O'Reilly asks: Do you think ACLU people are "traitors"?
Discussing the arrest warrants a German court had issued that day for 13 CIA agents in connection with the kidnapping of German citizen Khaled El-Masri and his lawsuit against former CIA Director George Tenet and others, filed with the help of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Bill O'Reilly asked CBS News terrorism analyst Michael Scheuer on the January 31 edition of Fox News' The O'Reillly Factor: "Do you think these people are traitors, the ACLU? Are they putting us all in danger?" Scheuer replied that "they have a right to their opinion" but asserted, "[T]hey're very lucky that most Americans are willing to fight to protect their ability to denigrate America." O'Reilly then stated that the ACLU "go[es] beyond that" and that, actually, "they put us in danger." Scheuer agreed, saying: "Oh, I think they do. I think that's certainly true, sir."
As Media Matters for America previously noted, Scheuer, a former CIA analyst, was head of the CIA's Osama bin Laden unit during the Clinton administration. Scheuer anonymously authored Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror (Potomac Books, July 2004).
From the January 31 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: People are going to be rounded up, and they shouldn't be. This is what happens in a war.
But Angela Merkel's supposed to be a friend -- the chancellor of Germany -- is supposed to be a friend of the USA. Do you think this was some overzealous left-wing prosecutor doing this?
SCHEUER: Well, that's what it turned out to be in Italy. I'm not sure what the game plan is in Germany, sir. I don't -- I really don't know that much about German politics.
But I think, at the end of the day, the duplicity of the Germans will come through. Most of the Europeans are rather duplicitous. They're more than willing to take the information the CIA has gathered from these people to protect their countries, but they're not willing to avoid playing politics with the career of CIA officers who risk their lives.
O'REILLY: Yeah. I mean, I think it's outrageous myself, unless there is a clear pattern of abuse here.
Final question -- ACLU, of course, behind all of this al-Masri business: Do you think these people are traitors, the ACLU? Are they putting us all in danger?
SCHEUER: Well, I think they're like pacifists, sir. They have a right to their opinion. They have a right to do and think what they say. But they're very lucky that most Americans are willing to fight to protect their ability to denigrate America.
O'REILLY: You bet. But I think they go beyond that. I think they put us in danger. I really do.
SCHEUER: Oh, I think they do. I think that's certainly true, sir.
O'REILLY: I do. Mr. Scheuer, always a pleasure. Thanks very much.
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
I think the ACLU does far more good than harm. If you listen to O'Reilly long enough, you'd think the ACLU was some sort of radical group, bent on the overthrow of the American way of life. Nothing could be further from the truth. O'Reilly is almost fascist in his commentary, yet he's got most of his listeners convinced that it's the ACLU that's the threat.
Old timey republican or conservative strawman argument. They villify the ACLU, yet, I think that just about everyone who can, should be a card carrying member of this group. They protect the rights of every single American under the laws set forth by the Constitution of the United States. The ACLU is not a partisan group, yet it is seen so because they argue against placing religion into goverment, and other things that conservatives are so hell bent to have everyone adhere to, which, are un-Constitutional. They protect our rights and freedoms. They're not a bunch of wackos, as most right wingers would have their followers, and everyone else, believe.
The right wingers, by the way, do a great job of making the ACLU the boogeyman, and people buy into it, time and time again.
I recently caught part of a segment of O'Reilly's show and I don't even recall exactly what the discussion was about but O'Reilly ranted about how the ACLU was going to get involved in the situation they were discussing an do all sorts of terrible, un-American things. His guest allowed him to finish and then politely pointed out that what they were discussing involved only private persons, not the government in any way, and that under the circumstances they were talking about the ACLU could not (and would not) get involved in such a matter. O'Reilly caught himself and blurted something like "Yeah, but we all know how bad the ACLU is anyway!" It really was funny... O'Reilly just can't help being an a*s.
****I THINK IT IS FUNNY THAT NO ONE IS GIVING CREDENCE TO THE FACT THAT SCHEUER AGREED WITH OREILLY****
Where did Scheuer say the ACLU were "traitors"? I heard him say "denigrate" which is not the same thing. He is of course entitled to his opinion. I see your fellow conservatives have had a heck of a time today stating that particular case. Once even refering to what was discovered to be an urban legend to make a point. Maybe Sheuer labors under similar delusions.
