Strange Bedfellows
What the ACLU and the NRA have in common
By Matt Larson | 8.4.03
“You’ve got the NAACP working with the ACLU working with the NRA.”
source: http://www.inthesetimes.com/comments.php?id=303_0_2_0_C
source: http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/strange_bedfellows/
--------------------------------------------------------
Strange Bedfellows? ACLU Supports Rush Limbaugh
By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Morning Editor
January 12, 2004
(CNSNews.com) - The American Civil Liberties Union, often at odds with conservative radio commentator Rush Limbaugh, has asked a court for permission to file a friend-of-the-court brief in support of Limbaugh's medical privacy rights, the ACLU announced on Monday.
"While this case involves the right of Rush Limbaugh to maintain the privacy of his medical records, the precedent set in this case will impact the security of medical records and the privacy of the doctor-patient relationship of every person in Florida," said Howard Simon, executive director of the ACLU of Florida, in a statement on the ACLU's website.
"For many people, it may seem odd that the ACLU has come to the defense of Rush Limbaugh," Simon added. "But we have always said that the ACLU's real client is the Bill of Rights and we will continue to safeguard the values of equality, fairness and privacy for everyone, regardless of race, economic status or political point of view."
Simon noted that the ACLU has defended the rights of every group on the political spectrum - "from anti-war protesters and Oliver North to church-state separation activists and Jerry Falwell."
Investigators in Florida seized Limbaugh's medical records in November, as part of their probe into his admitted addiction to painkillers. Limbaugh's attorney Roy Black argued that seizure of those medical records violated Limbaugh's privacy rights:
"Rush Limbaugh has been singled out for special prosecution because of who he is," Black said in a written statement given to The Palm Beach Post.
Black accused prosecutors of applying a double-standard to Limbaugh - unfairly targeting him, the drug buyer, rather than focusing those who sell the drug illegally.
In the motion filed Monday, the ACLU said its interest in the Limbaugh case was "to vindicate every Floridian's fundamental right to privacy by ensuring that the state be required to comply" with the law.
Because of heightened concerns about medical privacy, the Florida Legislature requires law enforcement officers to notify the person whose medical records they want to see, giving that person the opportunity to object before the subpoena is issued and before the records are seized.
"The legislature has enacted procedures that carefully balance the interests of law enforcement against the right of every citizen to maintain the privacy of their communications with their physician," said Ft. Lauderdale attorney Jon May, who is serving as counsel for the ACLU.
But in Limbaugh's case, the ACLU said the State Attorney has circumvented the will of the Legislature. "If the state can do this to Rush Limbaugh, then the privacy rights of every citizen in Florida are in jeopardy," the ACLU's statement said.
Limbaugh spent five weeks at a rehabilitation center last year, after telling his radio listeners that he had developed a years-long addiction to painkillers.
On its website, the ACLU emphasized the need for a better approach to drug control. Criminal prosecutions are the government's primary weapons to stamp out illicit drugs in the "War on Drugs," the ACLU said.
However, the ACLU says that "War on Drugs" has led to a dramatic increase in the nation's prison population, while doing little to curb the drug trade. According to the ACLU, there are better ways, other than criminal prosecution and incarceration, to address drug abuse.
"Limbaugh's case demonstrates that the 'War on Drugs' is not working," said Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union.
"This case provides a stark example of how the government chooses to prosecute non-violent drug offenses, rather than provide treatment for drug users."
----------------------------------------------
Florida court: Rush Limbaugh's medical records properly seized
By Jill Barton ASSOCIATED PRESS
1:16 p.m. October 6, 2004
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. – A Florida appeals court ruled Wednesday that prosecutors did not violate Rush Limbaugh's privacy rights when they paid a surprise visit to his doctors and seized his medical records for an investigation into his use of painkillers.
Investigators raided the doctors' offices last November to see if the conservative radio commentator had engaged in "doctor shopping," or illegally visiting several doctors to receive duplicate prescriptions.
Limbaugh, 53, has not been charged with a crime and the investigation had been at a standstill pending a decision on the medical records, which prosecutors have not yet been allowed to examine.
The 4th District Court of Appeal rejected Limbaugh's claim that his privacy rights trumped investigators' power to seize his records, and also said prosecutors did not have to notify him of their search warrants or give him an opportunity to challenge them.
