ACLU asks FBI to reveal any post-Sept. 11 surveillance of Muslims in Southern California

Ah, so wonderful to have such a powerful Islamic organization working for the good of the american people.

This is the same FBI that was "puzzled" why an Egyptian shot up an El Al counter at LAX on July 4 2002

Yep, the ACLU, always a friend of the Left, or whomever happens to be at war with America. Now they are in bed with islam.

Which is funny because the first people to lose their heads under islam will be the liberal lawyers.

Here's a hypothetica conundrum for the ACLU: A muslim group wants to shut down a display of nude african american art at a museum.

Ah, what will the ACLU do then? That would tie them up in ideological knots. They would pull their hair out.

I can only hope that this suit will eventually be dismissed by our courts. This ability to deflect, through litigation, monitoring of groups and individuals promoting Jihad will only lead to further intimidation, threats, and violence against innocent parties in the United States.

This is so stupid, how can someone sue the FBI in order to find out what there doing? That sounds as stupid as having the ex-Russian KBG sue the CIA in order to find out who they spy on.

Sounds just like California to me, I thank God every time I hear this crap that I no longer live in L.A. Kansas City may be boring at times, but at least here people respect and love our wonderful country.

The ACLU can intimidate local governments and school systems with the specter of legal costs of defending a lawsuit. That is why so many school systems cowtow to the ACLU. Who has deeper pockets the ACLU or the US Federal Government?

There is only one purpose in this, and that is to prevent the FBI from sending undercover agents to Mosques. We all know that a Mosque is an armory and a guerilla heagquarters disguised as a place of worship.

Put it to you this way: If ACLU had their way, no muslim would ever be searched at the airport. No muslim would ever be arrested for hate crimes, no muslim could be charged with blowing up a building.

In fact, had Mohammad Atta's body flew out the other side of 1 World Trade Center and landed on a truck carrying pillows and survived, the ACLU would have taken his case pro bono, before the building collapsed, and argued that flying a plane into a building is not a crime but an act of civil disobedience.

Then Atta, in a fit of rage of having survived, would have sawed the head of his ACLU lawyer just for being an infidel, or Jew. Then immediately, another lawyer from the ACLU would defend him of THOSE murder charges arguing that killing your lawyer after you have flown a plane into a US building is an act of civil disobedience.

You see to the Left, the ACLU, the only bad guy is the government. Everybody else is a freedom fighter.

Whenever you hear something of the sort, in order to evoke in yourself the appropriate reaction, simply pretend the year is 1942. The goals of world-transformation are not wildly different: a world subservient to Islam, where Muslims rule and non-Muslims everywhere are, when permitted to live, reduced to a state of humiliation, degredation, and physical insecurity, may not be wished for by all Muslims. But is it the ideal which they are encouraged to, commanded to, work towards,and those who substitute their own pitiful anecdotal evidence to the contrary ("I have three good Muslim friends, and they don't want any of that) which, in its sentimental substitution of the handful for the many, and its attempt to distract from Islam itself by presenting some unobservant or un-orthodox Muslims, or perhaps merely those just well-versed in taqiyya-and-kitman.

Were it 1942, and in many respects it is, and had the ACLU then existed, and had it become it has now become, would you have supported it, or been disgusted by it, as you would by all those coming to the stout defense of supporters, defenders, apologists for the Nazis?

Hugh, The ACLU was founded around 1917 or 1918.

Robert,

First, they can sue and sue, but the FBI isn't going to be compelled to tell the ACLU squat.

Two days ago I sent you the CQ piece on the FBI, and the scariest part was the opening--not a single one of the senior FBI officials named could identify something as basic as the difference between the Sunni and the Shi'a. It was eye-opening to me, and pointed out what I've seen again and again in our three-letter agencies (CIA excepted, they are like the proverbial Harvard man: You can always tell a CIA man, but you cannot tell him much)--the street-level operator, where the rubber hits the road, has no confusion about who is scum and who isn't. At the very top of the agencies are well-meaning bureaucrats who are serious that things are going to change, but they have no idea how or why. In the middle are thousands upon thousands of bureaucrats who have their little rice bowls to protect, who will outlast the senior appointees who come and go, and who will bludgeon the street-level agent into submission until he finally quits or conforms. In the malapropism currently floating around the powerpoints, it's very "concerning."

