Politics: All liberal Democrat all the time. 9/4/2022 2 of 3

 

We owe it to Ronald Reagan

In my opinion, one of the worst things that Ronald Reagan did was escalate the privatization of government. It was really very clever of him to tell everyone he hated government because he then shut down or reduced a number of departments and turned the money over to private corporations. Instead of paying bureaucrats $75,000 a year, we now pay companies like Booze Allen Hamilton $400 or $500  an hour (equivalent to $800,000 per year at full time for 50 weeks) for the same job . I've had two close relatives working for these companies that do outsourced work and the pay and benefits are incredible.

And now the states are doing it. Outsourcing education (private and charter schools), prisons, and I'm sure a lot more that I'm not even aware of. So now, instead of paying state employees  a reasonable wage and decent benefits, we're paying private companies to do the work and they are cheaping out on us so that they can earn high profits.

No wonder our country is falling into the crapper.

From Mother Jones
(Click on the link for more)

Lawsuit Against Mississippi Prison Is the Stuff of Nightmares

In the solitary confinement unit of East Mississippi Correctional Facility, it's common for inmates to set some clothing or an old milk carton on fire to get an officer's attention when they are in desperate need of a doctor-or if, say, their cell has been flooded by a broken pipe. Otherwise, it might be days before anyone took notice, according to a class-action lawsuit filed last week by the American Civil Liberties Union.

The fires sometimes got the guards' attention, but not always in the way the inmates were hoping: At least one inmate, the suit claims, was maced by a corrections officer through his feeding slot. EMCF is a private, for-profit prison that houses seriously mentally ill patients, and the ACLU's lawsuit reads like a catalog of horrors.

ACLU continues lawsuit over FISA

If you are a progressive and you are NOT a member of the ACLU, you should really consider it....

From: ACLU Communications
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2011 12:46 PM
To: ACLU National Staff
Subject: VICTORY! ACLU Challenge to Bush Wiretapping Law Reinstated

VICTORY! Court Says Plaintiffs Can Challenge Bush Wiretapping Law

In a huge victory for privacy and the rule of law, a federal appeals court today reinstated our landmark lawsuit challenging the FISA Amendments Act (FAA), a statute that gives the executive branch virtually unchecked power to collect Americans' international e-mails and telephone calls.

The ACLU filed the lawsuit on behalf of a broad coalition of attorneys and human rights, labor, legal and media organizations whose work requires them to engage in sensitive and sometimes privileged telephone and e-mail communications with colleagues, clients, journalistic sources, witnesses, experts, foreign government officials and victims of human rights abuses located outside the United States.

A federal district court dismissed the case in August 2009, ruling that the plaintiffs did not have the right to challenge the new surveillance law because they could not prove that their own communications had been monitored under it.

But with the support of law professors, the NYC Bar Association, the Reporters' Committee for Freedom of the Press and many others, we appealed that decision to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

Today, the appeals court reversed the lower court decision, finding that the plaintiffs have standing to challenge the law even though they cannot show to a certainty that the government is acquiring their communications. According to today's ruling, "the FAA has put the plaintiffs in a lose-lose situation: either they can continue to communicate sensitive information electronically and bear a substantial risk of being monitored under a statute they allege to be unconstitutional, or they can incur financial and professional costs to avoid being monitored. Either way, the FAA directly affects them."

In a statement today, ACLU Deputy Legal Director Jameel Jaffer said:

"The government's surveillance practices should not be immune from judicial review, and this decision ensures that they won't be. The law we've challenged permits the government to conduct dragnet surveillance of Americans' international communications, and it has none of the safeguards that the Constitution requires. Now that the appeals court has recognized that our clients have the right to challenge the law, we look forward to pressing that challenge in the trial court."

© ACLU, 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10004

What to do if you're stopped by police

As a former local union leader I attended a number of workshops on legal rights over the years. Repeatedly we were warned to be very, very careful about what we said to the police if we were ever called in - especially if we were involved in a case that involved us personally. The frequent point made was that the police investigators would be very friendly - act like your friends - say some shit like, "We know how this probably went down and we're sure you'll be free in a few hours, but let me just get your side of this." And don't sign any accounts of your conversations with police without legal representation. Word - ask for a lawyer and shut the fuck up if you're being accused of something.

