What Is the ACLU Thinking?

Two of the commercial planes that were commandeered by Islamo-fascists on September 11, 2001 attacked both New York City and the Pentagon. A third was apparently on its way to crash into the DC Capitol building, before it was brought down in Pennsylvania by a group of intrepid and inordinately courageous passengers. I bring up these occurrences, as many in the US population seem to have either forgotten these barbaric acts-of-war or simply don’t seem to care anymore. But, I do. And I believe the majority of the American people do too. The ‘attack planes’ were hijacked by Middle Eastern men. At the time of the attacks against us, their country or countries of origin were not known. However, soon thereafter—they were. Yet, after the 9/11 carnage, the ACLU of Northern California issued the following statement and warning on its website: “Racial profiling is as flawed an approach to the war on terrorism as it was to the war on drugs.” 1 So, even shortly after 9/11 the ACLU was warning “we the people” against racial profiling of the terrorists and potential terrorists who brought their war to us. Note: This very much corresponds with my belief that the ACLU and other leftist groups would rather die as “sensitive” PC-perpetrators than live as rational human beings. The problem is that the ACLU appears to be insisting that all of us must die with them. I, for one, am against this thought process that leads to suicide. Or, is the real problem that the ACLU’s true considerations are for the terrorists or potential terrorists, as opposed to the protection of American people? I have to wonder.

Then, shortly after the 9/11 catastrophes, there were concerns from our US Security organizations (as well as the American people) that it might not be the best of ideas to have non-US-citizens acting as airport screeners. This made sense to me. But, apparently it didn’t wash with the ACLU. In January 2002, the ACLU filed a lawsuit to stop the requirement that only US citizens could act as screeners in our nation’s airports. 2 Alan Schlosser, Legal Director of the ACLU of Northern California made, in my opinion, this less than intelligent statement: “Discriminating against non-citizen airport screeners will not make us safer or more secure. In fact it will certainly decrease air travel security by eliminating much of the experienced and trained workforce. We cannot allow the tragic events of September 11 to be used as an excuse to scapegoat immigrants, something that has unfortunately occurred at moments of crisis in our nation's history.” What? If we profile potential terrorists, we’re being discriminatory? Hogwash. Is it better to allow them to attack us? Sounds like the ACLU thinks it is. That is, unless it’s the ACLU members being attacked. And how long does it take to train airport screeners? From what I understand, it wouldn’t have taken long for a new crop of US citizen-screeners to have been trained. Although some or most of the non-citizen screeners are not or may not be potential terrorists, can we continue to take the chance that they just might be? How many terrorists does it take to plant a bomb or blow himself or herself to smithereens—taking as many of us as possible with them? Answer: Just one.

On July 7, 2005, the London, England subway system was hit and bombed by the terrorists. Then, on 21 July another Islamo-fascist group tried again. In a country much like the USA, England had allowed its citizens (in this case Muslim British citizens) to spew all manner of hatred towards their adoptive country. The freedoms and liberties that they had been afforded by the UK, after fleeing their own oppressive countries, didn’t matter to them. The radical Muslim Imams who are spreading their vile message of ‘kill and destroy everything Western’ was their way of biting the hand that feeds. We in the US allow this same hate-speech, by Muslims and even our own non-Muslim citizens. Does anyone remember “Professor” Ward Churchill? Yet, each time “we the people” have attempted to pull the reigns in on these seditious individuals, the ACLU has grabbed them from us; only to warn us that if we attempt to stop these terrorists or terrorists-in-the-making, they will sue us. How dare the American people make any effort to protect themselves! At least England finally got the message—loud and clear, I might add. Its new legislation is designed to deport any and all who preach hatred and violence against the country that took them in when they were in need. I only wish we would do the same.

However, the US’ groups of ‘Civil Liberties Unions’ (a misnomer if there ever was one) has decided to take away any last vestige of the ability to protect ourselves from the terrorists. Now, after already refusing to allow the profiling of those who might really be terrorists, the NYCLU has decided to sue New York City for any and all “random searches” at the New York subways. 3 Its lawsuit was filed 4 August, citing the 4th Amendment (‘unreasonable and/or illegal searches and seizures’) , in a NY Federal Court. As we are already searching baggage and passengers at airports, how does the 4th Amendment apply? It is, most certainly, not “unreasonable” to protect oneself from death at the hands of another; especially in the terrorist environment that is alive and well today. And, if said searches have already been deemed legal and reasonable at airports, where is the legal argument against them? Is public subway transportation to be exempt from the rules while public air transportation is not? Now, that’s discrimination! Further, doesn’t the right to live actually trump the right to not be checked for potential bomb-making materials? Is there any common sense left in the country? The NYCLU’s Donna Lieberman argued that: “This NYPD bag search policy is unprecedented, unlawful and ineffective.” Well, Ms. Lieberman, I would argue that the reason the random searches began is that they were the only searches left available to us. Your organization and your ACLU parent had already castrated the authorities by disallowing them to profile any real potential terrorists.

AARGH! The frustration is unbelievable and almost unbearable. These “CLU” screwballs have us coming and going, while continuing to throw our own Bill of Rights at us. The same Bill of Rights that they refuse to allow to American citizens, they will scream for when it pertains to terrorists or possible terrorists. Somehow or somewhere, does not our foundational right to remain alive take any precedence at all over those who would murder us?

Sadly, to me anyway, it seems that the only thing that will stop this insanity is the next terrorist attack within the US. With all of the allowances the ACLU is giving our enemies (there are simply too many of them to be included in a single column), I believe that we can count on another attack. It is only a matter of time. But, as certain as I am that another attack will occur upon our shores, I am equally sure that within a few days afterwards the ACLU and its affiliates will again be calling for the protection of these enemies of all Western civilization. What IS the ACLU thinking? Or, perhaps more appropriately, does the ACLU still maintain the capacity to think—at all?

1. http://www.aclunc.org/911/profiling.html

2. http://www.aclunc.org/pressrel/020117-screeners.html

3.http://www.aclu.org/PolicePractices/PolicePractices.cfm?ID=18885&c=119

Sher Zieve is an author and political commentator. Zieve’s Op/Ed columns are widely carried by multiple Internet Journals and sites and she also writes hard news. Her columns have, also, appeared in The Oregon Herald, Dallas Times, Boston Star, Massachusetts Sun, Sacramento Sun, in International news publications and on multiple University websites. Ms. Zieve has been a guest on several radio shows, including The Alan Colmes’ Show, and is currently working on her first political book: “The Liberal’s Guide To Conservatives”.

As has become one of her trademarks, her commentary contains a fair amount (if not a plethora!) of sarcasm…dedicated to those on the wrong side of political discourse. Sher firmly believes that if Leftists ran the country (and left to their own inane devices), it would be the end of the United States as a sovereign nation.