No surprise here: ACLU Teams Up With CAIR To Sue FBI

[radioguy]

WHAT! A liberal legal organization teams up with a terrorist supporting organization to sue an American law enforcement agency?

I know, I know... Just another day at the office for the left.


ACLU, Muslims Sue FBI Over Records
Sep 18 07:48 PM US/Eastern
By GILLIAN FLACCUS
Associated Press Writer


SANTA ANA, Calif. (AP) - The ACLU and Muslim advocacy groups sued the FBI and the Justice Department on Tuesday, alleging that authorities failed to turn over records detailing suspected surveillance of the Muslim-American community.
The complaint, filed in U.S. District Court in Santa Ana, alleges that the FBI has turned over only four pages of documents to community leaders, despite a Freedom of Information Act request filed more than a year ago.

The request sought records that described FBI guidelines and policies for surveillance and investigation of Muslim religious organizations, as well as specific information about FBI inquiries targeting 11 groups or people.

The lawsuit states that all the plaintiffs—who include some of the most prominent Muslim leaders in California—have reason to believe they have been investigated by the FBI since January 2001.

"It sends a message that Muslim-Americans have been, and continue to be, cooperating with law enforcement, but they're concerned there might be a disproportionate focus ... on their religious practices," said Ranjana Natarajan, an ACLU attorney.

One plaintiff, Shakeel Syed, said that his organization and others have spent three years building a relationship with the FBI but that the agency's resistance to the request was troubling.

"I think it is in the best interests of the government to come clean and be transparent and forthright," said Syed, executive director of the Islamic Shura Council of Southern California. "This is a credibility issue."

FBI spokeswoman Laura Eimiller said she could not comment on pending litigation but released a statement from J. Stephen Tidwell, the FBI's assistant director in charge for Los Angeles.

"The FBI does not investigate individuals or groups based on their lawful activities, religious or political beliefs," Tidwell said.

A message left for the Department of Justice after business hours was not returned.

The groups filed an initial FOIA request in May 2006, several months after federal law enforcement officials confirmed the existence of a classified radiation monitoring program used in surveillance at mosques, homes and businesses.

The FBI responded to the request first by saying it couldn't identify any records that met the criteria requested. After an appeal, the agency turned over four pages that dealt with the Council of American- Islamic Relations and Hussam Ayloush, the council's executive director for Southern California.

Those documents dealt with a suspected hate crime at a mosque that the council had reported to the FBI and a conversation Ayloush had with an FBI agent about cooperating with federal law enforcers, Natarajan said.

She said she believes there are many more records because each plaintiff has been interviewed by the FBI or stopped at airports for questioning. The FBI, in its responses, indicted it searched only files that hold information on active criminal investigations instead of more general files that could encompass surveillance activities, she said.

Ayloush, who said he is questioned by federal agents every time he flies internationally, said he had hoped the FOIA request would help him determine why he is stopped.

"Either ... we're being stopped because we're Muslims—which is morally wrong—or that the government must have some erroneous info linked to me that I need to be able to clear," he said.

The government has 60 days to respond to the lawsuit.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8RO68HO0&show_article=1

[Smurf-Herder]

CAIR is part of a fifth column.

Muslim groups want off of indictment
http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/breaking/104045.html

[Bill]

NEWSFLASH - ACLU does what it is organized to do, what it's members pay for it to do, defend unpopular civil rights cases.

NOT NEWS - Right Wing Offended.

[radioguy]

NEWSFLASH - ACLU does what it is organized to do, what it's members pay for it to do, defend unpopular civil rights cases.

NOT NEWS - Right Wing Offended.

They are an anti-American organization founded by members of the communist party, so yes, I'm offended. The real news here, is liberals support these idiots.

[Smurf-Herder]

They are an anti-American organization founded by members of the communist party, so yes, I'm offended. The real news here, is liberals support these idiots.

Not exactly, IMO, Radioguy.

The liberals are the idiots ... being short-sighted in their points of view, the blind masses supporting the few with ulterior motives; based on being fed what they want to believe.

