trio of PRO Gainesville leaders, charged arrested and convicted in trial for, to use the everyday term, "jaywalking" on a state highway when leading a protest march WITHOUT a parade permit (an important issue) appealed to the Texas appeals court system.

And, lost again, and pretty summarily, as noted in detail here, much of which is quoted below.

I thought that MAYBE they would stop there, while also noting snarkily there, AND a bit in media commentary for my day job, that maybe they wouldn't.

Sadly, my snark is right and they've appealed again to the Court of Criminal Appeals, egged on by an ACLU of Texas who apparently is either:

• Ignorant of the facts on the ground;
• Ignorant of ACLU National's pamphlet on what's allowed and not allowed with, and especially WITHOUT, a parade permit, or;
• Doesn't care, believes that beliefs make law, or similar.
• Related: Going beyond the three above, or a mix of them, to straight lying.
  

I'm going to reference items from ACLU Texas' news release, the second link, before posting details from the first link, of my previous blogging.

Here's the biggie to unpack:

“This is a pivotal case for free speech rights in Texas,” said Savannah Kumar (she/they), an attorney with the ACLU of Texas. “It concerns whether protesters can move along public streets without facing jail time and whether organizers of peaceful protests can be held criminally responsible for the words and actions of other participants. We are asking the highest criminal court of Texas to take this case and reaffirm that Texans cannot be convicted for simply walking in a street.”

Wrong in several ways, Savannah. 

First, per what I said above about not having a parade permit, and extracting from my previous post at the first link?

The ACLU national, which I cited in my first post-arrest discussion of the trio's plight, would also like a word with both you and original county court at law case defense attorney Allison Grinter's understanding of protests and permits.

I quote from the ACLU pamphlet:

You don’t need a permit to march in the streets or on sidewalks, as long as marchers don’t obstruct car or pedestrian traffic. If you don’t have a permit, police officers can ask you to move to the side of a street or sidewalk to let others pass or for safety reasons.

Pretty clear. Note that that applies to ANY street. It applies in spades to a state highway, whatever the state.

And, if you don't do that, especially after warnings? They can arrest you as necessary. Period and end of story. 

So, it is NOT NOT NOT "a pivotal case for free speech rights in Texas,” contra Kumar. And, per the law, yes, they have the right to be arrested.

As for why these three? They're the organizers. Whether the "rank and file" knew that PRO Gainesville did not have a parade permit, or not, these three did. They're the ones who applied for one, and were denied it. And, with organization and leadership comes responsibility. (I await Kumar claiming, as Grinter did, that "they're just kids.")

Next? This:

A few days later, they were issued arrest warrants for “obstructing a highway or other passageway,” a misdemeanor under Texas law, even though they had not caused an obstruction.

Is simply untrue, spoken by someone who has seen the video, was in the area at the start of the march and read the county court at law trial testimony. It's why I added the fourth item to the original three bullet points up top.

Next? Whichever one of the four bullet points, or all of them to some degree, is correct, Kumar and the rest of ACLU Texas roped in Emerson Sykes from ACLU national, who apparently is also a mix of uninformed about facts on the ground and/or functionally illiterate about ACLU national's own pamphlet.

So, we quote him for refutation:

“Since our country’s founding, public streets and sidewalks have always been a place where people can march and exercise their First Amendment rights,” said Emerson Sykes (he/him), senior staff attorney with the ACLU Speech, Privacy and Technology Project. “It is unconstitutional to arrest and jail protesters just because they momentarily walk in a street, and it conflicts with Texas state law and precedent recognizing the importance of the right to protest.”

First, obviously, uninformed about the pamphlet. I mean, the whole unstated background premise of the pamphlet is that, if you don't comply with police order to stop walking in the street and hindering traffic, whatever the applicable laws of a state or municipality are, they can be enforced. Period.

I will again quote from that pamphlet, were elsewhere that premise is indeed stated:

Police may not break up a gathering unless there is a clear and present danger of riot, disorder, interference with traffic, or other immediate threat to public safety.

Pretty clear in my book. Emphasis added to get at the heart of this issue.

Let's quote elsewhere from that, like an opening paragraph:

Your rights are strongest in what are known as “traditional public forums,” such as streets, sidewalks, and parks. You also likely have the right to speak out on other public property, like plazas in front of government buildings, as long as you are not blocking access to the government building or interfering with other purposes the property was designed for.

Pretty clear in my book. (Emphasis added.)

Second, the "momentarily" shows him uninformed about the facts of the matter.

And, that's why the "self-righteous" is in the header. 

Related to this is that this seems to be another example of a critique of the ACLU first raised about a decade or so ago. That is that it is becoming more and more a progressive justice organization and not just a civil liberties outfit.