The problem with FREEDOM ...
... is that, if a people HAVE freedom, they're likely to do some things of which you personally disapprove.
This isn't a problem for true lovers of FREEDOM; we realize that to secure our OWN rights and liberties, we must extend that protection to all others. (A gay citizen is a citizen. If they don't dictate to ME who I can marry and who I can't, why should I dictate to THEM? Unless I don't believe in true FREEDOM, of course ...)
FREEDOM is an enormous problem for would-be despots. You cannot allow people to be FREE, because then they will not be forced to follow behavior that is declared "normal" and "moral" and "good for the country" by the LEADERS.
Rightwingers wish to CONTROL people, to tell them who they can love, who they can marry, what women must do concerning their own wombs, what pledges they must make, what they CANNOT say or do, what GOD they should worship, and mostly how they must simply accept the dictates of "commerce" as the rules are laid out by the already rich and powerful.
Feudal societies of old were thus. The LORDS made the rules, controlled the property, and possessed all the wealth. The serfs served at the pleasure of the Lords, and did what they were told. The serfs survived only if the Lords deigned to bless them with survival. The Lords declared the state church. The Lords set societal rules (from which they themselves were exempt). We fought a revolution to be rid of this mindset of monarchy, but this selfsame aristocratic view is held TODAY by America's rightwing.
And FREEDOM is the enormous fly in the ointment, standing in the way of the plans of America's self-annointed ELITES.
Make no mistake: FREEDOM is the enemy of Rightwingers, NeoCons, "Conservatives", and Republicans. This Bill of Rights thing? Optional. Dangerous. Not strict enough. Not CONTROLLING enough. And if the ACLU defends the Bill of Rights, then they must be the "enemies of America". So sayeth the would-be dictators of the right, the FREEDOM-HATING elitists.
Great post Tex.
And I completely agree, too often the right wingers yell and cry about the evil ACLU. But the truth (that the far right will not admitt to) is that the ACLU even stands up for their rights. See below
http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/gen/11507prs20050210.html?s_src=RSS
And while the childish side of my personality says that far right wingers who refuse to grant me rights should not have rights themselves. The rest of me says, Free speech is more important.
M,
t"he childish side of my personality says that far right wingers who refuse to grant me rights should not have rights themselves. The rest of me says,"
Just how many of you are in there?
Please remember one person - one vote.
Perhaps you aren't familiar with such things as idioms. He was mentioning "sides" of his personality. Not distinct ones.
"So sayeth the would-be dictators of the right, the FREEDOM-HATING elitists."
As usual, Tex, you're full of bull. Who is it that wants to tell smokers when and where they may smoke? Who is it that continually stifles any attempt at school "choice"? Who is that dares to make it unlawful for parents to discpline their children the way they see fit (Sally Lieber, (D), CA wants to make it illegal for parents to spank their own children)? That's right, Tex. It's left-wing nazis like you and your ilk. Try peddling your "freedom-loving" crap elsewhere.
Weak.
Smoking bans were on the ballot, the people spoke on the issue. You can still chose to send your children to whatever school you want despite the fact that privatizing schools stratifies access to quality education. It is still legal to discipline you children in whatever manner one sees fit.
Moreover, you are more than welcome to not read or comment on the posts here. I suggest you exercise your right to do so.
The worst part about you Nazis is that you arrogantly defend your practices. Amazing.
And yet you still cannot point to any truth in your posted response to Tex or any untruth in my resopnse to you. Like I said you're argument is weak, weak, weak.
So, call me nazi. Another indication of weakness.
GTB forgot one: the forced march called Social "Security" in its present collectivist form.
Let me get this straight. Our CIA abducted a german citizen (in Germany) Held him for weeks in error released him. German courts issue a warrant to for CIA operatives who have abducted one of there citizens and the aclu is representing this guy. How is this treasoness?
I still need an explantion of how the ACLU are "traitors".
No, the german citizen was kidnapped in macedonia (iirc, at least somewhere around there) and then shipped around a few tortur.. uhm containment camps.
If the US can do this, why do we think the really bad guys will have a problem doing other stuff? We cannot seriously hold the bad guys to higher standards then we are willing to uphold ourselfs.