The ACLU, if it were really concerned with civil liberties, would be suing the government for not surveilling every mosque in the country with sufficient vigor. Islam, dedicated as it is to the termination of all liberties, and hence to the destruction of our Constitutional freedoms, is not a religion in any sense that our Constitution now recognizes. Islam does not deserve the protections and special privileges that real religions enjoy in this country.

October 17th. Red October. May day.

And I, as if in our Russians past, have no such confidence that our bureautcrats are so well meaning.

Here's a hypothetica conundrum for the ACLU: A muslim group wants to shut down a display of nude african american art at a museum.

Ah, what will the ACLU do then? That would tie them up in ideological knots. They would pull their hair out.
Posted by: somethingaboutislam

Only reason they didn't immediately after 9/11 was that they knew they'd be lynched. I just wish every ACLU member could be rounded up and deported to Saudi Arabia.

Where's nariz, when the aclu needs rescuing?

"Hugh, The ACLU was founded around 1917 or 1918."
-- from a posting above

I always think of the "old" (good, justified, sensible) ACLU and then the "new" (bad, unjustified, irrational) ACLU, and the "old" one I connect to the 1950s and Owen Lattimore and Owen Gingrich, when the ACLU was a worthy organization, and the "new" one to the last few decades, when that organization descended further and further into the ideological netherworld. And since I thought Roger Baldwin was one of the founders (google "Jihad Watch" and "Roger Baldwin" and "Beetlebung Corner"), and he was still alive until quite recently, I couldn't imagine it had been founded well in time for the Red Scare, Sacco and Vanzetti, and so on. I see that I was wrong.

the ACLU needs to be disbanded, can the president or someone in the country do that? they like unions are past their usefulness.

"they like unions are past their usefulness."

--lulu

Considering the fact that I get my work truck vandalized with hate messages by union workers all the time, the ACLU are just that, lazy fat thugs.

Where was the ACLU when the Islamic Society of Boston sued 16 different people and orginasations forcing them to come up with legal representation and then backing out when it was ready to go to court?

http://www.davidproject.org/

Perhaps this kind of supression of public criticism and using the court system to do it is considered perfeclty acceptable legal manuvering by these "protectors" of our civil rights.

I've been waiting to see all the dirty laundry put on the clothesline for this one considering it is in my own back yard, but it seems to have been buried in our legal system. So much for the right to know.

Obviously western citizens, where the ACLU concern themselves, have no inherent right to protect themselves from attack or invasion. I wonder what happens behind the scenes of the ACLU, when they they discuss Iraq, for example. I bet they all endorse without reservation the right of Iraqis to blow up mosques full of 100's of people, in the name of "the resistance", even though the fact is that there is now a democratically elected government in Iraq which has legally invited coalition troops to remain in the country.

The US government has opened our borders to invasion and apparently refuses to step in to lift one finger to protect its citizens against an invading force that loudly announces their intentions to take us over, except for doing one small thing – monitoring who these people are and what their intentions might be. Yet the ACLU denies us even that legitimate recourse to protection.

I can't help but wonder, though, what they'd think if Americans, fed up with an actual invasion - starting bombing mosques in terrorist attacks, in defense of their own cultural heritage. Would the ACLU understand that? Defend that? Call it a legitimate "resistance"? And if not, why not?

Why wouldn't any card-carrying leftist, who claims to understand the principles of "resistance" of a native people literally under siege, not endorse and defend native Americans in committing whatever violent acts of resistance they felt necessary to defend their homeland? It couldn't possibly be because the ACLU and their radical leftist ilk are vile hypocrits and (reverse) racists, could it? Or even more ominously, have they been flat out infiltrated or worse literally bought-out by Muslims?

Of course, American citizens have no intentions whatsoever of bombing mosques or carrying out anything remotely like the random acts of violence that Muslims routinely engage in, wherever they go. On the contrary, all we seek is reasonable recourse to defend ourselves against those who mean us actual bodily harm. But the perfidious ACLU manages time and time again to rob us of even peaceful recourses to self-defense.