===

Per my previous update, and referencing those facts of the matter on the ground? Having been dumb enough not to accept a presumable plea deal from County Attorney Ed Zielinski on the misdemeanor charge of obstructing a major passageway, the PRO Gainesville leadership trio of Torrey Henderson, Amara Ridge and Justin Thompson got a $2,000 fine and seven days in the county slammer as their penalty upon jury conviction.

Rather than cut their losses, the trio got the ACLU of Texas to help them on appeal. And emphatically lost that appeal last Nov. 16. Will they go to the Court of Criminal Appeals next? Try to bump that to federal court on their First Amendment claim that this is First Amendment protected speech? I was halfway snarking, but with an update, a response to the Register, received uncritically by it, it sounds like I shouldn't have been.

That said, why wasn't this dude (I heard it on that video too) charged?

At one point in the video, the cameraman could be heard saying, “[The police] are telling us to get out of the road and we’re not listening. I like it.”

Can't the police finger him? (The state statute for obstruction of a major roadway says "willingly" or "knowingly," and Gainesville's police chief said at the time they didn't think most the rank and file knew the leadership had not gotten a parade permit. BUT? What if the cameraman DID know?)

Meanwhile, why did PRO Gainesville go all the way down to Dallas to land Alison Grinter as their legal beagle, especially if she either doesn't understand the First Amendment or thought she could buffalo the Gainesville yokels with stuff like this:

Dallas attorney Alison Grinter’s defense relied on First Amendment protections and the right to protest. She said she believed the legal system was trying to make a point by having the charge be an obstruction of traffic on a major passageway, when if the charge had been on any other street in the area the charge would have been a ticket for jaywalking at most.

Ms. Grinter, come now. Courts have ruled for hundreds of years that the actions of public protest under freedom of assembly can be regulated by government permit requirements. If PRO Gainesville had asked you to sue the city of Gainesville on its claims of unfair treatment of issuance or denial of permits, that would be another thing.

The only thing I agree with re this actual case is that jail time beyond the fines is overkill. But, 7 days is FAR less than the maximum of 180 days.

BUT!

Maybe Zielinski offered that, something less than 7 days, in plea talks and you rejected it? Maybe he didn't, either. Grinter Allen (her actual last name, Grinter her maiden, see below) didn't talk to the Groansville folks, but told the Denton Wrecked Chronic, which also reported on the case, that Zielinski was determined to go to trial. Well, he no-commented, since she's appealing. 

(I asked her point-blank on Twitter if Ed offered a plea deal or not. We'll see if I get a response. I also told her in my Tweet thread that I'm a non-duopoly actual leftist.

As for your claim re the specific road and that Gainesville PD was "targeting" PRO Gainesville? It IS a state highway. This would probably fall under the "duh" category. (Before we go further, I'm a non-duopoly voting actual leftist.) 2/x

— TheRealSocraticGadfly (@real_gadfly) August 26, 2022

We'll see if she responds. A year later, she hasn't. Shock me. Zielinski was determined to go to trial ... rather than dismissing all charges, is what it is. Or rather, Ms. Grinter, YOU and PRO Gainesville were determined to go to trial rather than accept his plea deal. If that IS bad legal counsel, well, the ACLU of Texas is providing more of the same.)

In their story, Thompson claims the commissioners court was in on the effort to deliberately punish them. Uhh, wrong. They don't micromanage Zielinski.

Thompson also claims that a group of Trumpist MAGAts types were so upset over local coverage they started an alternative newspaper. News to me. Never seen a copy at, say Quick Trip. Seriously, knowing how far right Gainesville tilts? And this isn't publicly circulated?

Thompson also has a different story for the Wrecked Chronic about not hearing the police than he did for the Register, where he said he did, thought the warning was originally for a bicyclist, then realized it wasn't, then told people to get back on the sidewalk. 

To update my original piece? "Goes to motive, your honor," per the old legal phrase.

This is one of several reasons, but the biggest recurring reason, that, while I have made civil liberties donations to the Center for Constitutional Rights, the ACLU hasn't gotten a dime from me for, I think, 15 years and counting now.

The ACLU stanning for the NRA

I heard about this more than a week ago, but wanted to offer something up anyway.

First, some apologists may say this is like defending the Nazis in Skokie 50 years ago.

No it's not.

The NRA may not be as flush as it tries to make out being, but it's much more flush than the National Socialist Party of America was or is. Or, as Students for Justice in Palestine is today. In short, it doesn't need the ACLU's help.

And help it is.

This is NOT an amicus brief. ACLU is serving as counsel for the NRA.

And, per the link, I don't see this as an attempt to silence the NRA, whether it needs civil-liberties organization help or not. Therefore, this is NOT "a controversial First Amendment issue." It's a semi-controversial NON-First Amendment issue, per the Second Circuit's ruling.

And, it's not like it needs to goose its membership. Trump's election, and its aftermath, did that, unless it had humongous churn. So why?

