American Civil Liberties Union: Beep, Beep
By Horace Cooper
April 26, 2004

The American Civil Liberties Union is at it again. Like Wiley Coyote in his quest to catch the Roadrunner, the ACLU comes up with one scheme after another to "protect our Constitution" from that great ominous threat, common sense.

The ACLU likes to bill itself as the defender of unpopular causes. You know things like its litigation on behalf of the Klan, its opposition to the death penalty and its zealous opposition to all things religious. On television when Wiley Coyote comes up with one crazy ACME Corporation scheme after another to catch the Roadrunner, we can all laugh when the results come crashing down.

But when the ACLU pursues its schemes the results can be dangerous. Consider: In 1998 the ACLU supported three Virginia Beach men who attempted a cross burning in their neighbor's yard. Had the ACLU prevailed, entering your property for the purpose of erecting and then burning a 25-foot tall cross would be considered "free speech" and not trespass and intimidation.

Also, the ACLU was on the wrong side of freedom of association. In 2000, the ACLU argued before the Supreme Court in Boy Scouts of America v. James Dale that the Boy Scouts' freedom of association was outweighed by New Jersey's "compelling interest in ensuring equality." Contrary to commonsense and longstanding precedent that organizations have the right to both "identify the people who constitute the association and to limit the association to those people only" the ACLU argued that an infringement on this freedom would be "incidental." Imagine a world where the NAACP is forced to accept cross-burners as members.

Or better yet consider the ACLU's role in promoting "reproductive rights." According to the ACLU's interpretation of our basic freedoms, a law which punishes as a new and separate offense the taking of the life of the "child in utero" should be opposed because it "endows the fetus with legal rights distinct from the woman who has been injured by a violent act." This "radical" piece of legislation, "the Laci and Conor Peterson act" based on a decade old California statute, would hold accountable a criminal who kills either the mother or the child or both. But in the world of the ACLU, such an outrage should be opposed as "a cunning attempt to separate the fetus from the mother in the eyes of the law and in the court of public opinion." Why is the ACLU so bound and determined to oppose anything that in any way recognizes the value of innocent human life? But recently even these steps aren't as bizarre as the ACLU's determined efforts to thwart any counter-terrorism measure. Perhaps prior to September 11 such schemes could be countenanced. But in the wake of nearly 3000 lives lost, this fixation is not only incomprehensible, it's quite risky.

In a really bizarre case, the ACLU argued to have religion-in-the-classroom guidelines formulated in part by Abdurahman Alamoudi, an alleged senior terrorist operative, imposed on classrooms in California. Last year, the ACLU filed several Freedom of Information Act requests to harass the Joint Terrorism Task Force. Also, the ACLU has challenged the Defense Department's policy on the Guantánamo detainees. And most recently the ACLU has tried to get the Homeland Departments' "No Fly List" struck down.

And even now as the 9-11 Commission meets to report to America the causes of the law enforcement failings of September 11, the ACLU continues to oppose renewal of the Patriot Act and related anti-terror measures. Ironically if any of the steps contemplated by the Patriot Act had been taken before 9-11, the ACLU would likely have vigorously opposed them and many Americans might have agreed with them. But today, their shallow arguments are seen for what they are.

If the ACLU had their way, captured terrorist masterminds would be treated as common criminals and could force the government to reveal intelligence sources and techniques; interrogation and surveillance of terrorist organizations would be sharply curtailed and people who happen to have names like Osama and Al Qaida could show up at the last minute at airports and board with impunity. I wish I were exaggerating.

As Justice Jackson famously asserts, the Constitution is not a suicide pact. The threat posed by terrorism is real and should be treated as such. Osama Bin Laden and the terrorist network Al Qaida are not comic book characters and the rules necessary to thwart them shouldn't be hampered by comical theories either.

Horace Cooper writes a regular political analysis column for United Press International and GOPUSA.com. He was praised as a key Republican strategist in Elizabeth Drew's New York Times bestseller "Showdown: The Struggle Between the Gingrich Congress and the Clinton White House" and extolled as a "poster conservative" by Michele Mitchell in "A New Kind of Party Animal."

--------------------

Note -- The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of GOPUSA.