Any naive westerner still in doubt needs to wake up to the fact that the ACLU has become the enemy of free peoples and that its once noble name will surely live in infamy.

Of course, American citizens have no intentions whatsoever of bombing mosques or carrying out anything remotely like the random acts of violence that Muslims routinely engage in, wherever they go.

i dunno,i'm getting pretty sick of pussy-footin around with these people,if that is gunna be what it takes(our government is NO help)then that might be what we have to do.The differance is that Americans will not blow up the old,handicapped,or woman and children.

Well patriot4 - if it comes to that, I suppose you might take comfort in the fact that the leftists in this world ought to presumably defend you, if they're not outright hypocrites, that is.

"The FBI does not investigate anyone based on their lawful activities, religious or political beliefs,"

I hope this is just PC propoganda and at least a few of these guys don't believe this. But I know with precedents like Mueller kissing up to Muslim groups and mandating sensitivity training, Muslims refusing to tape fellow Muslims, and other bureaucrats like no-profile Mineta, it's probably true.

Well,i pray to God it dont have to come to that,MAYBE goergie will wake up before it does,not holdin my breath.

From the article: "People are asking me if it is safe to worship," said Ranjana Natarajan, an attorney working on the FOIA request. “

Cry me a river. It just wouldn’t be right to make you feel unsafe for worshiping a monster who instructs you to kill or enslave us infidels, now would it? You poor victim you.

also from the article: "People began to worry that maybe there is something wrong with going to the mosque."

Yes, there is something wrong with going to the mosque. There is something wrong with Islam itself, as a matter of fact. Something quite seriously wrong. I would strongly suggest running with with that instinct and listening to that "inner voice" as it were.

Wow, people certainly enjoy bashing the Left. Although liberals may at times be misguided or outright ignorant they are the guardians of freedoms, liberties, etc. We should seek to focus their attention toward the real abuses of power around the world and of course toward Islam, but bashing them does not aid the effort.

I STILL receive junk mailings from the ACLU (they don't know how I really feel about them or they'd stop). I can barely fathom the degree to which these people misrepresent themselves and their 'movement.' Will they ever figure out that in America today human rights are handled in mainstream politics and there is no real for their pressure group anymore? If anything there is a real need for the ACLU to DISAPPEAR (and quickly).

While these idiots "protect" Muslims in America, I wonder who they think is going to "protect" America from Muslims, Islamic terrorism, and the ACLU's own political pressure tactics.

What the ACLU must be made to understand is that Islam is institutionalized first-degree murder and is therefore ideologically counter to American legal codes and legal codes of all western democracies. I have said this so many times I can't believe it still needs to continue to be said---so I will keep saying it.

Islam can not be permitted in the United States of America anymore, it should have never been permitted to get in here in the first place, and the ACLU will have to get this through its members' thick skulls once and for all. Maybe the best way to get rid of the ACLU is to send its members one-way tickets to the Middle East country of their choosing! And make them get on the planes.

Well I myself,often will bash the left. At this point in time, I'm bashing the right also. And I've been a lifelong republican. When it comes to common sense, It seams its every man for his or her self.

Skeptic - better google the "unholy alliance".

You'll find more meaningful support against the jihad from the so-called "right" these days, than from the "left", where you'd presumably expect to find it. But the truth is that the exremes have far more in common than the middle. The enemies of freedom have come full circle into - surprise - a circle!

For that reason we need to forget both the left and the right and find our common ground in the middle - a place that is theoretically in the middle but that doesn't take refuge in any modern political definitions. It's just a pro-human-individual freedom thing, as in "get the hell out of my f**cking" life, although not in an "anything goes" sort of way.

Well, what can I say, other than it's the "you know real freedom (rights perfectly balanced with responsibilities) when you see it" party?:-)

This is a very disturbing development. The ACLU obviously believes we [the US] are not at risk of a large-scale attack - a nuclear attack no less- since they are such 'learned' multiculturalists (read anti-Bush, therefore pro Moslem). These developments are infuriating me.