The "both sides" angle like too much of mainstream media still does too often? Churn, after all? An expectation of a Trump re-election?

And, let's not forget then-and-now Executive Director Anthony Romero, hand-in-glove with then board prez Nadine Strossen, working to gag other board members like Wendy Kaminer 15-plus years ago, when they protested about ACLU staff teaching people how to COMPLY with the Patriot Act.

Let's also not forget that, just a few years later, Romero wanted to pardon torturers.

Finally, per Wiki's page on it? Don't forget that while the ACLU "courageously" defended Nazis in the 1970s, it "cowardly" refused to defend alleged Communists in the 1950s. AND, it supported anti-First Amendment legislation, too.

The ACLU may have apologized for being lax in defending Communists. I don't know that it's ever apologized for the Patriot Act shit.

And, yes, it does a lot of good. But, it does its share of not so good, and needs to be kicked every few years.

PRO Gainesville "suckers" hypocritical ACLU

PRO Gainesville, the North Texas Black Lives Matter-focused protest and activist group that, in 2021, clearly violated terms of a parade permit, then clearly lied about that, and had its three leaders convicted, has gotten both the ACLU of Texas and ACLU national to pony up for an appeal.

Oy.

Beyond oy, big fat hypocrisy by the ACLU. In the "convicted" link, of my blogging, I EXPLICITLY cited ACLU words on what's permissible and not on protest permits. (The Gainesville newspaper, in its story about this, had bupkis about ACLU protest standards. Shock me.)

Suckers is in scare quotes because I consider this another case of where the ACLU has morphed at least in part from a civil liberties org to a liberal activist one.

That said, the "sucker" part may be true, in part, not just scare quotes. This:

“Convicting community advocates for, at most, stepping briefly into a public street during a peaceful march is an attack on the free speech rights of all Texans, no matter your political views,” said Savannah Kumar, an attorney with the ACLU of Texas. “Amara, Justin, and Torrey were exercising a long-cherished right to march for change in our country and for that they were sentenced to jail time. The law is on our side and we hope the appeals court will overturn their convictions and affirm that the right to peaceful protest is protected here in Texas.”

Means that either Savannah Kumar has not seen the video of the march, and so is actually being suckered, or ..

She's being hypocritical and perhaps even lying. 

Would be fun to have her deposed.

Update, Nov. 6: 2023: That appeal has been held (no ruling yet). The ACLU's lawyer presented nothing new, just old, incorrect info.

“There was insufficient evidence to show they violated the law and obstructed traffic from prosecutors,” Kumar told the Register after last week’s arguments. “Protestors have the right to march, and just stepping off the sidewalk for a moment does not constitute a violation of the law … no Texas court has ever held up a conviction of this type.”

And, I guess she wasn't deposed, or at least, Ed Zielinski isn't saying. (In reality, especially on an appeal, such a thing wouldn't happen, of course.)

The reality, Ms. Kumar, is that the ACLU itself notes that, without a parade permit, you can't march on a highway! And, the video demonstrates it was more than "just a moment."

In any case, and because I love petard-hoisting, I emailed the Texas ACLU's spox listed at the link on their news release. Sent a link to my blog post which has their statements on what you can and can't do on a protest permit linked within.

And?

"Crickets." Shock me.

It's like the ACLU intervening in the Houston ISD takeover by TEA, but saying "boo" when it happened in Marlin 6 years ago.

As for PRO Gainesville? Has it ever publicly and formally called out the wannabe PRO Gainesville Young Republican mole, Tucker Craft?

NOTE: None of this is to reject PRO Gainesville's contention that Gainesville Police may have racist intent in some of its law enforcement. (Whether that's been demonstrated is itself another issue.) Nor is it to excuse the Cooke County Commissioners Court for keeping the Confederate statute on the courthouse lawn in place (and without even adding any modern explanatory notes), a decision with which I wholeheartedly disagree. (The city of Gainesville has gotten rid of its statue.)

Update, Nov. 6: 2023: That appeal has been held (no ruling yet). The ACLU's lawyer presented nothing new, just old, incorrect info.

WRR: Unconstitutional Sunday programming?

 A few weeks ago I blogged about WRR, Dallas' classical radio station, about to enter its centennial year.

Now, many Dallas listeners know that it's required to carry live Dallas City Council meetings as part of its ownership by the city of Dallas.

Many others know that it has Sunday religious services. 

Given its ownership by a government, I find this unconstitutional two ways.

It violates the First Amendment both by establishing a religion in general, and by establishing Christianity as the only religion on its airway.

What about it, ACLU? ACLU of Texas?

It would be an interesting suit in which to be a plaintiff. That said, as I'm not a resident of the city of Dallas, I probably would be bounced for lack of standing.

We tortured people, not "folks" — a foreign yin to domestic yang

And, for nothing valuable on intelligence, because just about anybody will say anything to captors to end torture.