Worse that traitors really.
"In 1982, the ACLU, in an amicus role, lost in a unanimous decision in the Supreme Court to legalize the sale and distribution of child pornography.”
The case is…: New York Vs Ferber, 458 U.S. 747
Go ahead and defend child porn, what else will need to said about you.
Your characterization of the case is incorrect. It wasn't about "legalizing the sale and distribution of child pornography."
The issue in Ferber wasn't whether child pornography should be legal - nobody was arguing that it should be. The ACLU has never taken that stance. Child pornography is NOT protected by the First Amendment.
The issue in Ferber was whether the New York statute prohibiting the distribution of materials depicting child pornography (which is NOT protected by the First Amendment) was written in such a way that it would also prohibit the distribution of material that IS protected by the First Amendment.
The ACLU's amicus brief in Ferber was joined by, among others, the American Bookseller's Association, the Association of American Publishers, the National Association of College Stores, the Association of American University Presses, and St. Martin's Press (a subsidiary of Macmillan Publishers).
Perhaps you would like to reconsider your position.
Crusty,
“I have been to Europe several times, mostly in connection with international radical activities…and have traveled in the United States to areas of conflict over workers rights to strike and organize. My chief aversion is the system of greed, private profit, privilege and violence which makes up the control of the world today, and which has brought it to the tragic crisis of unprecedented hunger and unemployment…Therefore, I am for Socialism, disarmament and ultimately, for the abolishing of the State itself…I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal”.”
Founder of ACLU
What does that have to do with Ferber or the modern ACLU?
Rusty,
I think you inadvertantly blew a circuit or something in this dude's head.
Quite possibly, Open_Mind. Our new friend was trying to divert the discussion to Roger Baldwin's onetime endorsement of socialism, a position he later renounced. Our friend should be aware of the following, from Wikipedia:
"In 1940, the ACLU formally barred communists from leadership or staff positions, and would take the position that it did not want communists as members either. The board declared that it was 'inappropriate for any person to serve on the governing committees of the Union or its staff, who is a member of any political organization which supports totalitarian dictatorship in any country, or who by his public declarations indicates his support of such a principle.' The purge, which was led by Baldwin, himself a former supporter of Communism, began with the ouster of Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, a member of both the Communist Party of the USA and the IWW."Urgh. Let me try that paste again:
"In 1940, the ACLU formally barred communists from leadership or staff positions, and would take the position that it did not want communists as members either. The board declared that it was 'inappropriate for any person to serve on the governing committees of the Union or its staff, who is a member of any political organization which supports totalitarian dictatorship in any country, or who by his public declarations indicates his support of such a principle.' The purge, which was led by Baldwin, himself a former supporter of Communism, began with the ouster of Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, a member of both the Communist Party of the USA and the IWW."
Leave it to "Crusty" (good one, nostolgic) and "open mind" to defend the ACLU's protection of child pornography.
Since the ACLU never defended child pornography, as evidenced by the facts of the case, I see no problem with what they said.
But you go ahead and keep saying false things over and over, hoping they'll suddenly become true.
Before you blow more stale air out of your anus again, read the 1992 Policy Guide of the ACLU, policy 4d. p.7 and policy 4g. p. 9. Get back to me on that will you? No? I didn't think so.
You have to give us more than that. Please link to a legitimate source of the complete 1992 policy guide to put your words in proper context. You should also paste any relevant info onto the screen so everyone can see what you are trying to get at here.
It is your argument and you need to support it. Don't expect us to do all of your research for you.
I think part of your fun is to throw out bs challenges and have people waste their time chasing your argument down rabbit holes.
Everything your side has said about the ACLU so far has been roundly debunked when all of the details are brought in. It appears you are no different than the other failed conservatives here in poviding a legitmate link to support your assertions. We have wasted too much time on you guys already.
Now I get it. This guy is just abandoning his first argument. Once the facts are out, I suppose they have to run to new arguments like cockroaches skittering into crevasses when the lights come on.