Every day that goes by, I give stronger consideration to political involvement. Of course, as a gay man I am so thoroughly despised by both the right (and the left with whom I find myself increasingly agreeing with less and less) that I wonder if I could get any support from anyone. The ACLU deserves to be savagely attacked for its actions. These attacks should come from the left. I do believe that my voice might carry some weight due to my atheistic background and sexual orientation, but I remain shackled due to my own fear of involvement. Moreover, I am fearful of not being able to make a living as I would have to give up my current career (which does not allow for true political involvement). I have an opinion to voice, but I doubt many would listen anyway. I suppose I can satiate my desire (in some way) for retribution against the ACLU by voicing my opinion here.

Kafir, you sound like the lone ranger from 'Brokeback mountain....'

Interesting stuff about the ACLU at wikipedia.org, specifically:

In 1977, the ACLU filed suit against the Village of Skokie, Illinois, seeking an injunction against the enforcement of three town ordinances outlawing Nazi parades and demonstrations (Skokie had a large Jewish population). A federal district court struck down the ordinances in a decision eventually affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court. The ACLU's action in this case led to the resignation of about 15 percent of the membership from the organization (25 percent in Illinois), especially of Jewish members. A cutback in its activities was avoided by a special mailing which elicited $500,000 in contributions.

In his February 23, 1978 decision overturning the town ordinances, US District Court Judge Bernard M. Decker described the principle involved in the case as follows: "It is better to allow those who preach racial hatred to expend their venom in rhetoric rather than to be panicked into embarking on the dangerous course of permitting the government to decide what its citizens may say and hear ... The ability of American society to tolerate the advocacy of even hateful doctrines ... is perhaps the best protection we have against the establishment of any Nazi-type regime in this country."

The last statement sounds like something I would advocate myself, however, this should not be applied to situations where a group may face danger.In addition, its when the government actually DOES start to control what we hear or say through censorship then it becomes a problem. Right now its surveillance- that bothers me little, I have nothing to hide. In any case, the ACLU is no longer a viable organization. It is simply too active in the wrong area.

Oh and kudos to Kafir. A Log Cabin Republican by chance?

Remember that idiot William Kunstler? He was a far left-wing lawyer. He would defend only radical anti-western, anti-white criminals. He once infamoulsy said that any black man that rapes a white woman has not commited a crime because the white woman, by virtue of her race, deserves to be raped as retribution for slavery.

This guy was really nuts. Yet he was a highly succcessful, famous lawyer, a card-carrying member of the ACLU.

He is dead now, but he embodied what the ACLU has become today. As a vessel for the Left, it hates our western culture and will be in cohorts with any force that threatens our culture. So, under the guise of civil liberties, they in fact, promote sedition, violence, racial hatred, and treason. None of which has anything to do with civil rights. And they know it. It is part of the fifth column.

Interesting thing that Skokie Illinois event. That was the only time that the ACLU ever defended anyone on the right. And for that, as you menioned they lost 15% of their membership. What does that tell you? It tells me that the ACLU is fundamentally left, not fundamentally free-speech.

If it was a group of islamic marching chanting "kill the infidels" how many of the ACLU membership would have revolted? None. Defend radicals on the left and they are in love. Defend radicals on the right, and the membership vomits.

Skeptic,

Essentially, I would have to say yes. I do not agree with the Republican Party on "social issues" as well as such things as stem cell research and euthanasia. As you might imagine, the disagreements are mainly over religion.

The ACLU, you gotta love them... a jihadists could rape their wives, behead their family, plant a bomb in one of their meetings and they would be the first to stand up at the jihadist's trial to argue that they should not be executed.

Talk about unclear on the concept!

These are the same guys who helped to stop the deportation of the Blind Sheik who ended up bombing the World Trade Center. They will take the lead in compromising our intelligence efforts to monitor phone calls to known jihadists and terrorists. By the way, come bug my phone, it will be real disappointment.

Follow the money. There has to be filthy petrodollars behind this. Most of the American useful idiots who are so stupid as to still entertain the fantasy that the ACLU strives to defend their "civil liberties" don't have a pot to piss in.

If only someone at the FBI with a sense of humor would send the ACLU a list of EVERY Muslim in Southern California in reply.

"Ir por lana y volver esquilado."

("To go for wool and come back shorn.")