Anthony Romero, ACLU
Ex Dir/Wikipedia photo

But, the head of the nation's "premier" organization on "civil liberties" (sorry, scare quotes is the only way I can write) thinks we should pardon the torturers. See below for details on a new low from the ACLU.

The ACLU, the same folks who said last month that Citizens United is good, now think we should pardon the torturers.

And torturers they are.

And, if not torturers, orderers of torture, which, by law, means they were torturers too.

Period.

And, that's not all from an executive summary of the Senate report on the CIA's torture.

We killed one person (that we know of) from hypothermia. Waterboarding, aka simulated drowning, almost did the real thing to at least one person.

For all, that, though, most of the details, such as abu-Zubaydah's death and Gul Rahman's near drowning, have been known for years.

They were known to the general public and to President Obama before he made his pseudo-jocular "we tortured some folks" comment.



And, yet, the Dick Cheneys of the world continue to lie about what this achieved, even as the George Bushes of the world talk about "a few bad apples" and the Barack Obamas of the world refuse to prosecute either one.

Arguably, and connected with it due to salvage sale of surplus hardware, this is the flip side of domestic police violence.

While we're not all bad apples, either in foreign intelligence gathering or domestic policing, we're more than "a few."

And, here, as in a lot of places, power corrupts.

==

Back to the ACLU and Romero's very-pun-intented tortured reasoning.

Folks, if you want to donate to a civil liberties charity, there's one clear choice.

And, it's NOT the American Civil Liberties Union. It's the Center for Constitutional Rights.

A month after the group, in a press release, said Citizens United was good, ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero has said we ought to pardon all the torturers for the torture they ordered to be committed.

This is the same Romero who, in conjunction with then-board president Nadine Strossen, engaged in a purge of "dissident" board members several years ago. I've got more on the purge, with links to extended pieces by Wendy Kaminer, on this blog. (Click the "ACLU" tag.)

Do NOT support the ACLU Nationwide. Period.

And, for a lawyer, Romero's reasoning to justify the pardons is incredibly stupid:

I have come to think that President Obama should issue pardons, after all — because it may be the only way to establish, once and for all, that torture is illegal.

So, we should pardon people we believe to have committed manslaughter or robbery, both of which, like torture, are on the books as defined crimes, because somebody else won’t prosecute?

More stupidity follows:

What is the difference between this — essentially granting tacit pardons for torture — and formally pardoning those who authorized torture? In both cases, those who tortured avoid accountability. 

 But with the tacit pardons, the president leaves open the very real possibility that officials will resurrect the torture policies in the future.

Really? And, they wouldn’t do the same with actual instead of tacit pardons?

A liar, a thug and an idiot, all three.

Besides, per Ben Emmerson of the United Nations, torture as a crime against humanity falls under international law, not just US law.

===

More UGH:

The two psychologists behind reversing the military's SERE training made $80 million for their pains. Let's also not forget that the American Psychological Association has never formally renounced or denounced psychologists participating in torture sessions. (The American Psychiatric Association, on the other hand, has been against it from the start.

That said, this too is nothing new; basic information about this, like most of the rest of the stuff in the Senate's executive summary, came out in 2009. Read this NYT piece.

And, as far as Folks Torturer? He named one of those unapologetic psychologists — the head one at Gitmo — to head up a task force on the health of military families.

==

Finally, let's not forget that I don't recall the racist, ultra-Zionist New Republic, now thankfully half-dead, ever criticizing this.

Free speech for me but not thee can always backfire

I'm not quite as much a First Amendment absolutist as Glenn Greenwald is, but, that said, I'd have to say, along the lines of this piece about them, that Massachusetts' selective free speech zones outside of abortion clinics are at least "problematic."

The biggest point is that they can be turned around on others. Having been restricted to just certain areas for protest and speaking at antiwar rallies in Dallas, especially ones around area in which either George W.  Bush or Dick Cheney were expected, I know personally that the old "safety concerns" issue can be expanded to cover a lot of things that pummel the First Amendment into oblivion.

Also being an environmentalist of some sort who has protested more than once outside eXXXon's annual shareholder meeting, and knowing that both the federal government and various states, and their respective law enforcement and investigative agencies have been all too eager in the past to sling around the word "ecoterrorist," gives me further reason to pause at this law. 

The story makes just these points:

If the Supreme Court were to uphold the Massachusetts law, it’s not hard to imagine businesses lobbying to create zones where union members are not allowed to speak, but workers for the business are. Businesses could use the same logic used in McCullen:  the picketers are disrupting business and upsetting customers. So, government, please silence them—even though they are standing on a public sidewalk.

Potter described how liberal activists have made this mistake before.  He said, “Back in the late 1990s…Planned Parenthood was using RICO statutes against anti-abortion protestors.  A lot of civil rights people were saying this is going to come back around to us and sure enough RICO has been used against animal-rights protestors.  The [lawsuits] have failed, but it costs mountains of cash to defend against.”