"The state's authority to seize such records by a validly issued search warrant is not affected by any right of privacy in such records," the three-judge panel ruled.
Limbaugh's attorney said he will appeal.
"This was a fishing expedition from the outset to see if there was anything they could find to charge me with," Limbaugh said on his afternoon radio show. "There was no doctor-shopping, but it was my contention all along that I shouldn't have to give up my right to privacy to prove my innocence. That's not the way it works in this country."
He also said: "The issue here goes beyond me, actually. It goes to the privacy of everyone's medical records."
Prosecutors went after Limbaugh's medical records after learning that he received about 2,000 painkillers, prescribed by four doctors in six months, at a pharmacy near his Palm Beach mansion.
Limbaugh admitted his addiction to pain medication last October, saying it stemmed from severe back pain. He took a five-week leave from his afternoon radio show to enter a rehab program.
State Attorney Barry Krischer, a Democrat accused by Limbaugh of pursuing him for political reasons, said the ruling will allow the case to move forward.
"This office did not violate any of Mr. Limbaugh's rights, constitutional or statutory, but to the contrary acted in accord with Florida law," Krischer said.
Limbaugh was supported by an unlikely ally – the American Civil Liberties Union. Randall Marshall, legal director for the Florida ACLU, said Wednesday's decision threatens the privacy rights of all Floridians.
If the ruling stands, Marshall said, "you would never have an opportunity to try and limit the information that police can go through."
On the Net:
Rush Limbaugh: www.rushlimbaugh.com
Florida 4th District Court of Appeal: www.4dca.org
source:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/20041006-1316-limbaugh-painkillers.html
----------------------------------------
ACLU Disappointed by Court of Appeals Decision Upholding Seizure of Medical Records in Rush Limbaugh Case
October 6, 2004
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Ruling Affects Medical Privacy of Millions of Florida Residents
MIAMI - The American Civil Liberties Union of Florida today said that it is disappointed by a state appeals court ruling that state law enforcement officers properly confiscated Rush Limbaugh’s medical records as part of a criminal investigation involving alleged "doctor-shopping."
"Rush Limbaugh’s celebrity status is secondary to the fundamental privacy issues that arise in this case," said ACLU of Florida Legal Director Randall Marshall. "What’s at stake here is the medical privacy of millions of people in Florida and the need to protect people against unnecessary government intrusion into their medical records."
In a 2-1 decision issued today, the Fourth District Court of Appeal ruled that: "… the constitutional right of privacy in medical records is not implicated by the State's seizure and review of medical records under a valid search warrant without prior notice or hearing."
"We are disappointed the court failed to recognize the importance of protecting the intensely private information that is contained in medical records," said John May, who is lead counsel on behalf of the ACLU. "We intend to do everything we can to vigorously argue in favor of strengthening privacy protections for every person in Florida."
In February, the ACLU of Florida filed a friend-of-the-court brief in partial support of the conservative radio commentator, arguing that law enforcement officers violated state law by using the more intrusive search warrant process to seize Limbaugh’s medical records, rather than by obtaining a subpoena through the proper procedures outlined Florida Statute § 395.3025. The state statute requires law enforcement officers to notify the person whose medical records they seek to obtain and to give that person the opportunity to object before the records are seized.
The law also gives a judge the authority to release only the information that is necessary for the investigation and to control the use or dissemination of those records. The statute was passed by the Florida Legislature to specifically address heightened concerns about medical privacy.
"Regardless of which law enforcement tools are used - whether a subpoena or a search warrant - safeguards must be put in place to justify giving the state access to the intensely personal information contained in medical records," Marshall said.
source: http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=16665&c=27
---------------------------------------------------------------
Posted on Fri, Sep. 24, 2004
VOICES | DORIS WALLACE
Liberals helped country become great
EDITOR'S NOTE: The writer, who lives in Alexander County, is a retired high school English teacher and a volunteer for Habitat for Humanity.
During the decade beginning with the advent of George Bush Sr. and radio commentator Rush Limbaugh, a deliberate campaign turned the positive word liberal into a possibly dangerous and seditious "L-word" -- and the smear campaign worked, a strategy that introduced destructive divisiveness in American politics.
Today we notice current Democratic candidates shy away from using the term, preferring the more centrist term progressive.