Nostalgic was referring to comments supposedly made by Roger Nash Baldwin. They were likely made before he renounced Communism:
"In St. Louis, Baldwin became greatly influenced by the radical social movement of the anarchist Emma Goldman. He joined the Industrial Workers of the World and developed a sympathy for the Soviet Union and for Communism that lasted until 1939 when he was disillusioned by the Nazi-Soviet Pact and broke off all radical ties. In 1927, he had visited the Soviet Union and wrote a book, Liberty Under the Soviets, which contained extensive praise for the Soviet Union. However, he later denounced communism in his book, A New Slavery, which condemned "the inhuman communist police state tyranny" [1]. In the 1940s, Baldwin led the campaign to purge the ACLU of Communist Party members [2]."
Another steaming pile of crap from the conservatives I see.
Let's see, Baldwin creates a group that's hell-bent on undermining American principles and years after the horse is out of the barn, Baldwin is exhonerated because he supposedly renounces communism? Get real, load-head.
I forgot. You guys are master mind-readers. Even though Baldwin renounced Communism, he really didn't mean it?
Mind-reading and speculation in lieu of facts are the last resort of a failed argument.
Pathetic.
Here is Clinton's guy, historically very critical of Bush and his "wars"........telling us the ACLU denegrates America and puts us in danger. Traitors may be harsh, but just barely.
HAHAHAHA!!!
Man, that's funny.
tommy, was the white house plan to out plame traitorous?
NO, not even close. George Tenet is not America, the CIA is not America and the Bush administration is not America. If they go to other countries and break their laws they face the consequences. Lets turn this around suppose the Iranian Savak during the 70,s had kidnapped an American held him for weeks beaten and abused him then let him go and said ooops. Wrong guy but he did have a similar name. Would you be saying that the man shouldnt file a lawsuit? That the US courts should not issue arrest warrants for THEM? Why do you guys always demand the the US be exempt from the standards WE use toward others? The CIA has no business kidnapping German citizens then abusing them then just demanding they be above German law. IF they have good evidence a German citizen is a terrorist they can take it to the German version of the FBI and work WITH them to neutralize him, THAT is what we would expect THEM to do and that is what WE should do to an ally a country that has soldiers fighting RIGHT NOW in Afghanistan.
Media Matters actually got me interested in O'Reilly by posting stuff that was supposed to make me hate him. This is a good example of that. I read it and agreed with exactly what he was saying. 5 years ago I would have not been on his side, but I've seen the ACLU do some pretty nasty stuff and they are do not protect ALL Americans. They pick and choose whatever fits their vision of America. I think it's great that they are operating in London. It really makes you think about what their motives are.
I sometimes wonder how many people actually become more conservative by reading this website? Perhaps I'm the only one.
"I've seen the ACLU do some pretty nasty stuff and they are do not protect ALL Americans."
Really? Got any examples? I am very curious.
They never offer specifics. Specifics are too easy to shoot down. This dude doesn't know what he is talking about.
Specifics are too easy to shoot down.
Indeed they are. Read on, McDuff...
Yeah, even drug infested Limbaugh gets protection. So what does that tell you about the ACLU? It tells you that they are doing their stated job well, without first looking into the slime they may have to represent in order to protect the more-important Constitution and everybody's rights on a grand scale.
I agree with your sentiment. And if I ever see O'Reilly's show I'll bet he won't seem as bad a person as the the traditional Left says he is. But his boss always has been bad news.
maybe you should watch the show and then comment.
What is or who is the 'traditional Left'? Think about what you say and write.
Yeah. Pretty nasty stuff...
*rolls eyes*
PS: Found that stuff without really trying. There's a lot more. Basically, although I have my own problems with some of their work (the stuff with Limbaugh and Sen. Mitch McConnell for example), the ACLU is one of America's greatest assets. Period.
they have also gone to court where cities have allowed things like menorahs, but not nativity scenes. none of it is appropriate on public property [christmas trees are non religious to me], but allow one, then you have to allow the other.
MMFA made you more conservative...
I know what you mean, and have something additional.
Back in the 80's, my barber kept going on an on about how great this noontime radio guy Rush Limbaugh is. He kept asking if I had ever heard him, and I said no, I cannot listen to a radio at work & I work 8-5. While the barber was good at haircuts, I was not inclined to take his advice on other things.
Back then I also belonged to QPBC, the "Quality Paperback Book Club" and my fault, I did not send my reply postcard back in time to prevent automatic shipment of a book by Al Franken, who I thought of as that really annoying guy on Saturday Night Live.