[radioguy]

Not exactly, IMO, Radioguy.

The liberals are the idiots ... being short-sighted in their points of view, the blind masses supporting the few with ulterior motives; based on being fed what they want to believe.

Ahhh... Good point. Thanks for the clarification. :lmao2:

[Smurf-Herder]

Ahhh... Good point. Thanks for the clarification. :lmao2:


It's kinda like a "National Enquirer" national mentality, being drawn to the Dark Side ...

[Linkster]

So the ACLU supporting Sen Craig by filing a friend of the court brief for him is "liberal"?

[Smurf-Herder]

So the ACLU supporting Sen Craig by filing a friend of the court brief for him is "liberal"?

It isn't?

You don't think he's useful, in the grander scheme of things?

It's a freebie, politically; keeping Craig in the news - like what's his name, with the pages last election cycle.

[Linkster]

Useful? I guess I miss your point - what are you talking about

[TheCenturion]

They are an anti-American organization founded by members of the communist party, so yes, I'm offended. The real news here, is liberals support these idiots.

I didn't know Rush Limbaugh engaged with communists. I guess his case proves even gas bag conservative hypocrites can somehow suffer and tolerate liberal commies, as long as they're defending them on drug charges ...eh?

It's interesting. There's nothing that offends right-wing authoritarian loonies more than anybody or anything that stands in defense of civil liberties. For these vampires, it's like waving a silver stake and cross in their fang laden faces.

They spend every waking hour scheming, plotting and gesticulating in abject contempt for The Constitution and civil liberties. ..That is until one of them gets his fat fascist ass exposed committing a crime. Then, low and behold, the shrill welping, sniveling and relentless whining for their "rights" is absolutely deafening.

[disrupter]

the right wingers are chicken littles, the sky is falling the sky is falling.

No Virginia, the sky is not falling,
please don't listen to the shrill right wing hysteria.

[opinionator]

They are an anti-American organization founded by members of the communist party, so yes, I'm offended. The real news here, is liberals support these idiots.


These are just facts, nothing to get upset about. Though the ACLU exists on the public dole, like so many of their supporters, they do not represent the wishes of the majority of Americans, and they never have. They have only gotten progressively more radical, more energetic in their defense of all that endangers our way of life.

They operate under the radar for the most part, often because the media doesn't comment on the steaming pile of pink excrement in the room--that is, the media will write such things as : The city of '______' today decided to abandon the anti-illegal alien position the city council had approved which had made it illegal to employ undocumented workers. "It will simply be too expensive to defend" said city officials. ...and the media will not explain that they were defeated by the ACLU and the sheer power of OUR money that they wield.

This is how they are passing or rendering unenforceable hundreds of local laws across this great land that have nothing to do with America, or the wishes of Americans.

It is always amusing to hear the liberal default response to any story on the ACLU: " B-b-b-but...Rush Limbaugh".....as though it is relative to the issue in some way.

[radioguy]

Welcome opinionator. Hope you stick around to help balance things out around here.

[disrupter]

radioguy wants opium-eater to stink around.

they are both animals who want to deprive america of living in a civilized, constitutional nation of laws

& turn this into a barbarian, lawless, police state of gangsters.

You are foul & unfit to be called human beings.

[Linkster]

I think if you do a little fact-checking - you might find that the ACLU was not started by anyone in the comunist party - and for that matter - when they found out they had a few members that were active party members - purged them in 1940

Im really surprised that a group whose whole purpose is to defend constitutional rights is being defamed the way you guys do - if it hadnt been for them - Oliver North would be in jail

[radioguy]

I think if you do a little fact-checking - you might find that the ACLU was not started by anyone in the comunist party - and for that matter - when they found out they had a few members that were active party members - purged them in 1940

Im really surprised that a group whose whole purpose is to defend constitutional rights is being defamed the way you guys do - if it hadnt been for them - Oliver North would be in jail

