Hey, ACLU! SUCK IT!

[The Question]

ACLU Tries, Fails To Stop Minutemen From Patrolling The Border.

Members of the Minutemen Civil Defense Corps can continue patrolling on state trust lands without permits because they've been invited by ranchers leasing the land and agreed to do ranch work, a state official said.


The decision ends an attempt by the American Civil Liberties Union to get Arizona to force the volunteer anti-illegal immigration activists off the land because they hadn't gotten state permission.

"They are authorized to be there under the terms of the lease," deputy state Land Commissioner Richard Hubbard said Tuesday. He said a state employee who had told the Minutemen members on Monday they needed permits was incorrect.

The group is carrying out a monthlong patrol south of Three Points on the private King's Anvil Ranch southwest of Tucson. Pat King, whose ranch includes some state trust land that she leases, said she has a contract with the Minutemen to monitor cattle, pick up trash and fix fences.

King is a supporter of the Minutemen and said the ACLU efforts were wrong.

"Those American Civil Liberties Union persons up there are not concerned about me at all," King said. "So they are not really the American Civil Liberties Union are they? Because they don't give a darn about what has happened to my constitutional rights to property."

The ACLU's Ray Ybarra said his group complained about the Minutemen to the state Land Department last week.

Ybarra and a group of volunteers have been monitoring the Minutemen since they began their patrol April 1. He said they have harassed his group by shining high-powered flashlights as they drive by.

Stacey O'Connell, Arizona chapter president of the Minutemen, accuses the ACLU of berating and harassing members of his group and of interfering with Border Patrol apprehensions.

This part bears repeating:

"Those American Civil Liberties Union persons up there are not concerned about me at all. So they are not really the American Civil Liberties Union are they? Because they don't give a darn about what has happened to my constitutional rights to property."

I'm pretty sure the reporter who wrote up the article paraphrased Ms. King -- I've never heard anyone outside the media use the word "persons" to describe a group of people she doesn't like. But whatever word she did use was more than justified -- the ACLU doesn't stand up for Americans' liberties. 9 times out of 10 it's standing up against someone's liberties.

 

[The Question]

You know, on re-reading this, I'm a little surprised. I think this is the first article I've seen on this issue that didn't have two or three instances of the "Inconvenience Defense."

You know, the one that usually amounts to, "Oh, they shouldn't have to obey the law, it's too much of a pain in the ass!"

 

[TJHairball]

Note the key point... the Minutemen were allowed to continue their activities without a special permit only because they're now claiming to be ranch hands. As we all know, that's not why they're really there.

But here is the key propaganda point:
"Because they don't give a darn about what has happened to my constitutional rights to property."

Myself, I'm not too impressed with this kind of ranch-handing. The ACLU is just as concerned about the proper respect for private property as any - unlike the Minutemen.

Note that this case isn't about private property at all; it's about state lands that ranchers are leasing permission to use.

The ACLU has been keeping a very close eye on the Minutemen, because it's worried the group will engage in illegal activity violating the rights of other people.

 

[The Question]

Note the key point... the Minutemen were allowed to continue their activities without a special permit only because they're now claiming to be ranch hands. As we all know, that's not why they're really there.

Doesn't matter if that's why they're really there or not. That's what the lease contracts specify, and they're holding up their end.

But here is the key propaganda point:
"Because they don't give a darn about what has happened to my constitutional rights to property."

Myself, I'm not too impressed with this kind of ranch-handing. The ACLU is just as concerned about the proper respect for private property as any - unlike the Minutemen.

Doubtful. What the ACLU seems most concerned with is finding any excuse to prevent the MCDC from doing what it has every right to do.

Note that this case isn't about private property at all; it's about state lands that ranchers are leasing permission to use.

Which, for legal purposes, makes it private property inasmuch as any other kind of leasee is extended private property rights and guarantees.

The ACLU has been keeping a very close eye on the Minutemen, because it's worried the group will engage in illegal activity violating the rights of other people.

And why take such a one-sided stance on illegal activity? Are ACLU staffers reporting illegal border crossings alongside the Minutemen? No, I don't think they are. Their interest has nothing to do with upholding the law.

 

[Eggs Mayonnaise]

So, the answer to something illegal is doing something else illegal just because in your opinion the other thing is more illegal? That's been the rationalization for some of the biggest doozies in American (and world) history.

 

[The Question]

Myself, I'm not too impressed with this kind of ranch-handing.

