The ACLU has been called many things, but in light of their recent fight, I think it's fair to note they are winning substantial legal victories for terrorists. Most notably in their recent federal court victory banning security pat downs in Tampa Bay.
See, if this legal decision stood alone, it wouldn't constitute a problem. But, you see, the ACLU has coupled this with other fights that are giving terrorists all the legal victories they need to carry out a major terror attack on US soil. We will stand in the rubble, with the smoke rising around us and demand that our government should have done something to prevent this, ignoring the fact that they have, but that certain factions in our country have worked to undermine them.
The issue that the ACLU has with the security pat downs is that they check everybody entering. According to the ACLU, searches should only be conducted with probable cause. OK, let's follow that line of thought (which would be appropriate if NFL stadiums were not a private venue, but I'll get to that point later): what constitutes "probable cause"? Does a group of Muslims in headgear constitute probable cause? If so, then why did the ACLU sue the New York Giants for detaining a group of Muslims that they felt were acting suspiciously? When Muslims are detained because they are clearly Muslim, then the ACLU screams "profiling". So according to the ACLU's logic, one would have to either have blasting caps clearly protruding from their clothing, or wear a sign self identifying them as a terrorist. The solution, then is clear: post a sign outside saying "all terrorists or armed combatants must report to the security checkpoint for clearance". Terrorists obviously honor the law and would readily comply.
If this were about a random pat down by the government of someone walking the streets, I would object. Certainly, we shouldn't be subject to those kinds of searches. Yet the language of the fourth amendment stipulates against "unreasonable" searches, and a search in this context, in this place, is clearly, to my thinking, reasonable.
Add to that the fact that an NFL game is a voluntary activity. It is not mandatory to attend, and, in fact, spectators are essentially customers of the NFL and of its various teams. Patting them down on entry is no different than a bar patron being patted down before entering a bar.
Long before 9/11, I saw President George H.W. Bush. When we arrived at the square where he was to speak, we were warned that our bags would be searched, and that there was active surveillance. And this was on a PUBLIC square, in a public place. But even the most die hard civil libertarians among us recognized these steps to be necessary to protect the president and other government officials. Based on the federal court ruling in Tampa Bay, would it not be reasonable to assume that these searches are also illegal?
The ACLU has been at the forefront of a few legitimate lawsuits throughout history. And once they had a legacy that had positive decisions to offer. But when the ACLU starts stonewalling legitimate, sincere attempts to secure our population that are, in fact, NOT contrary to the Constitution, and when they defend the rights of pedophiles, they are nothing to be respected, and may well bear culpability when, not if, the next 9/11 happens because security personnel were powerless to act.