I thought that CAIR was the Arab civil liberties watchdog. Now the ACLU becomes the Arab Civil Liberties Union.
It is no wonder that they no longer accept donations from the Rockefeller Foundation nor the Combined Federal Campaign. Both of those groups stipulate that you cannot support terrorist organizations if you accept their funding. Obviously, the ACLU is unwilling to live with that sort of restriction.

as a matter of fact, the ACLU has often defended Nazis.

Well, lets see. The way that I see it, the ACLU stands for anything that's NOT American. Thus their new title(s).

American Criminal Liberties Union: For their stand against the carrying out the peoples will for Stanley "Tookie" Williams' punishment for the slaughter of three innocent people.

Arab Civil Liberties Union: For this latest stunt with CAIR and the Islamic Shura Council of Southern California against the FBI's investigation of persons of interest and/or possible terrrorist conspirators acts against "We the People" within our borders.

There are more titles to come as the ACLU continue their anti-America agenda against "We the People" and the underminding of the Constitution of the United States.

May the Wings of Lberty,
Never lose a Feather.

cactus~
Are you sure they no longer accept donations from the Combined Federal Campaign? When did that stop? And who took up the slack, I wonder? That would have been a huge drop in funding.

(The last time I looked the Ford foundation had donated millions.) Hollywood donates an immense amount also.

"The FBI does not investigate anyone based on their lawful activities, religious or political beliefs," said J. Stephen Tidwell, Assistant Director of the FBI's Los Angeles office....

Yes, but this is the very false accusation and smoke screen that Islamists want to create in order to hide their aggressive agenda.

Since when (in the past 1400 years) has Islam ever corrected itself or policed it's own. There has always historically been an external force that had to curtail Islam.

There's a big, crucial difference between the ACLU's defense of Nazi rights and the ACLU's defense of Muslim rights. Can anyone think of what that big, crucial difference is?

Oil money

Patriot 4;

You behave now. The ACLU would never sellout to "BIG OIL!" companies. They're just as American as a Persian rug.

Welcome to the American "Legal" system (a.k.a. the black market of lawyers and judges) where if you're a celebrity or really rich, you can buy your way out of anything. But woe to the regular joe, to put it frankly, you're FUBAR! Thanks for stoping by, have a good day (if you're rich)......

The ACLU's founder, Roger Baldwin, was a Communist whose goal was to replace the US government with a Communist one.
Nice to see someone tell the truth about this insidious group.

The ACLU used to give the excuse for defending Nazis: Well, if the Nazis rights are curtailed, then any one's rights can be limited or curtailed. We are defending your rights too, by defending the Nazis' rights. But we know that in practice they are very selective about whose rights they defend in court and in their propaganda publications. So "civil liberties" is just an excuse.
They would also play a word game about the Nazis: "Someone who calls himself a Nazi..." As if they only "called themselves Nazis..."

Of course, one might ask ACLU why Ramsey Clark is --or was-- the chairman of their National Advisory Council, in view of the fact that he is a great friend of mass murderous tyrants like Saddam Hussein, and others. How do they explain Clark's love for Saddam?

"The ACLU's founder, Roger Baldwin, was a Communist whose goal was to replace the US government with a Communist one."
-- from a posting above

How about re-phrasing it:

"The ACLU's founder, Roger Baldwin, was in the 1930s a Communist sympathizer, and there is some evidence that on visiting the Soviet Union, he found much to praise in that monstrous regime, unlike some former supporters who came away horrified (e.g. Andre Gide, in "Retour de l'URSS") What he actually saw, or what he managed to understand, is unclear. After 1939 and the Hitler-Ribbentrop Pact, Baldwin's former sympathy for the Soviet Union appeared to disappear, and he no longer gave signs of wishing that the American polity could be a Communist one as he had until the mid-1930s. Whether he fully made amends for, or even realized, the atrociousness of his earlier views, is a subject worth investigating."

Television-

The Nazis forgot to incorporate as a "religion"?

Hi Everyone;

Add these acronums to the list in my post above for the ACLU.

Anti Constitutional Liberties Union

Anti-American Communist Liberation Union

More to come as the ACLU continues to undermind the Constitution of the United States and the will of "We the People." "We the People" can not rest until the ACLU is exposed as the "enemy of the state" that they are!