ACLU Catches Up On Impeachment

Bush photochopped on NixonOnly a couple of weeks after we analyzed the situation here and concluded that Dubya and Tricky Dick had more in common than just being dog owners, the ACLU figured it out and placed this full-page ad in the New York Times. Glad to see my membership money is going to something worthwhile.

Before you get all excited, it’s likely that any impeachment efforts will be derailed by the complexity of the FISA issues, the inherent Article II powers, and whether or not we’re at “war.” The legal waters are muddy enough that the Administration can make a plausible case that they thought everything was legal and avoid conviction. On the bright side, this might put the kibosh on any future warrantless domestic wiretapping.

Hat tip: I Am Not A Crook?

22 Comments
  1. The ACLU needs to spend its time on more important issues.

    Look at Canada and how “progressive” they are.

    What about legal public group sex in bars and nightclubs?

    How about the movement on in Canada and the US to drop the age of consent to any age?

    Where is the ACLU when you need them to support the real issues?

    The ACLU is incremental feeding small doses of perversion to the population over a period of time until we will not even recognize our own country and the principles it was founded on.

    Keep donating your money to those perverts if you want to. I do not believe they represent the morality of most Americans. They served their purpose at one time but have become totally radicalized on some issues that make most Americans want to puke.

  2. Julian,
    The ACLU does more good than bad and thus they get my money. This isn’t about progressivism, it’s about whether the Constitution will be allowed to mean anything for the duration of the “War on Terror.”

    the ACLU is on the right side of this one.

    Yours truly,
    Nick

    …sticking to my guns…

  3. Julian says:
    The ACLU is incremental feeding small doses of perversion to the population over a period of time until we will not even recognize our own country and the principles it was founded on.

    Wow, if you replaced “ACLU” in that paragraph with “Republicans” and “perversion” with “fascism” it would still sound good…

    Julian continues:
    I do not believe they represent the morality of most Americans.

    I would say that most Americans aren’t moral, but that’s just what I believe…

  4. Then again if something bizarre actually happened on this and Bush actually were impeached… think wbout who would “step up” to the Presidency. Yikes. Then again Cheney is claiming knowledge so maybe he’d go down too. Then again who would step up after that? :/ I’m not liking any of the scenarios.

  5. Just a general announcement that today I became a dues-paying member of the LP. Thanks to websites like this one, but mostly Bush. I’m not a party politics kind of person but I’m doing this because I see the possibility and desire for change. So, Stephen, I’ll be in Ohio (but in Columbus) fighting for the cause right along with you.

  6. Yeah, welcome aboard! We need everyone we can get to stop guys like Bush.

    “Then again who would step up after that? :/ I’m not liking any of the scenarios.”

    If Bush and Cheney were both evicted from office, the Presidency would fall to the senior Senator, which is Ted “Spend $250 Million On A Bridge To Nowhere” Stevens from Alaska. I’d prefer blatant theivery to a police state anyday, though, so it’d be a step up.

  7. The lesser or two evils. Ted Stevens who spends too much or Bush who is trying to do away with the Constitution? Take the high spender, at least we can vote him out. If Bush succeeds in changing the Constitution too much we might not be able to vote him out.

    Hmm, I thought I would never say that about a President.

  8. If Bush and Cheney were both evicted from office, the Presidency would fall to the senior Senator

    That is incorrect. The Presidency would fall to the Speaker of the House, which is Dennis Hassert. Ted Stevens would come after Hassert.

  9. And I do agree the ACLU does more good than bad–in fact, I’d go as far to say much more good than bad. I personally fail to see how any libertarian would think of the ACLU–on the whole–as a harmful organization to the libertarian cause.

    Now, it would be great if we could just get them on the correct side of the second amendment debate…

  10. “I personally fail to see how any libertarian would think of the ACLU–on the whole–as a harmful organization to the libertarian cause.”

    They’re on the wrong side of states’ rights, guns, school vouchers, and-if you’re a pro-life libertarian like me-abortion. Other than that they rule.

  11. Impeachment is a must. Bush must go, his attacks on people and the constitution are too much!

    Leaks, lies, torture and cover-ups. The ACLU is not the issue — the Bush-Cheney junta are!

  12. ACLU is nothing but American Talibans.They always fight for the rights of terrorists,people who are trying and wishing to destroy America and to fight against people of Christian faith.What else they are doing…?

    If you think any one who got hurt by this wiretaps,they are terrorists and people who try to do harm to innocents OF THIS COUNTRY.An example is Padilla,who confessed to blow up Brooklyn Bridge.Now Padillas lawyers and ACLU are trying to build the case,because Padilla’s rights were ignored,because government found about the truth by wire taps.
    SHAME ON YOU ACLU TRAITORS!!!!!!!!

    What was the real intention Bush!!!! To protect America from people like Padilla.

    May be I msy not agree with Bush in other things,But I respect his intention on this issue,Not only me but most of the Americans.Most polls (by rasmussenreports,zogby) show majority supports Bush atleast on this isse.

  13. Wow, people like John really scare me. But I guess it goes to show that people who can’t keep their facts straight — or be bothered with facts at all — are on both sides of the aisle.

    John, it was Iyman Faris who was convicted of providing material assistance to terrorists when he scouted New York bridges looking for ways to destroy them.

    Jose Padilla is another matter entirely.

  14. Stuart Richards

    You are correct about the ACLU. They are very selective on choosing their Constitutional rights fights. They have completely ignored the Second Amendment. I believe they have an agenda to disarm America.

    The ACLU also chooses some of the most bizarre cases. What about defending ordinary citizens as they did 50-60 years ago? I again say they have become radicalized toward the far left and are not even handed. They were at one time apolitical or at least portrayed an image of neutrality when it came to politics.

  15. The ACLU is very wishy-washy on the 2nd amendment, calling it a collective right.

    Ok, fine, you don’t like that, don’t give them your money. The ACLU taking a hands-off approach on that and letting other watch-dog organizations fill in isn’t so much a problem for me, since I don’t see them actively trying to beat down the 2nd amendment even further.

  16. Oh and John, after reading this statement by you:

    They always fight for the rights of terrorists,people who are trying and wishing to destroy America and to fight against people of Christian faith.

    I can honestly say you are part of the American Taliban. The ACLU does a damn good job of defending the first amendment. That is something I’m sure all libertarians can agree on.

  17. John, I would agree that using wiretaps to catch criminals is certainly something most Americans probably would agree is acceptable… however, the use of ILLEGAL wiretaps, one that allows the Executive Branch to wield sole decision making power over who uses those taps, on whom and for whatever purpose, is quite beyond what most of us expect.

    It’s one thing to allow government to have the tools to do the proper job of protecting its citizens (a rightful duty of government). It is another thing entirely to allow that government to do so without oversite, control or checks and balances. The only time is it acceptable to me to allow government to spy on citizens is whent he government lets us properly spy on it in return, to ensure it is using those powers properly. I’d highly reccomend checking out a book by David Brin, “The Transparent Society”, for a more reasonable approach to the otherwise invasive and intrusive approaches government seems to be taking liberties with these days.

%d bloggers like this: