ACLU: Bush restricts science in name of security


Recommended Posts

ACLU: Bush restricts science in name of homeland security

Tuesday, June 21, 2005; Posted: 1:18 p.m. EDT (17:18 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The American Civil Liberties Union charged Tuesday that the Bush administration is placing science under siege by overzealously tightening restrictions on information, individuals and technology in the name of homeland security.

The administration "has sought to impose growing restrictions on the free flow of scientific information, unreasonable barriers on the use of scientific materials and increased monitoring of and restrictions on foreign university students," the ACLU said.

Since the September 11, 2001, attacks the government has actively increased the use of classifying information to keep it secret, including the use of the category "unclassified but sensitive" and extending classification authority to more departments, the ACLU said.

Robert Hopkins of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy criticized the ACLU for seeking to politicize the issue.

"The report chooses to criticize actions taken to address security concerns in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attack," Hopkins said. "The administration has worked in good faith with serious members of the science community, including the National Academies, to determine the best way to enable the conduct of science without providing terrorists with a road map for pursuing their aims."

Indeed, the National Academy of Sciences delayed publication of an article at the request of the Department of Health and Human Services over concerns the paper could provide terrorists information on poisoning the milk supply. Negotiations over the report are continuing.

But the ACLU contends that the administration has been overzealous, reversing past government openness by creating a presumption of secrecy and lengthening classification periods.

The report lists other science restrictions, including limiting the access of foreign scholars to information, restricting their participation in some areas of research and tightening visa rules with the result of blocking or delaying visits to this country by foreign students and teachers.

And the ACLU charged the administration with trying to suppress information on such topics as global warming, mercury emissions and emergency contraception.

overzealous? sounds like it. sure, we can't go about publishing dangerous information, at least not without the proper controls, but we have to find a balance. otherwise, we are simply a tyrannical government that justifies injustice by exalting something else. i have no problem with security. yes, it's a national issue, but i hate how it always comes to the fore. it's a knee-jerk reaction, and it's an excuse that's always used to justify policies that may be more subversive than useful.

plus blocking foreigners doesn't always help. the more we divert our attention to foreigners, the less we see of american terrorists. in the meantime, we obstruct scientific progress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don't consider the ACLU 'ultra-left', but OK.

This has been brought up in the past (by other people besides the ACLU) a bajillion times. I don't have any links at the moment, but there's been a lot of drama with the EPA in particular.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yea since when did the american civil liberties union become the ultra-left? anyhow, this doesnt suprise me at all, this admin in particular isnt one for science so this doesnt come as a huge shocker... its a shame really...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As it stands, it's just another grenade from the sue-happy ultra-left.

586099311[/snapback]

The ACLU is hardly "ultra-left".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If that had been asserted by anyone but the ACLU, it may have merit. As it stands, it's just another grenade from the sue-happy ultra-left.

586099311[/snapback]

If defending the constitution is left, I don't want to be right.

;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the ACLU isn't ultra-left?~!? What the h3ll are you folks smokin'?!? Fine, you came up with four examples... how many others could we find that completely prove my point??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the ACLU isn't ultra-left?~!? What the h3ll are you folks smokin'?!? Fine, you came up with four examples... how many others could we find that completely prove my point??

586101002[/snapback]

I just showed that the ACLU is unbiased, whoever abuses the constitution more is up to that party. Do you think the ACLU just went into hibernation when a Democrat goes into office? Learn a little bit before you go bad mouthing an organization defending the rights of everyone.

Edited by code_monkey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ACLU actually is part of this terrible liberal conspiracy that threatens to undermine the ability of the government to do patriotic right-wing things like sending Japanese-Americans to internment camps or segregating Blacks and Whites or ignoring the First and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just showed that the ACLU is unbiased, whoever abuses the constitution more is up to that party. Do you think the ACLU just went into hibernation when a Democrat goes into office? Learn a little bit before you go bad mouthing an organization defending the rights of everyone.

