The graphic is adapted from a cartoon by the brilliant John Sherffius.

The line comes from Mike.

I might get one of these made up.

Update: I might substitute another line (not mine, either): “That’s okay - I wasn’t using my civil rights, anyway.”

(Cross-posted at Vagabond Scholar)

Dear ACLU Supporter,

We just got some exciting news that I wanted to share with you right away.

As you know, the ACLU has long worked to promote equality and to eliminate all forms of discrimination including laws that try to tell people how to live their lives and who to love. And today, in a strong and well-reasoned decision, the California Supreme Court made one of the most significant decisions ever in the struggle for gay equality.

(more…)

These people never cease to amaze me. Rush Limbaugh, not a defender of the ACLU, was all too glad to have the group come to his defense when it suited his needs. Now Craig is doing it. Standard IOKIAR (It’s OK If You-re A Republican) bullshit line of thinking.

But the in-your-face hypocrisy is only half the story. How does having the charges dropped on a free’speech technicality remove the stain of “gay bathroom sex” from Sen. Craig? Will the NASCAR crowd simply forget about it? I don’t think so.

Craig to claim sex sting arrest unconstitutional

ACLU agrees, says senator’s foot-tapping in stall was protected speech
ST. PAUL, Minn. - Idaho Sen. Larry Craig will argue before an appeals court that Minnesota’s disorderly conduct law is unconstitutional as it applies to his conviction in a bathroom sex sting, according to a new court filing.

This is the first time Craig’s attorneys have raised that issue. However, an earlier friend-of-the-court filing by the American Civil Liberties Union argued that Craig’s foot-tapping and hand gesture under a stall divider at the Minneapolis airport are protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech.

Craig has been trying to withdraw his August guilty plea to disorderly conduct. A judge turned him down earlier this month, and now Craig is taking his request to the state Court of Appeals. The conservative Republican at one point said he would resign from the U.S. Senate but now says he will finish his term, which ends in January 2009.

Associated Press

MSNBC.com

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.”

The ACLU last week asked the court to explain publicly the need to revamp laws that expand the government’s authority to spy on foreigners. The request was prompted by Congress’ approval earlier this month of legislation updating the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to allow the government to eavesdrop on terror suspects who are believed to be foreigners without first getting a court warrant.

The overhaul, according to House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, was the result of the court’s ruling in January to bring the program under its authority - effectively banning eavesdropping on foreigners when their messages were routed through communications carriers based in the United States.

More at USAToday

By Brad Knickerbocker
The Christian Science Monitor

Ashland, Ore. - It’s hard - often impossible - to prove that secret government wiretapping in the name of national security is violating one’s privacy rights. The evidence itself usually is top secret.

But one rather obscure case could pull back the veil on a surveillance program that’s at the heart of the US fight against terror. In the federal appeals court in San Francisco Wednesday, lawyers for a Saudi charity accused of helping Al Qaeda will argue that their clients, including two American attorneys, were illegally spied on without the required court warrant.

How do they know? Treasury Department officials inadvertently provided them with National Security Agency (NSA) call logs stamped “top secret.”

By the time federal agents had retrieved the logs of recorded calls six weeks later, the information had been shared with five other lawyers, two officials of the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation’s US branch in southern Oregon, and a reporter with The Washington Post.

Because the government took back copies of the call logs, federal judges at the district-court level agreed to let those who saw them rely on their memory of what they saw as evidence. The judges also said that they have “standing” in federal courts - that they have enough of a case to sue the federal government.

If the appeals court agrees with the lower court, the US Supreme Court is likely to become involved. The case could have broader significance as well since it deals with presidential power during wartime.

read more HERE

The Honorable Alberto Gonzales
Attorney General
United States Department of Justice
Washington, DC 20530-0001

Dear Mr. Attorney General:

Today, my staff was briefed by the Justice Department regarding guidelines to institute the new foreign to domestic wiretapping authority Congress granted to you this month by The Protect America Act.

Regrettably, my colleagues reported that they learned virtually nothing new about how you intend to use the broad new authority to intercept emails and phone calls when one party is in the U.S., or how those U.S. people will be protected from unwarranted government intrusion. With so much at stake, the public needs to have a fuller understanding of what its Justice Department will be doing with its most private communications.

(more…)