The primary dictionary definition of liberal is "favorable to progress or reform" and characterizes a liberal as being tolerant, generous and respectful of deliberation and diplomacy. But dangerous? As I listen to talk radio, one would think liberalism will lead our nation down the road to doom and destruction.
Liberal has traditionally been assigned to Democrats, but all political parties have been known to claim its characteristics.
On the other hand conservative, usually assigned to Republicans, is defined as "tending to preserve established traditions and methods, maintaining the status quo."
Again, all parties can claim to be conservative, such as promoting fiscal conservatism. So there are crossovers, for sure.
In general, conservatives look for the ideal society in the past, whereas liberals look to the future. Therefore, progress is a liberal idea, whereas the good old days are conservative.
Historically, liberals have provided a political tradition that has helped bring our country to greatness. Our great country was founded for religious freedom; liberalism is the basis for religious freedom. During our American Revolution, George Washington took the liberal path in establishing the presidency instead of a monarchy -- a path emulated in other countries as they overthrew their oppressive governments.
Liberal Thomas Jefferson defied English rule as he wrote the Declaration of Independence and promoted separation of church and state in his "Virginia Statue of Religious Freedom."
Liberal Franklin Roosevelt saved us from the Depression by innovative government programs. In our early history, liberals sacrificed their lives to outlaw slavery, allow women to vote and end racial segregation -- all major challenges to the status quo.
Liberal programs in the 20th century also include the Peace Corps, Head Start, antitrust laws and environmental protection laws.
Our presidential candidate John Kerry and vice-presidential candidate John Edwards are now described has having the most liberal voting records in Congress. Well, thumbs up.
As he demonized the Democratic liberals, George Bush Sr. ridiculed the American Civil Liberties Union, whose sole purpose is the protection of our Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Ironically, the ACLU defended Rush Limbaugh's private medical records from public scrutiny during the investigation into allegations that he illegally used drugs -- and he continues to label the ACLU with the L-word. Today many are proud to be "card-carrying members of the ACLU."
Normally, the Republican conservatives insist on fiscal responsibility, while the Democratic liberals are labeled "tax and spend." Those tables flipped over when President Clinton -- a centrist Democrat -- actually balanced the federal budget.
Just over three years later, under a conservative administration, we have plunged to a $450 billion dollar deficit, and Congress is raiding the Social Security surpluses like dipping into a candy jar. Vice President Cheney has said, "deficits don't matter."
Normally, the Republican conservatives favor smaller government, but this administration has intruded in the private lives of women, restricting access to abortion, reproductive education and birth control products.
Currently, our government seeks to limit civil rights for domestic partners in nontraditional families. Our current administration has grown larger than ever.
For example, President Bush has promised to reverse Roe v. Wade to outlaw all abortions. As a congressman, Vice President Cheney opposed abortion, even in cases of rape or incest. He voted against Head Start, subsidizing school lunches for poor children, as well as programs that offer services to the elderly. In 2002 the Republicans ran on a "compassionate conservatism" platform. Compassionate?
To quote Joe Conason, journalist and author: "If your workplace is safe, if your children go to school rather than being forced into child labor, if you are paid a living wage -- including overtime, if you enjoy a 40-hour work week, and you are allowed to join a union to protect your rights -- you can thank liberals.
"If your parents are eligible for Medicare and Social Security, so they can grow old in dignity without bankrupting your family, you can thank liberals. If our rivers are getting cleaner and our air isn't black with pollution, if our wilderness is protected and our countryside is still green, you can thank liberals. If people of all races can share the same public facilities, if everyone has the right to vote, you can thank liberals."
Bill Moyers defines a liberal as "one who believes in public action for the public good." The essence of liberalism is inclusiveness. Traditionally, Democrats care for everyman, including Christian and Muslim, rich or poor, male or female, to make our Earth the kind of place we want to pass on to our grandchildren.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Voices is a column of opinion or stories from members of the Community.
source: http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/news/local/states/north_carolina/counties/catawba/9746381.htm
The ACLU: On the march again
In a nation under duress, the civil rights organization flexes new muscles in its quest to press a widening legal agenda
Sunday, July 11, 2004
David Sarasohn
SAN FRANCISCO --
A strong sponsor of the Patriot Act limits was the conservative, cowboy-booted Rep. Butch Otter, R-Idaho, who was featured on a film loop outside the ACLU meeting room.
On one morning's panel, the NRA's LaPierre warned about immediate threats to the Constitution.