586101049[/snapback]

Defending the rights of everyone?!~? Yeah, you're right... defending the rights Christians everywhere, right? Defending their right to practice their religion without being ridiculed or attacked at every corner. Defending the rights of parents to raise their kids as they see fit. Defending the rights of religious organizations to base their operating procedures upon their beliefs. Defending the rights of everyone... my @ss. More like defending baby-rapers (NAMBLA) and flag-burners. Anyone as long as they're not white, Christian, or conservative. Yeah, sure, they take on the token case every once in awhile just so puppets like you can brag about how they're "defending our freedoms". And what does a Democrat being in office have to do with anything? I didn't see that mentioned anywhere... maybe I missed it. Maybe YOU should learn a bit more before you try to tell me how wonderful and benevolent the ACLU is... they're the worst thing that has ever happened to this country. They had a purpose and a place, but they've overstepped their bounds and gone completely meglomaniacle. And heaven help you should you ever disagree with them.... Please... the ACLU can kiss my rosy white @ss.

and lav-chan, I know you were being sarcastic, but that statement was a bit ignorant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Defending the rights of everyone?!~? Yeah, you're right... defending the rights Christians everywhere, right? Defending their right to practice their religion without being ridiculed or attacked at every corner. Defending the rights of parents to raise their kids as they see fit. Defending the rights of religious organizations to base their operating procedures upon their beliefs. Defending the rights of everyone... my @ss. More like defending baby-rapers (NAMBLA) and flag-burners.

When will you learn that rights aren't exclusive...

kiss my rosy white @ss.

Don't worry, you have an entire Congress to do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah, you're right, I completely agreed with your statement...

586101154[/snapback]

Well, you did, really. I said it was a conspiracy, and you backed that up. They supposedly only take 'token' cases to convince all the 'puppets' that they're doing something when they're really not. Sounds like a conspiracy to me.

:rolleyes:

586101154[/snapback]

rollbarf.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

overzealous?  sounds like it.  sure, we can't go about publishing dangerous information, at least not without the proper controls, but we have to find a balance.  otherwise, we are simply a tyrannical government that justifies injustice by exalting something else.  i have no problem with security.  yes, it's a national issue, but i hate how it always comes to the fore.  it's a knee-jerk reaction, and it's an excuse that's always used to justify policies that may be more subversive than useful.

plus blocking foreigners doesn't always help.  the more we divert our attention to foreigners, the less we see of american terrorists.  in the meantime, we obstruct scientific progress.

586099234[/snapback]

This isn't the first time news about science was "manipulated" or impeded under the Bush administration was reported. I agree that a balance has to be found but I doubt that will happen anytime soon.

If that had been asserted by anyone but the ACLU, it may have merit. As it stands, it's just another grenade from the sue-happy ultra-left.

:sleep:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ACLU sometimes does pick the wrong fights to fight. But you have to admit, its always good to have every side represented. Sometime down the line, you've always got to have someone there otherwise it becomes the crime of the census, something everyone nowadays is only too willing to refer to with all the "UN is god" and "only international" talk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thanks for that entertaining digression. now, back to the topic (using security as an excuse to impede science, NOT the validity of aclu, which is another topic).

This isn't the first time news about science was "manipulated" or impeded under the Bush administration was reported. I agree that a balance has to be found but I doubt that will happen anytime soon.

586101191[/snapback]

yeah i know this isn't the first time, but it's depressing. national security is becoming a bad word these days, but for the right reasons.

The ACLU sometimes does pick the wrong fights to fight.  But you have to admit, its always good to have every side represented.  Sometime down the line, you've always got to have someone there otherwise it becomes the crime of the census, something everyone nowadays is only too willing to refer to with all the "UN is god" and "only international" talk.

586101370[/snapback]

unfortunately, you're right. they have gotten a bad name because of their whining. but that doesn't discount the fact that they are sometimes right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ACLU sometimes does pick the wrong fights to fight.  But you have to admit, its always good to have every side represented.  Sometime down the line, you've always got to have someone there otherwise it becomes the crime of the census, something everyone nowadays is only too willing to refer to with all the "UN is god" and "only international" talk.

586101370[/snapback]

Agree. As much as I cant stand them for several cases they defended, without them, our internet would be locked down alot quicker and we wouldnt be enjoying as much freedom on the web.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.