So I got the paperback "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot" and read it. By the time I got to the part about social security, I was convinced the idiot was the author and this Limbaugh guy had it right. Not exactly what Franken had intended...
raymanrevo:
You say you have seen ACLU 'do some pretty nasty stuff' but very much like your brethren, you site no factual information. And you state that the ACLU does not support all American's rights. Again, where are the actual, verfiable examples to back up these statements. If you are going to play on this field, you got to back it up, man.
Peace
Steve Allen
It makes me pretty angry that a group like the ACLU is criticized as treasonous and accused of putting us in danger when they are helping someone find a remedy in the courts.
Nobody in El-Masri's position can successfully sue unless he can show that he suffered damages, and he only suffered damages if they got the wrong guy, which it appears they did.
The critics of a lawsuit such as this point to the potential difficulty of the C.I.A. doing its job if it has to defend lawsuits. And, before you know it, someone will point out the inevitability that mistakes will be made, but after all, we're at war, and operations like this need to be carried out for our safety. The problem with that analysis is that, if lawsuits like this can't go forward, that means all the consequences of such mistakes are to be borne by the victims, and never by the people who detain the wrong guy for weeks at a time.
Also, the claim that the government has been making in this case is bogus, and I'm surprised a federal judge bought it. Any state secrets can be handled in such a way as to prevent leaking to the public while ensuring that the case is resolved fairly.
All of which is to say, the ACLU can't be "traitors" if they're seeking to hold the government accountable for its actions.
What war? We haven't declared war, technically, on anyone, or any group. So to say that these things were done in a time of war, is inaccurate, but you know what I mean.
As to others saying that the ACLU does dangerous things to bring harm to America; show me some examples... I bet you can't.
Of course, I agree with you about the use of the term "war." But it seems like we're swimming upstream now when we try to argue against the jingoism embodied in "global war on terror" talk.
And when you start accepting that there's a global war on terror, it must seem ludicrous that Germany would object to the U.S. fighting the war within their borders, however the U.S. sees fit to do it. It's global, after all.
But I'm in danger of going off the handle here...
At last!
Another soul who has the sense to properly refer to what's going on as "jingoism".
I've been calling it that for almost 6 years, and I've been met with blank stares more often than not.
These people (O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Coulter, Beck, Gibson, Krauthammer, etc.) are not patriots. They're jingoists. Patriotism is good for America, jingoism is not.
I would love to see O'Reilly or that other guy, or for that matter any of the conservatives here who aren't shy about expressing their ignorance about the ACLU, give us an example of how the ACLU "denigrates America."
Bill O should host Limbaugh and ask him what he thinks of the ACLU. It would be interesting to hear Limbaugh argue against them after they sided with him on the doctor-patient confidentiality issues.
Easy. One example, when the Minutemen project started a couple years ago, the ACLU's spokesperson in Arizona said they would be committing unlawful imprisonment of illegal immigrants. They were going to make sure that the illegals weren't "abused" - which is ridiculous, since the Minutemen had no authority to do anything except contact the Border agents.
Their allegiance was not with protecting our borders, or with America.......it was with lawbreakers, and for no reason.
You mean this one:
http://www.acluaz.org/News/PressReleases/11_03_06.htm
Just a small passage I found in this report, "While the ACLU supports the right of private citizens to voice their concerns about immigration policy, the organization believes private citizens do not have the right to enforce federal immigration laws. The enforcement of immigration laws is the duty of trained federal immigration officers who are required to respect the constitutional rights of every person."
Or this one: http://www.acluaz.org/News/PressReleases/03_30_05.htm where they provided observers to ensure no laws were being broken.
Or this one: http://www.acluaz.org/News/PressReleases/03_08_05.htm
At no time did they attempt to stop the Minutemen from doing what they were doing. They observed.
How is that dangerous again?
He shoots. He scores.
Losers walk, Tommy.
Nutty,
"He shoots. He scores."
A common phrase used in a game of hoops or hockey, however
"loser walks" is from football,
in hoops or hockey the loser stays where they are. While the scoring teams returns to defense.