In an interview, the First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams—who is a supporter of abortion rights—described the Massachusetts law as being “as bad as first amendment cases have gotten in a while.”  He said of the liberal groups supporting the law, “They undervalue the First Amendment…and substitute political liberalism” as their guiding principle instead.

But, but, but ... you say. The ACLU supports this!

First, the ACLU's never been perfect on the First Amendment. And, since the days of the Skokie march, and especially in the last decade or so, since Anthony Romero has become executive director, it's slid further downhill. Former board members, harassed off by Romero in combination with then board president Nadine Strossen, and outside critics as well, attest to the fact that the ACLU has become more a liberal special interest group and less a civil liberties organization in general.

Greenwald knows those critiques and basically doesn't discuss them. Nor does he discuss the fact that the ACLU isn't the only civil liberties game in town. One will note that the Center for Constitutional Rights is not listed as supporting the Massachusetts law, at least in this story. (That's not to say CCR is necessarily perfect on such issues.)

Second, Floyd Abrams makes the same point that I made earlier. And frankly, I doubt it changes until Romero moves on. Sadly, I think that's not going to happen before the end of this decade, if that. I think he likes the little fiefdom he's built up.

Plus, as Perkins notes, Massachusetts has anti-harassment law that already covers the intent of this legislation.

I'm sure Pennsylvania also has similar rules. That's why, although a Pennsylvania man is to be congratulated for his work at clinics, he's simply wrong in supporting the Massachusetts law, as well as the reasons he gives for justifying his stance.

Wil Glenn Greenwald cut ties to the ACLU, too?

Update, Dec. 14: Greenwald's resignation letter is here. It addresses JUST the WikiLeaks issues, and nothing else of CREW's recent problems. Sorry, Glenn but that is a half-fail.

Update, Dec. 22: CREW head Melanie Sloan's guypal, former Congressman and current DC fixer Lanny Davis, is now running flak for Ivory Coast's authoritarian ruler. Again, Glenn, leaving CREW's board over WikiLeaks is "nice," but what did you know, and when, about Sloan's dealings with Lanny Davis? Or for-profit schools?

First, Glenn, while it's nice, and I mean taht non-sarcastically, that you're upset enough about Citizens for Responsibiliity and Ethics in Washington's statements on WikiLeaks that you might resign from the board of directors, aren't you a bit late to the concern party? Why weren't you this vocal (as far as I know, and I have your RSS feed on my My Yahoo homepage) when your own online mag first exposed Melanie Sloan's ties to lobbyist/fixer Lanny Davis, along with questions of better board oversight of her, and, of course, her eventual successor? Or when CREW's fluffing of for-profit schools came to notice?

Or, per FiredogLake, why haven't you talked more, given that it's a War on Terror-related issue, about Sloan's husband working for SAIC?

SAIC is a parallel privatized secret government that promotes neo-con war policies and does the more dirty of the Cheney Dirty Tricks. SAIC has been involved in COINTELPRO, spying on Americans who protest the criminal wars that are so profitable for SAIC. Would SAIC target organizations to use against anti-war leaders such as Maxine Waters? Did SAIC and Porter Goss and Melanie Sloan collaborate to destroy Maxine Waters? Those questions might be answered if CREW would reveal its donors instead of keeping them secret. A common method used by oppressive Secret Police Organizations, such as SAIC, is to subvert organizations, turning them into a zombie, which then self destructs.

With the departure of Melanie Sloan, CREW seems to be in zombie mode. For the last six months CREW has used its resources to help corrupt corporations. CREW has attempted to falsely convict Maxine Waters in a Kangaroo Court run by Porter Goss. It may not be too much longer before CREW self-destructs. For Melanie Sloan’s replacement, I suggest Glen Greenwald or Steve Eisman.

I can't agree with the FDL blogger on recommending you as her replacement, though. (I'll also say that his style, at least, is a bit over the top!) I don't know what Gleenn has known or suspected, and when, about Sloan, and if he's called for an audit of CREW, changes in internal regs or anything else.

Hence, until I know more about what Glenn has known, and when, on these other CREW issues, and what comments he has made in either public or private, while his stance on CREW re WikiLeaks is nice, it is also ... "nice."

And, there's another reason to not put Glenn on a pedestal either — his continued, apparently uncritical, support for the American Civil Liberties Union.

Glenn, if you're looking to sever ties to organizations that don't support free speech, you should have stopped supporting the ACLU years ago. Teaching groups how to comply with the Patriot Act? Censoring its own board members, or trying to, by Excutive Director Anthony Romero and President Nadine Strossen? It's all here.

Since 2001, under the leadership of Romero, Strossen, and her successor Susan Herman, the ACLU has repeatedly been caught practicing the opposite of what it preaches.