The ACLU was founded in 1920, twenty years before that "purge', which was imho done only to take some of the heat off the group. Here is the "Fact checking" you suggested I do:

Roger Nash Baldwin : the founder, and director of ACLU. At the time of the founding, he was deeply involved in the communist movement. In late 1935, he gave a speech that said his political goal was communism. Baldwin wrote the following in his college yearbook:

“I have been to Europe several times, mostly in connection with international radical activities…and have traveled in the United States to areas of conflict over workers rights to strike and organize. My chief aversion is the system of greed, private profit, privilege and violence which makes up the control of the world today, and which has brought it to the tragic crisis of unprecedented hunger and unemployment…Therefore, I am for Socialism, disarmament and ultimately, for the abolishing of the State itself…I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal”.”

Here is another quote from Mr. Roger Baldwin.

“Do steer away from making it look like a Socialist enterprise…We want also to look like patriots in everything we do. We want to get a good lot of flags, talk a good deal about the Constitution and what our forefathers wanted to make of this country, and to show that we are really the folks that really stand for the spirit of our institutions.”-Baldwin’s advice in 1917 to Louis Lochner of the socialist People’s Council in Minnesota.

On January 17, 1931, the Special House (of Representatives) Committee to Investigate Communist Activities in the United States issued a report which stated the following:

“The American Civil Liberties Union is closely affiliated with the communist movement in the United States, and fully 90% of its efforts are on behalf of Communists who have come into conflict with the law. It claims to stand for free speech, free press, and free assembly; but it is quite apparent that the main function of the ACLU is to attempt to protect the communists in their advocacy of force and violence to overthrow the Government, replacing the American flag with a red flag and erecting a Soviet Government in place of the republican form of government guaranteed to each State by the Federal Constitution…Roger N. Baldwin, its guiding spirit, makes no attempt to hide his friendship for the communists and their principles.”

How's that for fact checking?

[Linkster]

Id do your fact-checking somewhere that doesnt use the fake dossier that JEH in the FBI and McCarthy made up on him - while a lot of people thought he was communist oriented he always maintained a progressive and anti-fascist ideal - leading to dismissing the other founding partner who was a registered communist

http://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/unitarians/baldwin.html

[Linkster]

BTW - those quotes from the college yearbook (actually his 30th anniversary yearbook) are taken way out of context - he was expressing his views of supporting the economic system touted by communism - which actually is quite a good system - however as we all know it has never really been attempted and was immediately replaced in Russia by the Marxist system which is NOT communism

He also defended some repression that occurred in Russia - but again - not out of communism - every step of his life he was making statements against communism with those two exceptions of very specific parts of it

[radioguy]

BTW - those quotes from the college yearbook (actually his 30th anniversary yearbook) are taken way out of context - he was expressing his views of supporting the economic system touted by communism - which actually is quite a good system - however as we all know it has never really been attempted and was immediately replaced in Russia by the Marxist system which is NOT communism

He also defended some repression that occurred in Russia - but again - not out of communism - every step of his life he was making statements against communism with those two exceptions of very specific parts of it

Could you show me the whole quote that supports your assertion that the yearbook quote was taken out of context please?

All you have to do is look at who the ACLU chooses to defend 95% of the time, to understand that they are not on America's side. Their choices of people they choose defend in most cases, seems to fit the objectives outlined in the Communist Manifesto. Just a coincidence I'm sure... Right Linkster?

[Linkster]

From http://www.volokh.com/posts/1126720462.shtml



He also expressed support for communism as an economic system, writing in a note to be included in the 30th reunion classbook of the 1905 Harvard class,

My "chief aversion" is the system of greed, private profit, privilege, and violence which makes up the control of the world today, and which has brought it the tragic crisis of unprecedented hunger and unemployment. I am opposed to the new deal because it strives to strengthen and prolong production for private profit. At bottom I am for conserving the full powers of every person on earth by expanding them to their individual limits. Therefore, I am for socialism, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the State itself as an instrument of property, the abolition of the properted class and sole control by those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal. It sums up into one single purpose -- the abolition of the system of dog-eat-dog under which we live, and the substitution by the most effective non-violence possible of a system of cooperative ownership and use of all wealth.