Lower Court - DADT illegal

Great news! U.S. District Court Judge Ronald B. Leighton ordered the Air Force to reinstate ACLU client and flight nurse Major Margaret Witt, who was discharged from the Air Force in 2006 under the military's unconstitutional "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) policy.Judge Leighton found, after a six-day trial, that Maj.

Witt's sexual orientation did not negatively impact unit cohesion or morale. In fact, as several members of Maj. Witt's former unit testified at trial, her discharge was "devastating" and "negatively impacted the unit."

"I want to serve my country," Maj. Witt said. "I have loved being in the military-my fellow airmen have been my family. I am proud of my career and want to continue doing my job. Wounded people never asked me about my sexual orientation. They were just glad to see me there."

A decision by federal court Judge Virginia A. Phillips found that DADT had a "direct and deleterious effect" on the armed services. The combination of this and the decision in Maj. Witt's case demonstrates, yet again, the counterproductive and discriminatory nature of the DADT policy.

Source: ACLU.org

Tortured Logic - a few words on torture

Protect the Privacy of Your Health Records

Also from The ACLU. Click here to jump to their "Take Action" web page.

Earlier this year, the economic stimulus bill contained mandates for converting paper health records into electronic data systems and called for strong privacy protections of those records.

But now, as the Department of Health and Human Services writes the detailed regulations to guide this process, there's a real risk that your privacy won't be protected after all.

That's because powerful special interests are lobbying heavily for regulations that give hospitals and insurance companies -- not patients -- control over how personal medical information is used. This could leave you with no process for blocking access to critical information such as the results of HIV/AIDS tests and eventually, no way to correct false information in your medical records or see who is reviewing those records.

Events are moving quickly. So now is the time to make your voice heard. Send a "protect my privacy" message to Dr. David Blumenthal, the HHS official in charge of this process.

>>Take Action: Tell HHS we need real patient control of personal health data in our electronic medical records!

Guantanamo Civil Rights

This brightened my day. It comes from an e-newsletter sent out by the ACLU to its members.

Breaking News: Judge Orders ACLU Client Freed from Guantánamo Bay

Today -- in a Guantánamo detainee case the ACLU has pursued for several years -- a federal judge ordered one of the deepest injustices at that infamous detention facility brought to an end.

U.S. District Judge Ellen Huvelle gave the Justice Department until August 21 to release Mohammed Jawad from Guantánamo and transfer him to the custody of the Afghan government, which has indicated that it is prepared to receive Jawad immediately and unconditionally.

Judge Huvelle made clear that Mr. Jawad has been illegally detained, and the government has no credible evidence to continue holding him. We are pleased that the Justice Department has expressed a commitment to getting him home so that this nightmare of abuse and injustice can finally come to an end.

In its last term, the Supreme Court ruled that Guantánamo detainees have a constitutional right to habeas corpus. And now, by representing Mr. Jawad in his habeas case, the ACLU has helped end his lawless detention.

Following his 2002 arrest in Afghanistan for allegedly throwing a grenade at two U.S. soldiers and their interpreter, Jawad was subjected to repeated torture and other mistreatment and to a systematic program of harsh and highly coercive interrogations designed to break him physically and mentally. At one point, Jawad tried to commit suicide in his cell by slamming his head repeatedly against the wall.

Last fall, a military judge in Jawad's Guantánamo military commission proceeding threw out the bulk of the evidence against him finding that it was obtained through torture. And recently, the Afghan Attorney General sent a letter to the U.S. government demanding Jawad's return and suggesting he was as young as 12 when he was captured in Afghanistan and illegally rendered from that country nearly seven years ago.

Now finally, seven years of illegal detention are about to come to an end.

With your help, the ACLU will build on this important victory against illegal detention and lawless government actions until respect for human rights and the rule of law is fully restored.