In July 2004, the board learned that Romero had quietly agreed to screen the organization's employees against terrorist "watch lists" — the same lists the ACLU has condemned — in order to qualify as an officially approved charity for federal employees. Strossen characterized Romero's action as "clever," but it was quickly rescinded after exposure in the Times.

This report was followed by Romero's admission that early in his tenure at the ACLU, he had privately advised the Ford Foundation to "parrot" the Patriot Act in formulating controversial new restrictions on the speech of its grantees — restrictions Romero then quietly accepted on the ACLU's behalf. (After a protracted debate, the board approved the Ford restrictions and then narrowly reversed itself, after embarrassing publicity about the ACLU’s watch list agreement with the government.)

A year later, in 2005, Romero was caught trying to impose very broad confidentiality agreements and technology rules on ACLU employees, similar to workplace rules that the ACLU officially opposes. Like the proposal governing board members' rights to speak, the agreements nearljavascript:void(0)y imposed on the staff (but withdrawn after they became public) included a virtual gag rule; they also would have required the staff to acknowledge that all their communications on ACLU systems were subject to surveillance. Nadine Strossen defended these proposals in an email to the board, cheerfully noting her bizarre "presumption" that they "facilitate the ACLU’s commitment to both privacy and free speech."

And, that makes Glenn's ACLU column of a year ago a bit ... ironic, at least? Unless Glenn has said something about Romero and Strossen that I don't know about, that is.

For anybody wondering about me? I've not given the ACLU money in three full years, in fair part due to these concerns. Oh, I'll still do the e-mail activism. But, for money? There's still the Center for Constitutional Rights. Less sclerotic.

Needed – a justice recovery package

Color ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero very skeptical of what President-elect Barack Obama intends to do with Guantanamo detainees if/when he closes the facility itself.

“Just like we need specifics on an economic recovery package,” Mr. Romero said, “we need specifics on a ‘justice recovery package.’ ”

And, Romero should indeed be skeptical.

As Glenn Greenwald notes, Obama needs pressure, and still has a tendency to be vague about specifics on issues unless and until pushed.

Why was Nino Scalia at …

(The pics that will make you hurl!)

A “Lady Liberty” dinner honoring long-term ACLU President Nadine Strossen?

First, we have Nino getting a hug from Nadine, while fellow Supreme Court Justice David Souter DOES look like he’s going to hurl. Or crap his pants. Or like he's already crapped his pants.

Or, maybe he's struggling to hold in a bad joke.

But, that’s not the best!

HERE’S the best. Nadine making love eyes at Nino.

Nadine, did you smoke a cigarette afterward? Did you use protection? Did you ask him to lock you up in a mock Gitmo cell? Did he offer to waterboard you?

Anyway, back to the rhetorical question:

Why was Nino Scalia at a “Lady Liberty” dinner honoring long-term ACLU President Nadine Strossen?


That would be like the Sierra Club inviting Dick Cheney to a Carl Pope dinner. (Of course, that, too could still happen.)

OK, that would be like Defenders of Wildlife inviting Sarah Palin to a fundraising banquet.

I saw this with my own orbs on page 11 of the summer 2008 issue of “Civil Liberties,” the ACLU’s national newsletter, and then Google Imaged for the pics.

This is the same issue where hypocritical Executive Director Anthony Romero (after being hired as ACLU’s executive, he was teaching major U.S. companies how to comply with the Patriot Act, and when an ACLU board brouhaha broke out, Strossen supported him) has the P1 column entitled “Fighting for Justice at Guantánamo.”

Excuuusseee me, but hasn’t your biggest adversary in the judicial branch been Antonin Scalia?

Maybe if the ACLU had Dick Cheney’s shotgun to raffle, with part of the prize including a free shot or two at Nino, but otherwise …

Denver PD goes Nazi Gitmo in spaces

A day after noting how the Denver Police Department went Nazi with a group of protestors in the area of the Democratic National Convention, the PD has allegedly exacerbated its original actions.

Protestors in shackles. Tricked in to false confessions or pleas. Denied access to attorneys.

And, this is all in deliberate spite (pun intended) of the fact that the ACLU had arranged for attorneys to be swiftly available to any arrested protestors.

More comment from the ACLU in this letter. (PDF)

And, let’s not forget that Denver’s Democratic Mayor John Hickenlooper continues to be silent on the police lawbreaking, on whether or not protestors arrested Monday did have a permit to be in the Colorado Civic Center and more.

And, you “Democrats right or wrong” voters wonder why I would vote Green.

It goes deeper than Barack Obama.

As for Denver, I hope it, and Hickenlooper and Denver Police Chief Gerry Whitman personally, get their asses sued off.

Domestic spying ‘fusion centers’ start with Clinton

Again, I’m not downplaying the much more egregious illegal domestic spying by the Bush Administration. But, pages 4-5 of a special ACLU report (PDF) on so-called “fusion centers,” putting elements of local, state and national police surveillance under one roof, show this started WELL before 2001.

