Worse Than The ACLU?
Posted on October 1, 2006
There are many other organizations out there that were cut from the same page as the ACLU. People should be aware of their dangerous missions as well. I’ve had this link for a few days and a friend just reminded me of it. It was written an analyst-editor at Capital Research Center, a conservative think tank in Washington, D.C.
If you thought the left-wing American Civil Liberties Union was bad, wait till you read about the ultra-left “public interest” law firm called the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) in “The Terrorists’ Legal Team.”
The Center for Constitutional Rights is openly anti-American and pro-terrorist. Groups suspected of ties to terrorism give money to CCR. The granddaughter of the executed Communist spies Julius and Ethel Rosenberg works there. The late (second) wife of the traitor Alger Hiss left money to CCR in her will. Actors Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon fund CCR, as does singer Natalie Merchant and 1940s Communist relic Pete Seeger (the folk singer from The Weavers). Insurance magnate Peter B. Lewis, a kingpin of George Soros’s “Democracy Alliance,” writes big checks to CCR, as does Soros’s Open Society Institute.
Although CCR is headquartered in New York City’s Greenwich Village, it’s not a bunch of latte-sipping do-nothing artsy dreamers who sit around comparing notes on Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Karl Marx. These are dedicated revolutionaries who, quite literally, want to overthrow the American system of government. Look on their website and you’ll see the same kind of revolutionary Communist catch-phrases that you’ll find in the works of Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, Leon Trotsky, and Mao Zedong.
Its current president, Michael Ratner, is an adjunct law professor at Columbia University. He served as special counsel to Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, a Marxist who was overthrown in 2004. Ratner is a classic limousine liberal, or more accurately, a Rolls Royce revolutionary. His family controls Forest City Enterprises, Inc., a nearly $8 billion real estate development company that has been accused of eminent domain abuse. His brother, Bruce, is the owner of the New Jersey Nets.
What’s the connection between Communism and Islamism? CCR hates America so it decided to align itself with terrorists who hate America. It seems CCR and its supporters believe that Islamic Fascist terrorists are freedom fighters and spokesmen for legitimate national liberation movements. After the Soviet Union collapsed around 1991 under the weight of 70 years of failed socialist policies, CCR “made a seamless transition from an alliance with Communism to an alliance with Islamofascism in the name of the United States Constitution,” in the words last year of the Power Line blog.
CCR has enjoyed much success in its legal fight against the U.S. government’s War on Terror, most notably in Rasul v. Bush in which the firm was counsel. (It filed “amicus curiae” briefs in other WOT cases as well.) Rasul is the infamous 2004 case in which the Supreme Court ruled (6 to 3) that CCR’s clients, 16 foreign nationals captured during U.S. hostilities with the Taliban in Afghanistan, had the legal right to challenge their detentions in U.S. civilian courts.
Some people might ask ‘well, what’s the big deal?’ Why can’t we try terrorists in civilian courts?’ Well, there are some problems with that.
Read the whole thing.
Discover the Networks has much more info on this group:
The Center for Constitutional Rights was co-founded in November 1966 by the radical attorneys Morton Stavis, Ben Smith, Arthur Kinoy, and William Kunstler, longtime members of the Communist and radical left. Prior to forming the Center, Kinoy and Kuntsler circulated a lengthy memo calling for the creation of a “new Communist Party,” which did not materialize.
Among the most passionate crusades of Kinoy’s legal career was his bid to save the lives of the convicted spies Julius and Ethel Rosenberg in 1953. He took similar pride in his heralded 1972 victory when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the government was obliged to obtain a warrant for telephone tapping, even in cases where national security was at stake.
…more…
At its 2004 annual convention, the CCR honored attorney Lynne Stewart, an open supporter of terrorism, indicted by the Justice Department for abetting the terrorist activities of her client, the “blind sheik,” Omar Abdel Rahman. In April 2002 Stewart was indicted on charges that she had illegally “facilitated and concealed communications” between the incarcerated Sheik and members of his Egyptian terrorist organization, the Islamic Group, which has ties to al Qaeda.
» Filed Under 1st Amendment, ACLU, News, War On Terror
Trackback URL
Comments
9 Responses to “Worse Than The ACLU?”
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Advertise
Donate
Steal Me
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
Aw c’mon already. Suspected terrorists deserve competent legal counsel. If we’re not going to give them a fair day in some court, somewhere, let’s just shoot them and get it over with.
Well, if you read the entire thing…it isn’t arguing that. It is arguing against using U.S. Courts.
Sorry, Jay. It’s been a long weekend and I’m tired, so my comment wasn’t very eloquent. I was just venting my frustration with all of the ad hominem attacks.
C’mon… representing suspected terrorists doesn’t make them “pro-terrorist”. While I know nothing about this organization (and I suspect few people here knew about them either until today), I think it is quite likely that they are simply pro-Constitution.
It used to be considered a noble thing to defend an important principle, even if the short-term outcome was undesirable.
I’m not so sure it is the “principles” this organization is defending. From what I am reading about them, I don’t feel much sympathy.
Lynn Stewart is traitorous scum. Defending someone’s “rights” and lying about them to get them off the hook for their crimes are too different things.
I’m not familiar with the case. Was she convicted of anything?
Even if we assume she is “traitorous scum”, you can’t apply that label to the whole organization simply because of the act(s) of a member of that organization.
Foley is a pervert, but I would be a fool to assume that a significant portion of the other Republicans are too.
They certainly are, but you’re alleging a severe ethical violation. Do you have any evidence of such?
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/02/10/terror.trial.lawyer/
This will get you started.
Ok, so Lynn and her two assistants are officially scum. You have a long way to go before you can prove the organization itself is on a “dangerous mission.”
Right now, the only thing I see is that they are a politically active non-profit legal team that disagrees with you.
A work by Jean-Jacques Rousseau was actually one of the two works cited by Board of Visitors at the University of Virginian in March 4, 1825 as the basis of the U.S. Declaration and The U.S. Constitution. The other was John Locke’s. I mention the Board of Visitor because it is one on Thomas Jefferson’s papers and he was intimately involved with the University until his death a year later.
Marx actually disagreed with Rousseau and Locke on the right to property and probably on other things as their basic ideas actually seem opposed.
Here is the clause we are speaking of.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”
Is the football teem Congress or even the federal government? The answer is no so we have already in territory untouched by the first Amendment so violating it is really not the question.
If you are going to lie to apply the First Amendment in the first place then what is going to stop you from lying again to achieve whatever gain you are after.
So why argue about a point that is very plain. The ACLU and anyone else attacking religions on public property is a liar.
If they attack legislation passed by Congress that they believe supports and establishment of religion then we possibly have an honest debate.