Actually to put a finer point on it. It is from pick-up football. In regular organized football the team that scores has to walk all of the way back to their own side of the field to kick-off. In pick-up football you simply exchange end-zones and the team that failed to defend against a touchdown has to walk back to the other side of the field receive your kickoff as a sort of punishment for failure.
Trying to insure that illegal immigrants aren't unlawfully detained by vigilantes is not "denigrating America," unless you believe that unlawfully detaining people is a fundamental characteristic of America.
Try again.
Trying to insure that illegal immigrants aren't unlawfully detained by vigilantes is not "denigrating America," unless you believe that unlawfully detaining people is a fundamental characteristic of America.
Try again.
No, You and Bush use the term vigilante - which is inflammatory and ridiculous. They were exercising their perfect right to contact proper law enforcement officials when they see an act violating the law......illegal immigrants crossing our borders. They detained noone.
You wanted an example of their anti-American stance, and you got it. You just agree with them on this so to you it's perfectly acceptable.........I understand that.
The ACLU did not stop the Minutemen from contacting law enforcement officials. They stopped them from breaking the law by detaining people.
I understand that you are in favor of the Minutemen breaking the law, but I still don't see how the ACLU trying to uphold the law "denigrates America." Are you saying that America is about law-breaking?
Rusty, Please tell me how the Minutemen broke the law?
They didn't, but are you saying the ACLU's oversight was unjustified and anti-american?
So the ACLU is now a watchdog group out to oversee American's who are exercising their freedoms, "just in case" they break the law? Sounds awfully invasive to me???
Invasive? Were they not on public land?
I am on public land when in a park, is the ACLU going to watch me there to make sure I don't break laws?
No, but if you're in a public park on the U.S. border the Minutemen might. But of course, you'd support that - right?
Are you arguing the ACLU's function is to watch over law abiding Americans, I don't care where it is - on the border is irrelevant? If that is what you are arguing, then that is denegrating, disguisting, invasive, ridiculous and anti-American.
If someone's civil rights are being violated, then yes, they might be around to watch over you. They were there, because they had heard that illegals coming over the border were having their civil rights violated. Remember? They are a civil rights orgnanization. And as I said in another posting on here, once their feet hit US soil, our laws apply to them. They were out to make sure that the civil rights of the illegals were not infringed upon.
Wow! That's super anti-American... How does that denigrate the US of A again?
When a group of hyped-up, gun-toting yokels gather at the border, unsupervised by law enforcement, to look out for "illegals," I'd say it's well within the ACLU's domain to watch them to see that they don't violate anybody's civil rights.
Unless what you really want is for the Minutemen to be able to violate people's civil rights at will.
Rusty, Your ridiculous characterization of the Minutemen only highlights your prejudice against them while to bolster your argument for the ACLU and their cherry picking anti-Americanism......which denegrates this country. The Minutemen had no reason to be watched anymore than you or I do. I gave you the example you asked for it and you twisted and perverted it into a unfair slam against law abiding citizens at the expense of the ACLU - by saying, well they "might" break the law.
You, of all people, with your deft legal mind, know that is absolutely absurd..........and not even close to what the ACLU was founded or intended to do. They are now an extremist organization.
You are so blinded by your hatred of the ACLU (and perhaps of "illegals") that you fail to see that you judge them the same way you say I judge the Minutemen.
Protecting civil liberties is not "anti-American," and it certainly isn't "treasonous." And last but not least, it certainly doesn't "denigrate America."
Rusty,
You and I will never change each other's minds about the ACLU - and I admit they are not my favorite group, but it's causes like this that make me crazy and where my opinions about them have been formulated.
You agree with them and I respect that. I do not. We disagree, but I don't want to "war" it out with you over it. Peace..........
So you have a problem with the Bill of Rights? Don't like civil liberties and love government intrusion in people's lives? Sounds like you need to relocate to Singapore or China. Have fun!
I don't know why you throw out all of your faculties for reason when you discuss the ACLU. It's pretty odd. You must have some deep emotional connection to it. It just isn't rational in any way.
Even you must recognize that the Minuteman Project presented a reasonable potential for abuse that needed to be watched and documented. What is wrong with that? Would you prefer something bad happen and no one knew about it or had any evidence/documentation? The presence of the ACLU likely made the Minutemen mind their P's and Q's a little better and actually prevented violations of the law. Your positon again, is not a rational one.