"When you start talking about putting people on a terrorist watch list, and then start talking about depriving them of their rights without due process of law," he declared, "you might as well tear up the Constitution of the United States."
And then 2,000 members of the ACLU, with their backpacks and their McCarthyism memories, loudly applauded the executive vice president of the National Rifle Association.
Almost as striking was the warm introduction Romero gave LaPierre, noting he had increased NRA membership to more than 4 million and was widely considered the most influential lobbyist in Washington. It seemed LaPierre might be not just a partial ally, but also a partial role model.
source: http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/david_sarasohn/index.ssf?/base/editorial/10894610623820.xml
Religious Liberty
Americans enjoy a degree of religious freedom unknown in most of the rest of the world, and they take full advantage it: the United States is home to more than 1,500 different religious bodies and 360,000 churches, synagogues and mosques.
The right of each and every American to practice his or her own religion, or no religion at all, is among the most fundamental of the freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. The Constitution's framers understood very well that religious liberty can flourish only if the government leaves religion alone. The free exercise clause of the First Amendment guarantees the right to practice one's religion free of government interference. The establishment clause requires the separation of church and state. Combined, they ensure religious liberty. Yet assaults on the freedom to believe continue, both in Washington and in state legislatures around the country.
The ACLU will continue working to ensure that religious liberty is protected by keeping the government out of the religion business. Use the resources on this page to learn more and take action to protect the rights guaranteed to all Americans by the Bill of Rights. Our latest news releases are listed to the left; actions you can take now are listed to the right, along with additional resources. The most recent religious liberty features are included directly below.
http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLibertyMain.cfm
Outcome stuns NRA, ACLU
By Mary Leonard, Globe Staff, 12/11/2003
WASHINGTON -- Political interest groups said they were stunned and disappointed that the US Supreme Court upheld restrictions on certain campaign-season advertising, and they vowed to find other outlets to exercise their First Amendment right to free speech.
"Prohibiting the use of TV and radio ads in the days and weeks right before an election will blindfold voters just as they are interested in learning about the candidates and the issues," said Thomas Donohue, president of the US Chamber of Commerce. "This decision is a disappointing step back toward less information, fewer options, and restricted speech."
The Chamber of Commerce was part of an unusual alignment of groups, from the AFL-CIO to the American Civil Liberties Union, petitioning the court to strike down the advertising ban in the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. Donohue said the chamber, the nation's largest business federation, would now turn to phone banks, direct mail, local candidate forums, and meetings to promote probusiness policies and candidates during the 2004 election.
By 5-4 majorities, the high court affirmed the law's bans on both political parties raising unregulated "soft money" and on corporations and unions using general treasury funds, as well as advocacy groups that get their support from businesses and unions, to buy broadcast ads that name or picture federal candidates within 30 days of a primary and 60 days of a general election.
The law aimed to eliminate so-called sham issue ads that target certain candidates close to an election and are paid with unregulated funds. It still allows advocacy advertising at any time in the campaign as long as political action committees pay for it. Such committees may collect individual donations limited to $5,000 per election cycle and must register and disclose contributors to the Federal Election Commission.
Larry Noble, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, a campaign-finance watchdog group, said the court majority put Congress's concerns about corruption ahead of the interest groups' free-speech argument.
"It was a sweeping decision. The court really looked at what what was going on in the political world and thought Congress had the authority to rein in so-called issue ads that were really campaign ads," Noble said.
Noble said "a tremendous amount of room" remains for advocacy groups to get their messages out. They also can advertise on issues at any point in an election cycle, as long as they do not name or picture a candidate.
"The reality is that with the banning of soft money to the parties, we already are seeing a lot of that money to go to so-called issue groups, and they are benefiting from it," he said.
The AFL-CIO, whose general counsel argued the case before the high court, was studying the decision yesterday to see what impact it would have on its $35 million election mobilization in 2004, said Karen Ackerman, the federation's political director. Ackerman called the ruling disappointing and said "it strikes at the right of union members to be engaged in the political process and make their voices heard."
The National Rifle Association will not be stopped by the Supreme Court, Congress, or the "Washington elite" from getting the truth to the public, Wayne LaPierre, the NRA's executive vice president, pledged yesterday.
He said the NRA will expand its news operation, which includes a monthly magazine and Internet newscasts, to become a "media outlet" to get around the advertising ban. The NRA spent an estimated $20 million to inform voters and influence the outcome of campaigns in 2000.
