The topic below was originally posted in my blog, the Intrepid Liberal Journal as well as the Independent Bloggers Alliance, the Peace Tree and Worldwide Sawdust.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

So reads the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. However, the Constitution does not prevent employers from encroaching upon the free speech of their employees. Even so, most Americans assume their right to free speech is protected in all aspects of their life - including their jobs. The reality is quite different.

IN case you haven't seen this appalling story, here it is. This needs to be confronted. Here's the short version :

After looking over various treatments of this emerging scandal, I've decided I like Richard Bartholomew's best : see Bartholomew's Notes On Religion. The only details I'd add to Richard's account [Talk To Action version], below, are these : two families seem to have fled the Indian River Delaware school district amidst alleged death threats and threats of violence [one family has remained anonymous] : the Dobrich family has sold its home in the town and completely relocated to another area. Further, the Stop The ACLU Coalition also has been doing significant work in the recent campaign accusing the New York Times and the Washington Post of treason, and that, besides being "pleased" by the Indian River outcome, Stop The ACLU is no doubt pleased with its new radio show.

Below is Richard Bartholomew's summary of this story - now on the Daily Kos, Crooks and Liars, Jesus' General, Bartholomew's Notes on Religion, Talk To Action, Jews On First, and Atrios ( at least ). But what will all the outrage stirred up accomplish ? I've proposed a simple plan to undercut support for the "Stop The ACLU Coalition" : the The Shaming Project

There is an interesting article in the San Jose Mercury news this morning about Stanford Professor Larry Diamond, who is one of the plaintiffs in the ACLU Lawsuit against Bush for the illegal, warrantless NSA wiretapping.  It is worth reading, but I wanted to excerpt a few paragraphs, because Diamond states his position quite eloquently, I think:

Every day on the Stanford University campus, Larry Diamond teaches his students that the president of the United States is not above the law.

Which is why Diamond decided to sue President Bush when he learned that the president had authorized spying on Americans without consent of Congress or the courts. Diamond believes he is among the targets of surveillance.

"I'm disturbed,'' said Diamond, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution [sic!] who has studied and taught democracy for more than 30 years. He is also a plaintiff in the lawsuit filed Tuesday by the American Civil Liberties Union suit against Bush, the National Security Agency and the heads of other major agencies. "I'm not afraid. I don't feel that I'm in danger. I don't expect retribution.''

[More below the flip]

i've posted previously on echelon, here and here... the description of nsa spying activities, provided by tice, the recently-identified nsa whistleblower, fits echelon to a "t..."

   Russell Tice, a longtime insider at the National Security Agency, is now a whistleblower the agency would like to keep quiet.

    [...]

    Tice tells ABC News that some of those secret "black world" operations run by the NSA were operated in ways that he believes violated the law.

    [...]

I have always had strong political opinions. Throughout my life I have written letters and editorials, posted on blogs, passed out materials and worked on elections. In November of 2000 I went into shock. I didn't come out of it until Dean woke me up to `take back our country'. We all know what happened next.

Perhaps we have gotten the government that we deserve. There is no doubt that "Freedom isn't free." However it's not just some anonymous member of the military that needs to pay the price. It is you. And me. No exceptions and no exemptions.

A judge has thrown out a lawsuit over the inability of Muslims to use a Quran for courtroom oaths, as reported here.

The ruling stated that the ACLU and Muslim Syidah Mateen failed to show that a legal controversy exits between the state of North Carolina and the plantiffs.

Here are the essentials:

The judge did not address whether state law allows people to use non-Christian texts for oath-taking, the main issue the ACLU wanted resolved.

"We're disappointed the judge did not reach the merits (of the case)," said ACLU lawyer Seth Cohen, who confirmed Thursday's ruling. "We're confidant we would have won on the merits."

Although this is only one case, it could be an important issue in the months to come, that is, if we are determined to "stay the course."

The issue surfaced after Guilford County's two top judges turned down a gift of Qurans from a Greensboro Islamic center after deciding than an oath on the Quran is not a legal oath.

State law refers to someone laying his hand on the "Holy Scriptures," which they interpret to mean the Christian Bible. As an alternative, the law allows someone to affirm to tell the truth while holding their hand upraised.

When the state Administrative Office of the Courts declined to intervene, the ACLU took the issue to court, arguing that the term "Holy Scriptures" is broad enough to include many religious texts.

A couple of notable things, worthy of discussion by the Cortex community:

1. What constitutes "Holy Scriptures"?

2. If non-Christians are forced to swear on a Christian text, are they bound by perjury rules?

In theory, I suppose, we expect everyone who appears in a court of law to speak the truth.  Just as we expect witnesses before Congress to speak the truth as well, whether they are sworn in or not.

Yeah.

[cross-posted at And, yes, I DO take it personally]

first we have condi doing some fast talking...

European foreign ministers said Thursday that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had assured the NATO allies that the United States does not allow torture of terrorist suspects and respects principles of the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners of war.

[...]

Rice "addressed the principles that guide United States policy with regards to respect for international law," Belgian Foreign Minister Karel de Gucht said.

Rice assured the U.S. allies "that at no time did the United States agree to inhumane acts or torture, that they have always respected the sovereignty of the states concerned and even if terrorists are not covered by the Geneva Conventions, they have still applied the principles governing those Geneva Conventions," de Gucht told Belgian RTBf radio network.

Reports have surfaced that US troops took two Iraqi businessmen and pushed them towards a cage in the Presidential Palace in which two lions were caged. They pulled them back only after they got really close to the cage. The ACLU has taken the case and has sued Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

Meanwhile in Washington two Iraqi businessmen detained by US forces in 2003 have claimed soldiers threw them into a cage of lions, pretended to be executing them, and carried out other acts of torture during months in captivity.

Are there no depths to which the US won't go? Details below.