And I'm not too impressed with red herrings. Not to mention that this isn't even particularly damning even in its own right. I looked at the video from two different sources -- here's the other source, from Ray Ybarra (now where did we just read that name?) -- frame by frame. Nowhere did I see anything that looked remotely like a sign of private property. And when confronted by an asshole yelling obscenities and claiming that "this is Mexico, 1853", the Minutemen relocated to an area beyond the perimeter indicated by the asshole in question. The video also does not continue to include the Pima County Sheriff, nor is any further information regarding the video or the events which followed it provided at either source.

However, when given a chance to speak up in a more open and direct manner, well... watch Ray Ybarra in action.

 

[The Question]

So, the answer to something illegal is doing something else illegal just because in your opinion the other thing is more illegal? That's been the rationalization for some of the biggest doozies in American (and world) history.

Sorry, I missed this -- what's the "something illegal" the MCDC is doing? That's like saying an entire police department are criminals because of one crooked cop who does something that goes against established guidelines. That's what we call a generalization, y'see.

 

[The Question]

Just thought of one other thing that's a little odd about the video TJHairball linked to:

How many people do you know of who'll bother getting a cameraman to go along with them in order to record them acting like assholes toward people they claim have guns? Really?

"Hey, there's a bunch of people on my property with guns, I'm gonna go get in their faces! YEAH! I R T3H JEENY-US!" Or how many people do you know would bother with a cameraman at all?

No "Private Property" or "No Trespassing" signs. No houses in sight -- and with the cameraman alternating between filming his profanity-spewing buddy and the Minutemen, we had every possible angle from which to see one if it had been in sight. That video was a show. But don't take my word for it -- let's ask Senator Vreenak. Senator?

Well, there you have it.

 

[faceman]

why does the questoin hate jews?

 

[The Question]

What's a questoin?

 

[TJHairball]

Doesn't matter if that's why they're really there or not. That's what the lease contracts specify, and they're holding up their end.

Which is why the state decided that the Minuteman didn't need a permit after all.

Doubtful. What the ACLU seems most concerned with is finding any excuse to prevent the MCDC from doing what it has every right to do.

What the ACLU is concerned with is stated fairly clearly:

"Many immigrant advocacy groups, including the ACLU, have expressed concern that members of white supremacist and other hate organizations will be participating and may trigger violence."

The ACLU is (and unsurprisingly so) concerned (at least, with regard to the Minutemen) with the migrants' basic human rights.

Which, for legal purposes, makes it private property inasmuch as any other kind of leasee is extended private property rights and guarantees.

No, it doesn't magically turn it into private property.

The leasee is granted rights to do things to it per terms of the lease agreement, which - if I'm to believe the article you linked to - do not in and of themselves include a private armed border patrol. They do allow for ranch hands. The lease is a special permit for particular kinds of uses.

And why take such a one-sided stance on illegal activity? Are ACLU staffers reporting illegal border crossings alongside the Minutemen?

Of course not. There are no rights being violated there, unlike in illegally detaining people or shooting at them.

No, I don't think they are. Their interest has nothing to do with upholding the law.

The ACLU was not founded as a law enforcement agency. The ACLU was founded to uphold rights, if necessary by bringing down the laws in court, investigating potential civil liberty violations, etc etc. In this case, the ACLU has taken the unusual (for the ACLU, anyway) step of sending out observers to monitor the Minutemen due to the suspicion that they will violate the rights of migrants.

 

[Blindgroping]

So, the answer to something illegal is doing something else illegal just because in your opinion the other thing is more illegal? That's been the rationalization for some of the biggest doozies in American (and world) history.

Two negatives cancel each other out, right?
RIGHT!?

 

[The Question]

Of course not.

Then illegal activity really isn't their focus, is it? And neither are American civil liberties, or they'd be backing the cause of American property owners on the border, instead of the cause of invaders who routinely trash those owners' property, intimidate the owners and occasionally engage in physical aggression against Americans.

There are no rights being violated there, unlike in illegally detaining people or shooting at them.

So far as I know, no one in the Minuteman project has yet shot at an invader. I think that would have not only made every news source in the country, it would probably result in the MCDC being legally forced out of existence. And again, one person violated established MCDC guidelines and 'detaining' a couple people does not render the organization he joined culpable, so harping on that really isn't going to gain you anything.

The ACLU was not founded as a law enforcement agency. The ACLU was founded to uphold rights, if necessary by bringing down the laws in court, investigating potential civil liberty violations, etc etc. In this case, the ACLU has taken the unusual (for the ACLU, anyway) step of sending out observers to monitor the Minutemen due to the suspicion that they will violate the rights of migrants.

Personally, I'm all for invaders getting everything they're due under the law and nothing outside it. I still don't think that's what the ACLU is pursuing, however.