The San Diego Union-Tribune recently exposed a scandal linking a police task force called the Los Angeles County Terrorism Early Warning Center (LACTEW) to an intelligence fiasco that can only be described as a “perfect storm” of the problems identified in the ACLU’s November 2007 fusion center report.

This one has it all:
• Spying on religious groups in violation of the First Amendment
• Military involvement in domestic spying in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act
• Police officers and military personnel engaged in illegal activity to further their
perceived intelligence mission
• A lack of security over classified material and a lack of oversight over the activities
of “trusted” insiders
• The reported involvement of private defense contractors
• Excessive secrecy that shields all the other problems from public view

LACTEW, established in 1996, has often been described as the first fusion center. It has also been recommended as a model for others to emulate.

Would that emulation include theft of documents by Marines, for monetary purposes?

Would that include, as the second Union-Trib article noted, confirmed by the ACLU, the use of the military for domestic spying, contra Posse Comitatus Act?

Again, Bush has raised this to a whole new level, but Clinton opened the door.

It gives more background to the FISA vote of Passive Pelosi™ and the Democratic 45 percenters now, doesn’t it?

Nutroots Nation 2008 – ACLU takes a pass on Pelosi

Speaker Nancy Pelosi has apparently came, spoken and conquered at Netroots Nation earlier today. Per my blogging yesterday, I’ve heard nothing of the ACLU or ACLU of Texas, convening a press conference, let alone a protest, about Passive Pelosi™ and her FISA vote, or other things.

Note: Note only had I e-mailed the ACLU of Texas from my personal e-mail account more than once, asking if it had plans for a news conference, if not a protest or rally, for Pelosi visiting Netroots Nation, I also used my editor's newspaper company e-mail address yesterday. I got no response to either my personal or editorial e-mails.

Then, to add to the hypocrisy value, I get this e-mail from the national ACLU this afternoon:

Did you know that Congress has signed away our right to privacy?

It’s true! By making FISA law, the President and Congress have made it legal for US agencies to spy on our text messages, email, and phone calls to people outside the US, without any cause, reason or warrant. Does that sound like a right to privacy to you?

Help the ACLU overturn FISA by sharing your message of support now!

Well, I pretty much told the ACLU what it could do with the e-mail.

To me, I think the ACLU is becoming like the Sierra Club vis-à-vis younger, smaller and, yes, less co-opted environmental movements.

Has the ACLU co-opted itself at times? Well, ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero teaching Fortune 500 companies how to “beat” the Patriot Act would say yes.

Now, the ACLU is not a fossil. But, on a lot of civil liberties issues in the Bush Administration, smaller groups like the Center for Constitutional Rights have often been quicker to the trigger.

Along with their other foibles, this is part of why, without being conscious of it at first, I’ve decided to drop my paid membership with both.

Are ACLU, EFF protesting Pelosi at Netroots Nation?

Nancy Pelosi, the infamous Passive Pelosi™ herself, is at the formerly styled Yearly Kos, now known as Netroots Nation, taking place in Austin July 17-20 at the Austin Convention Center. Obama has been invited; no word if he will show up.

Question: will folks like the Electronic Frontier Foundation and ACLU be there to protest?

Even though the ACLU is filing a FISA lawsuit, I never heard anything in advance from the ACLU of Texas, if it was going to stand up for ACLU traditions and at least have a news conference, if not a protest.

If the ACLU of Texas gives me any info, I’ll let you know.

If you want to shame it for not protesting, give them an e-mail.

Don’t hold your EFF and ACLU breath over FISA suits

I certainly appreciate the plans of both the American Civil Liberties Union (as a member) and the Electronic Frontier Foundation to sue over the constitutionality of the FISA bill, but I don’t think it will fly.

The same old song and dance of the past will be repeated, in the following version.

The lawsuits will be dismissed when the relevant district judge accepts the Bush “get out of jail free” note and OKs it.

The two organizations, with the same whistleblowers as plaintiffs, will sue.

Eventually, as has happened with other lawsuits, such as some against the Patriot Act, courts will find that the plaintiffs don’t have standing because they can’t prove they were personally affected.

Remember, you heard it here first.

Bring your FISA protest signs to Austin in two weeks

Nancy Pelosi, the infamous Passive Pelosi™ herself, is supposed to be at the formerly styled Yearly Kos, now known as Netroots Nation, taking place in Austin July 17-20 at the Austin Convention Center. Obama has been invited; no word if he will show up.

Question: will folks like the Electronic Frontier Foundation and ACLU be there to protest?

I would assume that the ACLU of Texas, if it is going to stand up for ACLU traditions, will be there, with at least a news conference if not a protest.

If the ACLU of Texas gives me any info, I’ll let you know.

