ACLU Claims Victory: Attorneys Not Required to Sign Terrorism Oaths
Posted on September 13, 2006
Today, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that attorneys seeking to represent indigent clients are no longer required to sign documents swearing that they are not terrorists and have no involvement with terrorist groups. The American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio had challenged the provision, which is part of the Ohio Patriot Act, calling the requirement unnecessary red tape that will do nothing to prevent terrorism.
“We are pleased the court recognized that attorneys should not be forced to sign these ineffective and offensive pledges,” said ACLU of Ohio Executive Director Christine Link. “The Ohio Patriot Act is an assault on the fundamental liberties of all Ohioans. Hopefully, this decision is a stepping stone to reining in this overreaching and flawed law.”
I have only one question here. Why does the ACLU of Ohio have a problem giving an oath that they are not terrorists and are not involved with terrorist groups? What the law is attempting to do is ensure people have not supported terrorist organizations.
The law requires applicants under final consideration for a government job, contract or license to complete and sign questionnaires to determine if they have supported organizations on a federal list of terrorists.
Actually this isn’t surprising.
In October of 2004, the ACLU turned down $1.15 million in funding from the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations because they objected to promising that none of the funds would be used to engage in any activity that promotes violence, terrorism, bigotry, or the destruction of any state. They got the provision scrapped after a long and vigorous fight, then accepted the funds.
The American Civil Liberties Union and 12 other national non-profit organizations today said they have successfully challenged Office of Personnel Management’s Combined Federal Campaign (CFC) requirements that all participating charities check their employees and expenditures against several government watch lists for “terrorist activities” and that organizations certify that they do not contribute funds to organizations on those lists.
So what was it in this that the ACLU objected to? Here’s what the CFC letter said.
“I certify that as of (date), the organization in this application does not knowingly employ individuals or contribute funds to organizations found on the following terrorist related lists promulgated by the U.S. Government, the United Nations, or the European Union. Presently these lists include the Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control Specially Designated Nationals List, the Department of Justice’s Terrorist Exclusion List, and the list annexed to Executive Order 13224. Should any change of circumstances occur during the year OPM will be notified within 15 days of such change.”
Obviously the ACLU had a problem ensuring the exlusion of terrorists from its funds and employment. What a shame.
It isn’t difficult to understand why the ACLU would object to such terms, after all they have defended numerous terrorists, including an individual that participated in a 15-year conspiracy to finance the group Hamas, laundering millions of dollars, some of which went to buy weapons. With the help of CAIR, they also defended an admitted agent of Al Qaeda that has confessed to attending jihad camps in Afghanistan, and is being charged with lying to the FBI about his terror ties and activities. Palestinian terrorists have also found a friend in the ACLU.
I don’t see what the problem is. The State doesn’t want its money going to individuals that might support terror. What problem does the ACLU have with not supporting terror? Why don’t they just come out and say that they do support it? What is absurd is that no one is investigating the ACLU for terror ties. Start out with one or two of its employees, and go from there.
Clayton Cramer is on the same page with me.
Aren’t you glad that the ACLU is concerned about eliminating unnecessary paperwork? (For the first time in history, I think.) Yup, it’s “offensive” to say that you aren’t a terrorist or working for a terrorist organization. Why, someone might think that you are against cutting a conscious person’s head off with a knife, or murdering school children. We certainly can’t have that!
This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay at Jay@stoptheaclu.com or Gribbit at GribbitR@gmail.com. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 200 blogs already onboard.
» Filed Under ACLU, News, War On Terror
Trackback URL
Comments
12 Responses to “ACLU Claims Victory: Attorneys Not Required to Sign Terrorism Oaths”
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
I am not familiar enough with Ohio state laws or their Constitution to know whether or not the ruling stuck to the rule of law. It does smell as people take oaths all the time including the constitution oath swore by most if not members of federal and state governments that could be considered to be “ineffective and offensive” by some as most everyone seem to put politics over adhering to the U.S. Constitution.
“Why does the ACLU of Ohio have a problem giving an oath that they are not terrorists and are not involved with terrorist groups?”
Because they may have to defend a terrorism suspect in order to argue a civil liberties issue. It’s quite obvious once you realize the role that precedent takes in our law, and how precedent making litigation is done.
I guess Jay and Kerwin wouldn’t have seen any problem with the “loyalty oaths” enacted during McCarthy’s communist witch hunt either.
I guess Jay and Kerwin wouldn’t have seen any problem with the “loyalty oaths” enacted during McCarthy’s communist witch hunt either.
I can’t speak for Jay and Kerwin but I wouldn’t have.
McCarthy was right. The government knew it and the Communists knew it.
Liberals just won’t recognize or admit it.
I have a list of 45 Communist goals to subvert the constitution and U.S. sovereignty. One of those listed is…
13. Do away with all loyalty oaths.
#4. of linked article– Dr. Albert Eason Monroe, executive director of the Southern California Chapter of the ACLU:
In 1952, Dr. Albert Eason Monroe, U.S. Navy serial No. 316900, was discharged from the U.S. Naval Reserve under conditions other than honorable.
In 1950, Dr. Monroe was fired from his position as head of the English department of San Francisco college for refusing to sign a loyalty oath. (The purpose of loyalty oaths is to protect the unsuspecting individual from lending his name to a Communist cause and from becoming a Communist dupe. The requirements of loyalty oaths have multiplied the obstacles to the Communists in recruiting memberships for their front organizations and maintaining discipline over fellow travelers in Government service. Few people will swear to an oath knowing it to be false and knowing that they might be liable to indictment and imprisonment for perjury. This requirement places a most difficult hurdle in front of the Communists attempting to ensnare an unsuspecting recruit into their conspiracy.)