 

[TJHairball]

Then illegal activity really isn't their focus, is it? And neither are American civil liberties, or they'd be backing the cause of American property owners on the border, instead of the cause of invaders who routinely trash those owners' property, intimidate the owners and occasionally engage in physical aggression against Americans.

Actually, American civil liberties are (just as the migrants' civil liberties are) a priority for the ACLU.

I know you're having trouble believing this because they've failed to buy into your notion that vandalism or trespassing are civil liberties issues, rather than matters of criminal statute and property law... but that's the way it is. The ACLU does not concern itself with prosecuting petty criminals.

So far as I know, no one in the Minuteman project has yet shot at an invader.

So far as I know, that means keeping the Minuteman project under close supervision by independent groups has worked very well.

I think that would have not only made every news source in the country, it would probably result in the MCDC being legally forced out of existence. And again, one person violated established MCDC guidelines and 'detaining' a couple people does not render the organization he joined culpable, so harping on that really isn't going to gain you anything.

Harping on it gains me nothing?

I see you would like me to talk more about it. As far as I was concerned, that incident deserved a passing mention. So now I'll ask: If one "rogue" Minuteman gets caught red-handed acting illegally, with the little to no law enforcement presence in the area you keep telling us about - and then quietly released without charges pressed - how many incidents are likely to escape being noted officially?

How many are likely without advocacy groups keeping an eye on the vigilantes?

Personally, I'm all for invaders getting everything they're due under the law and nothing outside it.

IIRC, I believe you described this as shooting them earlier, or some such.

I still don't think that's what the ACLU is pursuing, however.

Of course not. They're pursuing what they believe to be a militaristic hate group just waiting for the opportunity to oppress the civil liberties of incoming migrant workers.

 

[The Question]

Actually, American civil liberties are (just as the migrants' civil liberties are) a priority for the ACLU.

Then again I ask, why are they only defending those breaking the law while antagonizing those attempting to aid in enforcing it? For that matter, why are you?

I know you're having trouble believing this because they've failed to buy into your notion that vandalism or trespassing are civil liberties issues, rather than matters of criminal statute and property law... but that's the way it is.

I thought equal protection under the law was a civil liberties issue. And since the Federal government is creating an atmosphere conducive to this particular variety of crime, the federal government is violating the civil liberties of border-area property owners.

So far as I know, that means keeping the Minuteman project under close supervision by independent groups has worked very well.

Or maybe it just means they're not out there to break the law in the first place.

Harping on it gains me nothing?

No, it really doesn't. Again, it's a broad generalization, and -- as I'm sure the ACLU would happily point out with regard to any other group -- it's wrong to judge a group based on the actions of a lone individual within the group.

If one "rogue" Minuteman gets caught red-handed acting illegally, with the little to no law enforcement presence in the area you keep telling us about - and then quietly released without charges pressed - how many incidents are likely to escape being noted officially?

And how many of them are actually extraterrestrials and just won't admit it? Appeals to ignorance won't buy you any points, either.

Of course not. They're pursuing what they believe to be a militaristic hate group just waiting for the opportunity to oppress the civil liberties of incoming migrant workers.

How is the MCDC a hate group, any more than the Border Patrol is?

 

[The Question]

Oh, and reporting people who are breaking the law isn't a form of oppressing their civil liberties, by the way.

 

[Starship Coyote]

As far as I know (and I could be wrong) every state in the Union makes provisions for the concept of a Citizen's Arrest as guaranteed by the 9th Amendment.

 

[TJHairball]

Then again I ask, why are they only defending those breaking the law while antagonizing those attempting to aid in enforcing it? For that matter, why are you?

"Why are they only defending those breaking the law?" you ask me.

They don't. The ACLU defends many. They do quite a bit more than just keep tabs on Minutemen.

I thought equal protection under the law was a civil liberties issue.

It is. This is why the ACLU often goes out of its way to keep an eye out for unequal treatment - e.g., of migrants.

And since the Federal government is creating an atmosphere conducive to this particular variety of crime, the federal government is violating the civil liberties of border-area property owners.

"Creating an atmosphere conducive to trespass and vandalism" is not a bleeding edge oppression of property owners' civil liberties.

Or maybe it just means they're not out there to break the law in the first place.

In which case the additional observation only serves to help them. Can't hurt to have everybody watching the area, no? Or are you now saying that the Minutemen's right to privacy is being infringed upon when someone chooses to watch them sit around on public lands and play border guard?

