The ACLU's Glaring Hypocrisy on Privacy Issues

The American Civil Liberties Union prides itself on defending privacy rights as a pet cause. However, as with most ACLU causes, but for double standards they haven't any standards at all.

There are numerous examples, and most show the ACLU only defends privacy when it is convenient for their agenda. They dove in headfirst to defend “innocent Americans” against the NSA tapping overseas phone conversations with suspected terror connections. However, when it came to fundraising, all concerns for privacy went out the window. In 2006, the ACLU created a massive database of its own members’ financial information.

There are many examples of the ACLU’s hypocrisy regarding personal privacy. For instance, they notoriously defend the privacy rights of Guantanamo Bay detainees. But when it comes to American citizens doing their duty of interrogating jihadists, they hired researchers to take illegal photos of CIA operatives' "private affairs" to identify them to detainees. Not only did this violate American citizens’ rights, it also put them in danger as the ACLU managed to free some of these prisoners of war.

The White House is quietly working on laws to gain access to the content held on a person's private hard drive. The Obama administration is tight-lipped on the details, but no alarms are going off at the ACLU.

Even more chilling is the White House’s attempt to collect information on their political adversaries. In early August, they set up a system asking the public to snitch on their fellow citizens by sending an email to White House staffers informing them of other Americans that oppose Obama’s health care plan. One can easily imagine the outcry we would have heard if such an intrusive program had been implemented during the Bush administration.

The ACLU remained silent again.

We wondered if the ACLU was disturbed by this obvious invasion of citizen privacy, so we wrote them a letter:

Will the ACLU now stand up for this program, which is directly against the meaning of the free speech and protest portions of the First Amendment, which is to be able to criticize the government without fear of reprisal?

We received an automated response asking for a donation.