Kenders' Musings

Via ACLU

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 suprising.

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.