No, it really doesn't. Again, it's a broad generalization, and -- as I'm sure the ACLU would happily point out with regard to any other group -- it's wrong to judge a group based on the actions of a lone individual within the group.

The ACLU judged the Minutemen not on the actions of a lone individual, but on the groups associated with the Minutemen, endorsing the Minutemen, etc etc etc. The arrest came long after the ACLU decided it was worth watching the Minutemen.

And how many of them are actually extraterrestrials and just won't admit it? Appeals to ignorance won't buy you any points, either.

TQ, I'm not appealing to ignorance... I'm appealing to probability.

Let's say that you pick up two illegals in your car and drive them back across the border or what-have-you (presumably that's what the fellow did.) What are the odds the border patrol picks you up? And actually arrests you? And then tips off the ACLU?

I'm guessing on the order of <1 in 100. That suggests it's likeliest that >100 incidents occurred for the single one that was reported. MOE is shot to hell, but we can guess.

And I would be amazed if the stated Minuteman policy ("Minutemen do not verbally contact, physically gesture to or have any form of communications with suspected Illegal Aliens.") is not regularly violated in an assortment of minor ways on a regular basis.

How is the MCDC a hate group, any more than the Border Patrol is?

How? They're suspected by the ACLU to be such (or rather, to have groupings within themselves) on the basis of endorsements by the KKK etc.

 

[TJHairball]

Oh, and reporting people who are breaking the law isn't a form of oppressing their civil liberties, by the way.

Which is why the ACLU will never get in legal trouble for ratting out the Minutemen when (or if) they break the law, and why the Minutemen will never get in legal trouble for calling the official US border patrol.

 

[The Question]

"Why are they only defending those breaking the law?" you ask me.

They don't. The ACLU defends many.

But we're not discussing their involvement in many; we're discussing their involvement in this issue, and on this issue, their involvement is blatantly one-sided.

It is. This is why the ACLU often goes out of its way to keep an eye out for unequal treatment - e.g., of migrants."Creating an atmosphere conducive to trespass and vandalism" is not a bleeding edge oppression of property owners' civil liberties.

No? You don't think telling people they can get away with breaking the law creates an atmosphere where people will break the law, and shows a serious disregard for those who are victimized by the crime?

In which case the additional observation only serves to help them. Can't hurt to have everybody watching the area, no? Or are you now saying that the Minutemen's right to privacy is being infringed upon when someone chooses to watch them sit around on public lands and play border guard?

No, I'm saying that the ACLU's stance is clearly pro-foreign and anti-American on this issue.

The ACLU judged the Minutemen not on the actions of a lone individual, but on the groups associated with the Minutemen, endorsing the Minutemen, etc etc etc.

So rather than merely generalization, they're also committing guilt by association fallacy. These people say it's good, therefore it's bad. Right.

The arrest came long after the ACLU decided it was worth watching the Minutemen.

So, then, they didn't even have that as justification when they started. Thanks.

TQ, I'm not appealing to ignorance... I'm appealing to probability.

Uh, no. Any argument that depends on the reasoning, "What don't we know?" is an appeal to ignorance.

Let's say that you pick up two illegals in your car and drive them back across the border or what-have-you (presumably that's what the fellow did.)

Presumably? You mean the ACLU didn't say what this horrible vigilante actually did to these poor criminal souls? I notice it did say that they flagged him down. Now, we might ask -- what if he was giving them a lift back to the border because they wanted to go back? Of course, we won't ask that, because as I just pointed out, that would be a fallacious argument.

What are the odds the border patrol picks you up? And actually arrests you? And then tips off the ACLU?

Why would the Border Patrol tip off the ACLU? I can't back this up, but I have a strong hunch that the Border Patrol probably doesn't like the ACLU much, since the ACLU is interfering with their duties in the course of interfering with the Minutemen.

I'm guessing on the order of <1 in 100. That suggests it's likeliest that >100 incidents occurred for the single one that was reported. MOE is shot to hell, but we can guess.

Again, this is an appeal to ignorance. You could just as easily make up any damn thing about them you want to based on this, on the assurance that it happens and it's just not reported.

And I would be amazed if the stated Minuteman policy ("Minutemen do not verbally contact, physically gesture to or have any form of communications with suspected Illegal Aliens.") is not regularly violated in an assortment of minor ways on a regular basis.

And you're hoping to gain what, exactly, by all these appeals to ignorance?

How? They're suspected by the ACLU to be such (or rather, to have groupings within themselves) on the basis of endorsements by the KKK etc.

So, the guilt by association fallacy is basically it, then. "These guys say you're good, and we don't like these guys, therefore you're bad."