(Robert C. Cottrell, Roger Nash Baldwin and the American Civil Union 228-29 (2000).) And despite the reference to "non-violence," the earlier quote reveals that Baldwin was willing to endorse dictatorship and not just peaceful democratic change.

Finally, Baldwin also often defended the Soviet Union; he definitely did criticize its repression of dissent and civil liberties, but he ultimately defended such repression:

I saw in the Soviet Union many opponents of the regime. I visited a dozen prisons -- the political sections among them. I saw considerable of the work of the OGPU. I heard a good many stories of severity, even of brutality, and many of them from the victims. While I sympathized with personal distress I just could not bring myself to get excited over the suppression of opposition when I stacked it up against what I saw of fresh, vigorous expressions of free living by workers and peasants all over the land. And further, no champion of a socialist society could fail to see that some suppression was necessary to achieve it. It could not all be done by persuasion.

Nor is it easy to dismiss this, as Mr. Asch suggests might be the case, as being based on lack of information about Soviet repression (i.e., to take the view that Baldwin was merely a dupe of the Soviets rather than a fully knowing supporter). Baldwin had traveled to the Soviet Union, had written about it, and had corresponded to many of his friends on the Left who tried to persuade him to criticize the Soviets (including Emma Goldman, see, e.g., Cottrell at 194, 197-98, 216). Yet he continued to defend the Soviets as late as December 1936, when the Moscow show trials were already underway. (One would think that a defender of civil liberties who had also written about the Soviet Union would know a show trial when he saw it.)



More importantly - and Im trying to wrap my head around this right now - you almost sound as if there is something sinister or off-color about anyone supporting communism - almost reminds me of a 1950s McCarthyism or Birchist type hatred you seem to present

Quite honestly I never took "labelling" someone as communist or supporting that ideology as something bad? Of course I wouldnt support what the Marxists did in the USSR with their aberration calling their society "communism" as it definitely wasnt even close.

[radioguy]

From http://www.volokh.com/posts/1126720462.shtml



He also expressed support for communism as an economic system, writing in a note to be included in the 30th reunion classbook of the 1905 Harvard class,

My "chief aversion" is the system of greed, private profit, privilege, and violence which makes up the control of the world today, and which has brought it the tragic crisis of unprecedented hunger and unemployment. I am opposed to the new deal because it strives to strengthen and prolong production for private profit. At bottom I am for conserving the full powers of every person on earth by expanding them to their individual limits. Therefore, I am for socialism, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the State itself as an instrument of property, the abolition of the properted class and sole control by those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal. It sums up into one single purpose -- the abolition of the system of dog-eat-dog under which we live, and the substitution by the most effective non-violence possible of a system of cooperative ownership and use of all wealth.

(Robert C. Cottrell, Roger Nash Baldwin and the American Civil Union 228-29 (2000).) And despite the reference to "non-violence," the earlier quote reveals that Baldwin was willing to endorse dictatorship and not just peaceful democratic change.

Finally, Baldwin also often defended the Soviet Union; he definitely did criticize its repression of dissent and civil liberties, but he ultimately defended such repression:

I saw in the Soviet Union many opponents of the regime. I visited a dozen prisons -- the political sections among them. I saw considerable of the work of the OGPU. I heard a good many stories of severity, even of brutality, and many of them from the victims. While I sympathized with personal distress I just could not bring myself to get excited over the suppression of opposition when I stacked it up against what I saw of fresh, vigorous expressions of free living by workers and peasants all over the land. And further, no champion of a socialist society could fail to see that some suppression was necessary to achieve it. It could not all be done by persuasion.