Bush - Religion Trumps Science - Link

George W. Bush continues to put his religion before science and medicine. He would rather see you denied access to health care than to tell physicians and pharmacists that they need to do the job they signed on for. The following is from the ACLU's e-newsletter...

Take Action: Proposed Bush Regulation Jeopardizes Women's Health

Late last week, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
proposed regulations that could seriously undermine access to basic
reproductive health services -- including birth control and abortion.

The rule leaves open the possibility that -- based on religious
beliefs -- institutions and individuals can deny women access to birth
control. It also permits individuals to refuse to provide information
and counseling about basic heath care services. And it expands
existing laws by permitting a wider range of health care professionals
to refuse to provide even referrals for abortions.

Instead of striking a careful balance between individual religious
liberty and patients' access to reproductive health care, the
Bush administration has taken patients' rights and their health
care needs out of the equation.

We have less than 30 days to stop these new rules from being enacted.
Take a stand now.

http://action.aclu.org/site/R?i=5KkEowl1keW7T0n6zkfqRg..

Is the ACLU a Liberal Organization?

Did You Know - ACLU Still Pressing on Bush Spying.

We may not have many rights left under the Bush administration, but perhaps there are a few. It will be interesting to see if this turns into anything...

The government must answer a watchdog group's demands to release records about the nation's classified terrorist spying program, the chief judge of a secretive national security court has ruled.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which announced the order Friday, said it was the first time the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court had responded to a request filed by the public.

In her 2-page order, dated Aug. 16, Presiding Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly called the ACLU's demand "an unprecedented request that warrants further briefing."

From MSNBC.

A Return to Freedom

'Twas the night before Christmas and all through the nation

Friends of Freedom knew it was a special occasion.

Lady Liberty stood taller just off the shore

Her torch shining brighter than a few weeks before

But it wasn't the flame turning her cheeks all rosy

It was thoughts of Snowe, Feingold and Nancy Pelosi

And leaders from every side of the aisle

Who would soon bring the Bill of Rights back into style.

The Amendments had all hurried out of their beds -

Which was no easy task, they were nearly in shreds -

And they rushed to the window on papery feet

As a jolly old man flew right over their street.

"Could it be!?" they inquired as the roof shook and trembled

And they crept toward the mantle, peaceably assembled,

Just as someone emerged from the chimney with flair

In a shiny red suit, with a shock of white hair

And a top hat, and pants all in red, white and blue -

"Wait a minute," the Amendments exclaimed, "Who are you?"

"Don't be frightened my children," he said, "it's no scam.

"You can't have forgotten your old Uncle Sam!"

"Holy crap!" said Free Speech. "Stop right there!" yelled Bear Arms

And Privacy cried "Who shut off the alarms?!"

The Fifth remained silent, but Uncle Sam said

"We've been having some trouble, but Freedom's not dead."

The Amendments were cautious. "It's just been so long"

We've seen Liberty lost, we've seen so much go wrong."

The President's trying to mangle and warp us,

"The Fourth is in tatters, so's Habeas Corpus!"

The old man sat down - he had had quite a ride -

But he told them "Don't worry, the Law's on our side,"'

Cause the nation's fed up and more people are crying

For Justice and an end to illegal spying,"

"And secret abductions by the CIA,

And laws that would take women's choices away,

And Gitmo tribunals and secret detention,

And other intrusions too numerous to mention - "

"Not so fast," said a grinchity voice from above

And Don Rumsfeld pushed past the Fourteenth with a shove.

He was covered in soot and he looked kind of scary.

It seemed like his Christmas had not been so merry.

The Amendments said they weren't happy to see him:

"You tried to throw all of us in the museum!

You've done so much the Constitution forbids!"

"And I would have gone on, but for you meddling kids!"

Uncle Sam told him "Rummy, your plans just won't do,

So we've got a brand new timetable for you!"

And as Rumsfeld retired and crept into the night

The Amendments cried out "Have a good secret flight!"

From the distance they heard him reply with a snort.

"Bye-bye, Rummy!" they answered, "we'll see you in court!"

Uncle Sam rode the chimney up out of the room

And, like Frosty, he said "I'll be back again soon."

But they heard him exclaim "Oh, and just one more thing!