In 1953, Dr. Albert Eason Monroe was listed as being chairman of the Federation for Repeal of the Levering Act (ie., loyalty oaths), which was cited as being a Communist front organization by the California State Senate Committee on Education in its 1952 report to the State legislature.
http://www.geocities.com/graymada/aclu.html
In 1965 Committee R of the Georgia Conference of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) formed to challenge the constitutionality of Georgia’s loyalty oaths and security questionnaire. Members included: George Wheeler, president of the Georgia Conference of the AAUP and professor at Oglethorpe University; Ralf Munster and Jon Johnston, professors at Georgia State University; David Broiles and James L. Green, professors at University of Georgia; and Don E. Gerlock, professor at Valdosta State University. Parties allied with the Georgia Conference in the court case included the AAUP and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The legal counsel obtained was headed by Emmet Bondurant and assisted by Hugh Gibert and D. Mead Field.
http://www.library.gatech.edu/archives/FindingAids/?/MS033/full
On June 1, 1964, the United States Supreme Court strikes down Washington laws requiring state employees to take loyalty oaths. The loyalty oath statutes are challenged by more than 60 faculty members, staff, and students of the University of Washington in a case organized by the Washington chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
http://www.historylink.org/essays/output.cfm?file_id=5200
During the 1950s, the ACLU focused on loyalty-security oaths and the struggle against McCarthyism. In one ACLU case, the Illinois Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the “Broyles Test Oath,” which required state employees to vow that they were not members of an organization advocating the overthrow of the government. In another, however, the Illinois Supreme Court agreed with the ACLU that a law requiring loyalty oaths for public housing tenants was unconstitutional.
http://www.aclu-il.org/aboutus/history.shtml
Whether the First and 14th Amendments are violated by Indiana’s requirement, that “[n]o existing or newly-organized political party or organization shall be permitted on or to have the names of its candidates printed on the ballot used at any election until it has filed an affidavit, by its officers, under oath, that it does not advocate the overthrow of local, state or national government by force or violence . . .”
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/faclibrary/case.aspx?case=Communist_Party_of_Indiana_v_Whitcomb
A bold move for the WSCP occurred when Party member Milford A. Sutherland decided in 1964 to run for governor of Washington State. While not open about his Communist Party affiliation, Sutherland’s platform included the full range of Party positions, and The People’s World vigorously supported him. The newspaper touted his opposition to the loyalty oath and his challenge to repeal the McCarran Act. Sutherland called for the defeat of the “ultra-right,” for more jobs, for an end to the war in Vietnam, for free elections in the states of Mississippi and Washington, and, finally, for separation of the state from the military,
http://faculty.washington.edu/gregoryj/cpproject/landis.htm
loboinok,
Do you really believe that a list of communist goals compiled by an FBI agent working under J. Edgar Hoover proves your point?
camanintx,
You base your “McCarthy’s communist witch hunt” statement on…?
I think where such a document may be very useful is when we find a Lynne Stewart type scumbag or otherwise has history of aiding and abetting terrorists and their organizations. Having signed such a false affidavit, they could be prosecuted and imprisoned for perjury, which might take them out of circulation for awhile. I think fear of that is why the ACLU is fighting this hard, and is why I think such affidavits are a good thing.
Didn’t Senator McCarthy and the Government Operations Committee label people subversives and communist sympathizers based on false evidence and hearsay? In your post above, you imply that Dr. Albert Eason Monroe was a communist because he was chairman of the Federation for Repeal of the Levering Act (i.e. loyalty oaths). While it may be true that communists were opposed to loyalty oaths, you cannot argue that anyone opposed to loyalty oaths are communists. That certainly sounds like a witch hunt to me.
Jay, if a lawyer did want to commit a terrorist act or even just abet one, do you think a silly little piece of paper would stop them? One of the bedrocks of our legal system is that everyone, no matter how reviled, is entitled to representation. How can a lawyer provide adequate council when they are afraid that anything they say may be used against them later?
Don’t give me that bull. First of all, we have seen that the ACLU didn’t even want to check its clients on a terrorist list. They said, well if we don’t look at the list, then we can’t “knowingly” represent anyone. Pretty sly. They later recanted on even this. They have a problem knowingly representing a terrorist? Sorry, but that sounds like they are on the wrong side of the war.
And also, I didn’t say the piece of paper would stop them, but if they signed it they could be prosecuted and imprisoned for perjury when they break their oath. They can be held accountable.
Didn’t Senator McCarthy and the Government Operations Committee label people subversives and communist sympathizers based on false evidence and hearsay?
McCarthy never released the names of those he suspected.
He stated that there were (the numbers vary according to the sources)from 57 to 387 communists in the State Dept and other branches of government.
It was widely considered false until the revealing of the ‘Venona Project’ and the releasing of the Venona papers, which showed considerable communist infiltration of not only the State Dept but many others as well as the White House itself.
In your post above, you imply that Dr. Albert Eason Monroe was a communist because he was chairman of the Federation for Repeal of the Levering Act (i.e. loyalty oaths).
That paragraph was taken from the Congressional Record.
Extension of Remarks of Hon. John H. Rousselot of California In The House Of Representatives Wednesday, September 20, 1961.
Concerning Communist front groups.
Camanintx,
You do realize the U.S. Constitution requires that state and federal politicians take a loyalty oath. It is called the constitutional oath. If there was anything different about the McCarthy loyalty oath then please let me know what it was.
The best support for those communist goals being accurate as they are or have been put into action. All you need to do is read them and check up on them. I doubt you are open minded enough to do that.