Nor is it easy to dismiss this, as Mr. Asch suggests might be the case, as being based on lack of information about Soviet repression (i.e., to take the view that Baldwin was merely a dupe of the Soviets rather than a fully knowing supporter). Baldwin had traveled to the Soviet Union, had written about it, and had corresponded to many of his friends on the Left who tried to persuade him to criticize the Soviets (including Emma Goldman, see, e.g., Cottrell at 194, 197-98, 216). Yet he continued to defend the Soviets as late as December 1936, when the Moscow show trials were already underway. (One would think that a defender of civil liberties who had also written about the Soviet Union would know a show trial when he saw it.)



More importantly - and Im trying to wrap my head around this right now - you almost sound as if there is something sinister or off-color about anyone supporting communism - almost reminds me of a 1950s McCarthyism or Birchist type hatred you seem to present

Quite honestly I never took "labelling" someone as communist or supporting that ideology as something bad? Of course I wouldnt support what the Marxists did in the USSR with their aberration calling their society "communism" as it definitely wasnt even close.

Thank you Linkster. You have just proven that the founder of the ACLU was into communism and a socialist Marxist.

You have made my point. Case closed.

[Linkster]

He was the opposite of a Marxist - as were all of the good communists - the USSR followed the Marxist doctrine which (in my opinoin) sucked - but he liked the real communism idea - as do I - however there can never be a real communism - it was tried on a small scale here in the US in one small community years back - but cannot exist in a capatalistic society.

I have to ask again - are you saying that there is a "bad" stigma associated with communism ideology? Im just getting that impression and would have a much lesser opinion of you if that were true

[TheCenturion]

These are just facts, nothing to get upset about. Though the ACLU exists on the public dole, like so many of their supporters, they do not represent the wishes of the majority of Americans, and they never have. They have only gotten progressively more radical, more energetic in their defense of all that endangers our way of life.

They operate under the radar for the most part, often because the media doesn't comment on the steaming pile of pink excrement in the room--that is, the media will write such things as : The city of '______' today decided to abandon the anti-illegal alien position the city council had approved which had made it illegal to employ undocumented workers. "It will simply be too expensive to defend" said city officials. ...and the media will not explain that they were defeated by the ACLU and the sheer power of OUR money that they wield.

This is how they are passing or rendering unenforceable hundreds of local laws across this great land that have nothing to do with America, or the wishes of Americans.

It is always amusing to hear the liberal default response to any story on the ACLU: " B-b-b-but...Rush Limbaugh".....as though it is relative to the issue in some way.


A typical brain-dead right-wing Monkey response. If at first you don't succeed ..lie, lie again. The ACLU is supported by private donors. And the fact they defended that fat ass big mouthed deranged sack of shit, Limbaugh, simply demonstrates they are not partisan to anything except The Constitution.... something right-wing vermin have been trying to destroy for 30 years and have succeeded to a great degree in doing over the past 6. In fact, when I heard they had stooped to defending that low-life lying fetid pig just to protect the principles of medical privacy, I was annoyed. I thought there's such a thing as standing on principle, but they're taking it too far when it comes to allowing filth like Limbaugh to be a beneficiary of it. After all, like all right-wing hypocrites from Larry Craig to Mark Foley to David Vitter, Limbaugh is the kind of guy who denounces and derides others for the same conduct for which he himself is most guilty. But, then again, dumping principle overboard for the sake of petty ugly partisanship means I would have to crawl down in the sewer and wallow in the filth with these right-wing commie rat vermin. And there's no way a real American will ever let that happen.

[opinionator]

A typical brain-dead right-wing Monkey response. If at first you don't succeed ..lie, lie again. The ACLU is supported by private donors. And the fact they defended that fat ass big mouthed deranged sack of shit, Limbaugh, simply demonstrates they are not partisan to anything except The Constitution.... something right-wing vermin have been trying to destroy for 30 years and have succeeded to a great degree in doing over the past 6. In fact, when I heard they had stooped to defending that low-life lying fetid pig just to protect the principles of medical privacy, I was annoyed. I thought there's such a thing as standing on principle, but they're taking it too far when it comes to allowing filth like Limbaugh to be a beneficiary of it. After all, like all right-wing hypocrites from Larry Craig to Mark Foley to David Vitter, Limbaugh is the kind of guy who denounces and derides others for the same conduct for which he himself is most guilty. But, then again, dumping principle overboard for the sake of petty ugly partisanship means I would have to crawl down in the sewer and wallow in the filth with these right-wing commie rat vermin. And there's no way a real American will ever let that happen.