"The politicians may not like to be criticized with TV and radio ads, but ultimately they are not going to be able to pull off silencing us," LaPierre said. "The 4 million members of the NRA will be heard."
The ACLU never endorses candidates, but now it risks criminal prosecution if it broadcasts an ad about candidates' positions on civil liberties issues, said Anthony D. Romero, the ACLU's executive director.
"This notion that the government can tell an organization like the ACLU when and how it should address important civil liberties issues is a form of censorship masquerading as campaign-finance reform," said Romero, who called the Supreme Court action "extremely disappointing."
Jan LaRue, chief counsel of Concerned Women for America, an advocacy group for social conservatives, called the ruling "amazing" and "aberrant." "The very kind of speech that the First Amendment was meant to protect has less protection than pornography," LaRue said. "This is going to make a lot of lawyers really rich, because every effort will be made to find loopholes, to do whatever you can to get around it."
Legal analysts agreed yesterday that the Supreme Court's sharply divided opinion was not the last word on the campaign-finance law.
"Saying the statute, as written, was largely constitutional does not mean that as applied, it will never infringe on people's rights," said Cassandra F. Lentchner, who practices election law with the Washington firm of Perkins Coie LLP.
source: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/12/11/outcome_stuns_nra_aclu/
----------------------
google - brownwood tulia texas aclu
[PDF] House Judicial Affairs Committee The Committee’s Oversight of ...
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
... of Texans, particularly the people of Tulia and other ... For one example, the ACLU,
with local concerned ... investigating a rash of hate crime in Brownwood, Texas. ...
archive.aclu.org/news/2002/harrell_statement.pdf - Similar pages
[PDF] Why, after Tulia, Texas should re-think its Big Government ...
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
... ACLU of Texas * Too Far Off Task * December 2002 6 ... in Floresville shows Tom Coleman
and Tulia were not ... In Brownwood, 10 cases were dismissed in 2001 because an ...
www.aclutx.org/news/NarcoticsTaskForceReport.pdf - Similar pages
2003 Legislative Fact Sheet
... In Tulia and Dallas, long term undercover operations sent innocent people ... In Brownwood,
10 cases were dismissed in 2001 because an undercover ... ACLU of Texas, Inc ...
www.aclutx.org/projects/police/ legislature/undercovercorroboration.htm - 11k - Supplemental Result - Cached - Similar pages
Drug Money
... probe of Coleman's actions and last summer's arrests in Tulia, the ACLU also is
pushing for federal probes of the task force actions in Brownwood and Brady ...
www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n1638/a01.html?2423 - 45k - Cached - Similar pages
Drug Crazed, Part 2 of 2
... investigation of Coleman's actions and last summer's arrests in Tulia, the ACLU
also is ... for federal reviews of the task force actions in Brownwood and Brady ...
www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n1647/a05.html?2423 - 15k - Cached - Similar pages
Civic Organizations Directory of Texas
... American Civil Liberties Union The ACLU is our ...
texas.uscity.net/Civic_Organizations/ - 100k - Cached - Similar pages
The Baptist Standard, online newspaper for Texas Baptists
... New MAY Bible Study for Texas Lessons below! ...
www.baptiststandard.com/2000/4_24/pages/select1.html - 57k - Cached - Similar pages
In Agreement With
... In Brownwood, 10 cases were dismissed in 2001 because an ... Groups in Support: ACLU,
CDI, LULAC, NAACP, and TCJRC ... Who can forget Tulia, Texas, were 46 people were ...
www.txlulac.org/agreement.html - 101k - Cached - Similar pages
[PDF] A first look at the nation’s most comprehensive racial profiling ...
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
... February 2004 Prepared by Steward Research Group on behalf of the Texas Criminal
Justice Reform Coalition, the ACLU of Texas, NAACP of Texas, and Texas LULAC. ...
www.texaslulac.org/racialprofilingreport.pdf - Similar pages
dallasobserver.com | Drug Crazed | 2001-09-06
... accused of employing their own Tulia-like tactics ... such as Brady, Hearne, Caldwell,
Brownwood, Chambers County ... the epicenter of the narcotics problem in Texas. ...
www.dallasobserver.com/issues/2001-09-06/feature.html - 35k - Cached - Similar pages