You even made the ridiculous analogy to yourself in a parking lot. The analogy doesn't make any sense at any level. There is obviously a huge difference in potential for breaking the law or violating human rights as opposed to the Minutemen. If you can't see that, then I have seriously overestimated your intelligence.
Maybe this is why you defended the idea of going with your "gut" on some issues the other day. It appears that is all you have here.
Parking lot? Did you read any of it, it was a park and the relevance of it went to public property.
Despite your ever increasing insulting demeanor and personal attacks, you and everyone else here have yet to explain why the ACLU is now a watchdog group over private citizens on public land. There is no reason for it, it is invasive, it is cherry picking, it is transparent, and it is uncalled for. If they are so interested in "watching" some group of people who "may" break some law, then why are they not planted on the border watching for the illegal immigrant lawbreakers to do it?
I was asked for an example of why the ACLU is denegrating America. I gave one. Trying to intimidate a group of law abiding citizens who are attempting to alert law enforcement officials trying to protect our borders is reprehensible, unjustified and extremely telling - where the ACLU's mission and focus are concerned.
Feel free to contribute to them if you so choose, but don't insult me if I choose not to. That is your choice, and mine.
Actually, you never gave an example of the ACLU denigrating America. You think you did, but you didn't.
Peace.
No he didnt not even close
My vision of America is where people immigrate to this country legally and lawfully, as has been throughout our history. Apparently your vision is an open border, department store policy where those breaking the law and entering illegally are encouraged and applauded and those protecting the laws are "watched over" and denegrated.
Gee thanks, but I prefer my vision.
Peace out..........
You are incorrect about my vision, but congratulations on building the biggest, silliest strawman of all time.
Crusty,
"In 1982, the ACLU, in an amicus role, lost in a unanimous decision in the Supreme Court to legalize the sale and distribution of child pornography.”
The case is…: New York Vs Ferber, 458 U.S. 747
Please return to the first page of this thread to learn why you are incorrect about Ferber.
Trying to intimidate a group of law abiding citizens who are attempting to alert law enforcement officials trying to protect our borders
Please, tell me all about how these burly, aggressive ACLU observers "intimidated" a bunch of pencil-necked Minuteman geeks.
Really. I need a good Thursday giggle.
You need a giggle? Read all your liberal ACLU defenders try and defend why it's OK for ACLU to set up watch over indiduals who may, possibly, just might, break the law.......the champion of civil liberties, now there's a real laugh.
Breaking the law is a civil liberty? That's a new one.
Or is the right not to be looked at by private citizens in public a civil liberty? That's another new one.
You missed it.
Yeah, I missed where there was intimidation.
You are the one who is insulting my intelligence with your feeble argument. There is a reasonable expectation that the Minutemen would break the law on that public land. It isn't like the ACLU is watching everyone.
You've completely lost your senses.
Of course they don't watch everyone, only those with agenda's they don't like........silly!
Exactly. The ACLU watches people with an apparent anti-Constitutional, anti-Bill of Rights and anti-respect for the law agenda. Damn the ACLU.
Wow - the Minutemen are anti-Constitution and anti-Bill of Rights and anti-respect for the law by acting completely within the law.........but those that are breaking our laws by entering this country illegally are..........? Great example.
If the ACLU weren't present, the Minutemen may have been able to demonstrate all of the above.
Also... it doesn't look like the Minutemen were even all that bothered by the ACLU, according to this report (from the notorious lefty liberal website freerepublic.com):
Read the whole article.........
I read it.
"Notorious lefty liberal..."
Hilarious!!!
Tommy I don't agree.
The Minutemen have TIME AND TIME AGAIN showed their extremism and veiled racism. Plenty of stories have come out showing members of this group steping over the line. This may be a reason why the ACLU has taken an interest in protecting the illegals crossing the border from them. I realize illegal immigration is a problem, but I believe we should deal with the issue in a more LEGAL fashion. I have no problem with people calling the authorities if they see illegals crossing the border illegally, however threating them and aiming guns at them is inhumane, and very disqusting...
You are correct Rusty.