Perhaps living SO far away, so insulated, isolated, and out-of-touch from the actual cause and affect of the ACLU's anti-American agenda is the cause of such uninformed ramblings. One can only assume that where you live, there are no ACLU scum actively making sure that the laws that are in force, and enforced, for all legal residents do not apply to those who are in our country illegally.

It has become a police hate-crime to charge illegals with crimes and you may thank the gutless maggots at the ACLU for it. These are the most recent and most obvious examples of their desire to destroy us, and these are in our face every day, but make no mistake...they have engaged in open (and not-so-open) attacks on the traditions of our country for decades, particularly where religion is concerned.

And, BTW, the founder of the ACLU was a communist.


Hi, Radioguy. The left seems to have a lot of time to spread their agenda of hate...we are to be commended for lending a bit of wisdom and sanity to these proceedings. Lock and load!

[Linkster]

And, BTW, the founder of the ACLU was a communist.

!
Maybe you didnt read the rest of this thread - but we just proved that he wasnt (unless you are talking about the other founder who was kicked out of the ACLU) - and I asked the question - if he had been - so what - does that have some demeaning value to you? Do you label people certain ways to indicate a lower standing in society because of their economic beliefs?
Hmmm - never mind - just read the rest of your post - I guess you do - probably a good thing the Birchers arent around much anymore as it looks like you'd be right in there with them

Seems the new attack mode of the new minority of American right wingers is to indicate a wanton desire to start a new civil war - Im sure there are some left-wing nut cases that will be glad to dust off their glocks and take on that battle - although after the display this last week of being so lacking of a dermal covering indicates that battle would last maybe a few minutes before everyone went running for mommy

[TheCenturion]

Perhaps living SO far away, so insulated, isolated, and out-of-touch from the actual cause and affect of the ACLU's anti-American agenda is the cause of such uninformed ramblings. One can only assume that where you live, there are no ACLU scum actively making sure that the laws that are in force, and enforced, for all legal residents do not apply to those who are in our country illegally.

It has become a police hate-crime to charge illegals with crimes and you may thank the gutless maggots at the ACLU for it. These are the most recent and most obvious examples of their desire to destroy us, and these are in our face every day, but make no mistake...they have engaged in open (and not-so-open) attacks on the traditions of our country for decades, particularly where religion is concerned.

And, BTW, the founder of the ACLU was a communist.


Hi, Radioguy. The left seems to have a lot of time to spread their agenda of hate...we are to be commended for lending a bit of wisdom and sanity to these proceedings. Lock and load!

Ha! The only communists relevant to this discussion are those of your own ilk. It seems to me that denouncing others based on their socio-economic and political proclivities is something uniquely Red, - not red white and blue by any stretch.

The past 6 years of goose stepping on top of The Constitution while spying on Americans and draining our treasury for the purpose of engaging in illegal, ill-fated and imperial military mis-adventures abroad is certainly not indicative of any traditional American values bequeathed to us by our forebears.

But, it's clear why standard wardrobe for the cabal of robotic, militarist fanatics you identify with includes a copious supply of brown shirts.

[Bill]

Oh, right - I just realized, this is all about loofah and his pal oxy...

They started barking about this on their shows, and the chorus of dittoheads jumped up to bark about it too.

I didn't realize loofah and oxy had jumped on this as a talking point - well, I don't know if oxy is doing it, but apparently loofah is big on aclu bashing on this point.

So, really, all you have to say is "loofah".

[Linkster]

Bill - yep - I just noted that in another thread about the ACLU - seems to be this weeks pick - guess we better go run an ad for another organization so we have something to talk about in congress next week :lmao2: