Gunco Forums banner

1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
DADDY WARBUCKS
Joined
·
19,433 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Their true colors (RED) are showing after all these years of promoting themselves as protecting US Constitutional rights.


ACLU Intensifies International Human Rights Advocacy
Intensifying its efforts to hold the United States government accountable under universally recognized human rights principles, the ACLU announced that it has hired three full-time advocates to apply human rights strategies to the ACLU's work on national security issues, immigrants' rights, women's rights, and criminal justice.

NEWS

Citing Growing Abuses, ACLU Intensifies International Human Rights Advocacy in the United States (12/06/2004)
ACLU to Continue Monitoring Military Commissions at Guant?namo Bay as Trials Resume; Daily Dispatches Posted to Group?s Website (11/01/2004)
More >>

"From the grassroots level all the way to the Supreme Court, international human rights law is emerging as an important tool in the struggle for justice here at home," said ACLU Associate Legal Director Ann Beeson, who is heading up the advocacy effort.

"America's credibility as a beacon of democracy and fairness is steadily diminishing as the Bush administration continues to commit human rights abuses both at home and abroad," Beeson added. "Given the current climate for human rights in the United States, our human rights advocacy must--and will--continue to grow."

In conjunction with International Human Rights Week (Dec. 6-10), the ACLU will highlight some of its current human rights advocacy throughout the week. The ACLU is jointly sponsoring a roundtable discussion with the Open Society Institute on the treatment of immigrants after 9/11 and releasing a related report (Dec. 8); issuing a report on how the death penalty weakens U.S. international interests (Dec. 9); and releasing its yearly review of legal developments in the international civil liberties field (Dec. 10).

Tomorrow (Dec. 7) the ACLU will release documents it has recently obtained from the FBI and the Defense Intelligence Agency through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit about detainees held by the United States at military bases and other detention facilities overseas. Working with coalition partners, the ACLU's ongoing efforts urge the United States government to respect human rights both at home and abroad, and include:

* Filing a complaint with the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention on behalf of 13 men who were arbitrarily arrested and detained after the September 11 attacks.
* Demanding information about the use of torture and other illegal interrogation techniques in U.S. detention facilities abroad, in violation of the Convention Against Torture and other laws.
* Documenting and challenging the U.S. government's misuse of the material witness statute to detain Muslim men without charges (in a joint project with Human Rights Watch).
* Monitoring military commissions in Guant?namo Bay, Cuba and posting daily dispatches about the proceedings.
* Promoting groundbreaking New York City legislation that would implement the principles of the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD).
* Fighting federal legislation that would make it an impeachable offense for federal judges to rely on international law in their decisions.
* Organizing international pressure to urge the United States to abolish the death penalty.

http://www.aclu.org/International/InternationalMain.cfm
 

·
Code name: Felix
Joined
·
6,361 Posts
Tell them to step outside GITMO and look at Castro's jails too since they are in the country...
 

·
Class 07 FFL/SOT
Joined
·
6,297 Posts
I would like to see these dorks try to pull their shit anywhere else........like Iran or Syria.......
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
736 Posts
How is this Bush's fault.

So now Kurds don't have too worry about getting slaughtered by the thousands for being Kurdish, because Bush dethroned Hussien. Yet, somehow the ACLU says Bush is an enemy to the people?!? Give me a break!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,690 Posts
This sucks. I'm an ACLU member, rely on them to look after the BOR with the exception of the Second Amendment, belong to the NRA and rely on them to look after that one.

As soon as our BOR is no longer under domestic attack we then could arguably look to even considering international standards. Until then, the question isn't even worth considering. I won't even get into whether it is or is not appropriate for the US to be held to international standards - it's a dumb question until the US does hold itself to its own standards as stated in the BOR.

And that hasn't happened yet.
 

·
DADDY WARBUCKS
Joined
·
19,433 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
In my opinion, any judge that states he is going to go outside the US Constitution for his rulings ought to be impeached and convicted for violating his oath.

Any lawyer that advocates this in a US court ought to be disbarred for violating his duties as an officer of the US courts.

This really shows what the ACLU stands for and it is not freedom in America. Never was. What a sham.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,690 Posts
Custer said:
In my opinion, any judge that states he is going to go outside the US Constitution for his rulings ought to be impeached and convicted for violating his oath...
Question, Custer. At one level, courts go outside the US Constitition (and outside local, state, and federal law) just about every time they rule on international stuff, which probably comes up all the time in corporate law. But I presume that in doing so they have to stay within the bounds of the US Constitution or their ruling could be over-ruled upon appeal on the grounds that the ruling was unconstitutional. i.e. if what is outside the US Constitituon (e.g. a contract drawn up in the Bahamas) is in conflict with the US Constitution, it's the US Constitution that prevails.

Izzat right?
 

·
DADDY WARBUCKS
Joined
·
19,433 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
Well, Smeg, we think so but some people are not that confident. Do a little reading on the Bricker Amendment. Here is a short part to whet your appetite.

The Bricker Amendment
The problem of international treaties superseding the U.S. Constitution and undermining the foundations of our Republic is not a new one. The conservative movement of the early 1950's, which looked on the United Nations with extreme suspicion, was particularly sensitive to this threat -- and they hit upon a solution: the Bricker Amendment.