This year, when the holiday bells start to ring,

Try to honor religion. Honest faith can't be wrong.

It's America, can't we all just get along?

"So, on Christian," he cried, "Muslim, Hindu, and Jew!

On Quaker! On Shaker! And Atheist too!

On Buddhist! On Taoist! And to show we're not chickens

We'll file a few lawsuits defending the Wiccans!"

"Your belief is your right, so get out there and savor it."

Uncle Sam's not a preacher, and he doesn't play favorites!

So this holiday season, whatever you do,

Warmest wishes for Freedom, from the ACLU.

War on Christmas?
A statement from the ACLU

THE ACLU AND THE SO-CALLED "WAR ON CHRISTMAS"

By Jeremy Gunn, Director, Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief

A few years ago, a group called Public Advocate for the United States (which claims to defend America's traditional family values) sent some Christmas carolers over to sing in front of the ACLU offices in Washington. Carrying signs reading "Merry Christmas" and "Please Don't Sue Us!"--they also seemed to carry with them some rather strange imaginings about an assault on Christmas. I don't know what the carolers thought might happen.

To tell the truth, the ACLU is not often serenaded by Christmas carolers. More likely, we realize the holiday season has arrived when we start to receive angry phone calls, emails and cards accusing us of trying to destroy Christmas. So it was with some excitement that the staff went outside and joined in the singing. They brought with them cookies and warm drinks to share. One staff member, who is an ordained Baptist minister, did a little witnessing about his faith to some astonished proponents of family values.

This is just one example of how some groups have used a mythical "war on Christmas" to demonize the ACLU, crush religious diversity, and make a few bucks in the process. Not only do they claim that there is a "war on Christmas," they insist that the ACLU is leading the battle cry. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth.

The ACLU supports the rights of Christians and all religious people to celebrate their holidays in public spaces. What we do oppose is government action that promotes or endorses particular religions or religion over non-religion. Our views are dictated by the Constitution of the United States and are motivated by our commitment to religious liberty for all Americans.

The ACLU works to ensure that people remain free to choose which religious beliefs (or none) they wish to express and that governments, school boards, and legislatures do not become involved in deciding which religious beliefs should be promoted or in spending taxpayer dollars to support religious activities and symbols. We remain fully engaged in defending a broad range of constitutional rights, including rights related to freedom of religion and belief. It is sometimes wrongly imagined that the ACLU does not vigorously protect rights of freedom of religion, particularly of Christians.

What the people who attack the ACLU don't understand is that our real strength is sticking to fundamental principles--we know that for true religious liberty to flourish, everyone must be free to practice their religion free from government interference. Thank you for everything you do, and have a peaceful holiday season!

Prayer in Schools

I am a member of the ACLU, though certainly not a major contributor. Still, I recognize the phenomenal work they do in maintaining our freedoms as guaranteed by the constitution and the Bill of Rights.

I also have friends who are conservative and religious and who often complain about the ACLU's positions on religion and prayer. One set of cases often singled out are those suits filed by the ACLU over prayer in the schools. Frequently the ACLU position is over-simplified and amplified in order to make their demands seem even more unreasonable.

The ACLU's position is really quite clear. Prayer and religion are personal matters. If you want to pray before an athletic event - feel free to do so. If you'd like to worship before attending any school event - feel free to do so. Just don't force your beliefs on everyone else at that event.

Because of the confusion, I herein post the ACLU's official position of prayer in the public schools...

1. Students have the right to pray individually or in groups or to discuss their religious views with their peers so long as they are not disruptive. Because the Establishment Clause does not apply to purely private speech, students enjoy the right to read their Bibles or other scriptures, say grace before meals, pray before tests, and discuss religion with other willing student listeners. In the classroom students have the right to pray quietly except when required to be actively engaged in school activities (e.g., students may not decide to pray just as a teacher calls on them). In informal settings, such as the cafeteria or in the halls, students may pray either audibly or silently, subject to the same rules of order as apply to other speech in these locations. However, the right to engage in voluntary prayer does not include, for example, the right to have a captive audience listen or to compel other students to participate.