If you want to ask it the same question, or badger it into action, here’s your e-mail link.

Bring your FISA protest signs to Austin next month

Nancy Pelosi, the infamous Passive Pelosi™ herself, is supposed to be at the formerly styled Yearly Kos, now known as Netroots Nation, taking place in Austin July 17-20 at the Austin Convention Center. Obama has been invited; no word if he will show up.

Question: will folks like the Electronic Frontier Foundation and ACLU be there to protest?

I would assume that the ACLU of Texas, if it is going to stand up for ACLU traditions, will be there, with at least a news conference if not a protest.

If the ACLU of Texas gives me any info, I’ll let you know.

If you want to ask it the same question, or badger it into action, here’s your e-mail link.

ACLU demands Dem Convention answers from Denver

The Colorado ACLU wants the city of Denver to cough up more answers about parade routes, protest zones and more for the Democratic National Convention this summer, on behalf of 12 plaintiffs such as Recreate 68:

At the Democratic National Convention in Boston (in 2004), law enforcement authorities set up a much-criticized “demonstration zone” outside the heavily secured perimeter of the convention site. Ruling in a case filed only two weeks before the convention, a federal court described the zone — enclosed by concrete barricades, multiple layers of fencing, mesh, and netting, topped with overhead razor wire and located under an old rail line — as a “grim, mean, and oppressive space” comparable to “an internment camp,” and “an offense to the spirit of the First Amendment.”

And, here’s how that relates to Denver.

“Denver has refused to process any applications for parade permits during the DNC, and it has refused to disclose any information about the ‘demonstration zone’ that it plans to set up, ” explained Steven D. Zansberg, an ACLU cooperating attorney who, along with partner Christopher P. Beall at Levine, Sullivan, Koch & Schulz, led the team filing the lawsuit today. “Denver says it is waiting for the Secret Service to decide the outer boundaries of the security perimeter, and the Secret Service says it may not decide until July. If the plaintiffs are forced to wait for these government agencies to act, there will be not be enough time for a court to review unreasonable restrictions on First Amendment activity.”

The court papers filed today refer to two stages of the lawsuit. In the first stage, the plaintiffs are asking the Court to order the Secret Service immediately to provide Denver whatever information the City believes it needs to process applications for parade permits, to determine parade routes, and to finalize and disclose plans for the anticipated demonstration zone. In the second phase, after Denver discloses the plans and its anticipated regulations of First Amendment activity, the Court will be asked to review those restrictions and to prohibit or modify those that unjustifiably infringe on First Amendment rights.

Plaintiffs in the lawsuit include the ACLU, American Friends Service Committee, American Indian Movement of Colorado, Americans for Safe Access, CODEPINK, Escuela Tlatelolco, Troops Out Now Coalition, Recreate 68, Rocky Mountain Peace & Justice Center, Citizens for Obama, Tent State University, and United for Peace and Justice. Both ACLU and Recreate 68 have been meeting and corresponding with City officials for a year, in an unsuccessful effort to iron out the City’s plans for marches and for demonstrations near the Convention site.

Several of the plaintiffs, including Recreate 68, Escuela Tlatelolco, and Troops Out Now, have filed timely requests for parade permits, but Denver will not process them and refuses to say when it will begin processing them. Plaintiff Citizens for Obama, created by Damian Sedney, a Vermont resident, has asked for permits for several marches in support of Senator Obama’s nomination. According to the lawsuit, Sedney has prepared a website to advertise the planned marches, but he is holding off until he knows whether or not he will obtain the necessary permit. Every day that goes by without action, the lawsuit asserts, reduces the ability of Sedney and other plaintiffs to recruit supporters and participants to come to Denver and join in their constitutionally protected activities.

Shorter version — the ACLU and its plaintiffs are afraid the city of Denver and the Secret Service are trying to exercise prior restraint, and their actions so far indicate that’s a very legitimate fear.

Iraq-related roundup – Latest neocon lie, ACLU filling gap, JROTC in UK

Doug Feith lies about Iraq

One of the “masterminds” clusterfuckers behind us invading Iraq, Doug Feith, now has a new take on why we invaded Hussein might attack us first. No further comment needed on the stupidity and lying level of this one.

ACLU filling Gitmo gap

The ACLU is working hard to get volunteer civilian attorneys to supplement the military defense attorneys in Gitmo military trials. The ACLU is going to need plenty of PR help in weeks ahead; we know that, from military insiders, the trials are being pushed up to coincide with the general election in November. The ACLU is going to get a lot of blowback from both elected and unelected wingers.

Junior ROTC Britain?

It sounds like something like that is what Prime Minister Gordon Brown wants, to improve relations between the armed forces and the general public. Few secondary schools in Britain currently have a cadet corps program. A simpler solution, Mr. PM, might be getting your troops out of Iraq and not getting involved in stupid, unpopular wars in the future.