Introduced into the Senate in February, 1952, as Senate Joint Resolution 130, the "Bricker Amendment" to the Constitution read as follows:

Section 1. A provision of a treaty which conflicts with this Constitution shall not be of any force or effect.
Section 2. A treaty shall become effective as internal law in the United States only through legislation which would be valid in the absence of treaty.
Section 3. Congress shall have power to regulate all executive and other agreements with any foreign power or international organization. All such agreements shall be subject to the limitations imposed on treaties by this article.
Section 4. The congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Mobilizing to support Bricker, conservatives built a grand coalition which included all the major veterans groups, the Kiwanis Clubs, the American Association of Small Business, many women's groups, as well as the conservative activist organizations of the time, such as the Freedom Clubs and the Committee for Constitutional Government. The conservative press joined in the campaign; writing in Human Events, Frank Chodorov said that

The proposed amendment arises from a rather odd situation. A nation is threatened by invasion, not by a foreign army, but by its own legal entanglements. Not soldiers, but theoreticians and visionaries attack its independence and aim to bring its people under the rule of an agglomeration of foreign governments. This is something new in history. There have been occasions when a weak nation sought security by placing itself under the yoke of a strong one. But, here we have the richest nation in the world, and apparently the strongest, flirting with the liquidation of its independence. Nothing like that has ever happened before.

The breach in our defenses, said Chodorov, is in Article VI of the Constitution, which provides that "... All Treaties ...shall be the supreme Law of the Land... any Thing in the Constitution to the contrary notwithstanding." At the time of the Founders, the division between foreign and domestic policy was clear enough; there was never any intention, as Jefferson wrote, to enable the President and the Senate to "do by treaty what the whole government is interdicted from doing in any way."

But as the concept of limited government was eroded -- and under pressure from the endless stream of pacts, covenants, and executive agreements issuing forth from the United Nations and its American enthusiasts -- the ***** in our constitutional armor widened. Just as the growth of administrative law had threatened to overthrow the old Republic during the darkest days of the New Deal, so under Truman and Eisenhower the burgeoning body of treaty law threatened to overthrow U.S. sovereignty. Executive agreements had created administrative law of a new type; treaties which sought to regulate domestic economic and social behavior to a degree never achieved by the Brain Trusters. If the New Deal had failed to completely socialize America, to conservatives it often seemed as if the United Nations seemed determined to finish the job. According to the UN Declaration of Human Rights, human beings were endowed with all sorts of "rights," including the right to a job and the right to "security." There were, however, certain significant omissions, chief among them the right to own and maintain private property. Another equally glaring omission was the unqualified right to a free press, the regulation of which is left up to member nations. When three Supreme Court justices, including the Chief Justice, cited the UN Charter and the NATO treaty in support of their argument that Truman had the right to seize the steel mills, conservatives went into action -- and the fight for the Bricker Amendment began in earnest.

The Eisenhower Administration, and particularly the U.S. State Department, went all out to defeat the Amendment. Leading the opposition was Secretary of State John Foster Dulles. This was the same John Foster Dulles who had said, two years previous, that "The treaty power is an extraordinary power, liable to abuse," and warned that "Treaties can take powers away from the Congress and give them to the President. They can take powers from the states and give them to the federal government or to some international body and they can cut across the rights given to the people by their Constitutional Bill of Rights." Hammered with this quote by Clarence Manion, Dean of Law at Notre Dame University, and a leading proponent of the Bricker Amendment, Dulles could only take refuge in the argument that this President would never compromise U.S. sovereignty.

Although the Bricker Amendment started out with fifty-six co- sponsors, it eventually went down to defeat in the U.S. Senate, 42-50, with 4 not voting. (A watered-down version, the "George proposal," lost by a single vote.) The defection of Senators William Knowland and Alexander Wiley from conservative Republican ranks on this occasion was particularly significant, and marked the beginning not only of Wiley's chairmanship of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, but also the decline of the movement to put and keep America first.

As Frank E. Holman, president of the American Bar Association, and the sparkplug of the Bricker Amendment movement, wrote:

In the destiny of human affairs a great issue like a righteous cause does not die. It lives on and arises again and again until rightly won. However long the fight for an adequate Constitutional Amendment on treaties and other international agreements, it will and must be won. This will be the history of the Bricker Amendment as it has been the history of all other great issues and causes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,690 Posts
Exceptionally interesting, Custer. Thanks.

And weirdly enough, although proposed by conservatives, with the sole exception that I think the language of Section 4 is far too ambiguous, I think it's a good idea and wish it had gone through. I wonder if something like it will resurface now that the original problem of collective security (i.e. the UN) now has become exacerbated by economic globalization.
 

·
DADDY WARBUCKS
Joined
·
19,433 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
There are groups that are pushing for it but they are blown off now as nut jobs of the lunatic fringe.

The leading legal scholars are more in tune with what the ACLU is pushing.

If I think of it, I'll post a link to a Columbia law review article that addresses this. It is a heavy load though.
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Top