I believe the Minuteman time and time again have showed their extremism. I remember some stories about some members of a Border Control Group shooting down some illegals. This I believe is a reason the ACLU watches over them. Although I think the ACLU steps over the line sometimes; it is nowhere near the "anti-american" group some of the right claim them to be. I do take insult to the ACLU personally as my father(who is now deceased) was once a member. The attacks on the group is almost always UNFOUNDED, and are just plain out smears.
Now they're an extemist organization? Puh-lease. That's weak at best.
They made sure that illegls who had made it to the US were not having their civil rights violated by people who had no legal authority to detain them. Again, the ACLU didn't stop what they were doing, didn't file an injunction against them, they watched them. By the way, there are a lot of groups out on the border watching the Minutemen, not just the ACLU. It's not un-american. And they're not an extremist group.
No they arent. You just disagree with them and it cannot in any reasonable way be considered denigrating America. Does neighborhood watch denigrate America? Does it violate peoples rights when they observe and assure that people arent breaking into houses in the nieghborhood? Its the same thing. IF they arent violating the law if all they are doing IN PUBLIC is contacting authorities then the ACLU isnt really any problem for them right?
Maybe private security guards "denigrate America" too.
No, they really don't - because they don't have a stadium full of high-priced lawyers ready to cherry pick issues and judges for their benefit.
But private security guards watch over law-abiding private citizens in public places, just in case those citizens decide to break the law. Why aren't they "denigrating America"? Why the double standard?
Minimum wage security guards hired by private companies with no political agenda vs. the powerful, agenda driven lawyered up ACLU.......hmmm? Can't get down with the comparison, sorry.
Oh I get it, the security guards are denegrating perhaps, Wal Mart's parking lot - OK, I will give you that.
Tommy, please, what is your beef with the ACLU? Is there a word "denegrate" that means something different than "denigrate," and if so, what does it mean to "denegrate" America?
All you have mentioned so far is intimidation, which is ridiculous, and lawyers, who as far as I know limit their activity to "litigating," not "denegrating."
Please make your charge and stick with it. I swear, it's like shadow-boxing with you sometimes...
Val,
Another example, this happened last summer on a Marine base. The soldiers were bowing their heads, saying their soldier's prayer honoring the birthday of the Marine corp.....and a picture was taken. When the ACLU saw this, one of their spokesman threw a fit -- saying these were federal employees on federal time on federal property and this was some establishment of religion and it had to be stopped immediatly, or some such nonsense. How absurd. This is what they are focusing their efforts on? This is just one of the reasons that they are a far left nutty fringe extremist organization........and part of my beef with them.
Please provide a link to the lawsuit that was undoubtedly filed by the ACLU. Or are you just commenting that the ACLU is "denegrating America" when one member has a "fit" as you describe it?
Also, if there was no lawsuit filed (which would be my guess), then how is this an example that "[t]his is what [the ACLU] are focusing their efforts on?"
Curiouser and curiouser.
Val asked what my "beef" was? I responded. I don't know if they ever filed a lawsuit or not. But their intentions are very clear.
You are free to question or become "curious" all you want. What a ridiculous comment. It is a personal opinion of mine, you don't share it, that's fine. You support the ACLU, I do not. There is nothing curious about it. It's a difference in philosophy and opinion.
Your opinion is not based in reality Tommy. The ACLU is not some huge monolith with millions of supporters. It's sad but true. Here's an example of why I find your accusations and examples you provide as being full of garbage. O'Reilly went off on the ACLU for stopping the "Parade of Lights" in Denver a couple years back. He claimed they had filed suit because the city wanted to allow x-tian themed floats. The thing is no such suit was filed because the ACLU didn't believe it violated anyone's civil liberties. They didn't view it as an endorsement by the city of any religion. O'Reilly and other ACLU hating wing nuts can't seem to grasp what the Bill of Rights are. The ACLU has won law suits for kids who wanted to wear religious slogans on their t-shirts at school. Does that blow your mind? You are so ill informed and biased on this issue. It's poeple like you, who cling to the narrowest of perceptions, that are holding this country back. You claim to be qualified to determine what is unAmerican. But you've displayed an arrogant ignorance towards the Bill of Rights and the ACLU. A closed mind is a terrible thing. You will believe anything you want to, facts be damned.
It's an urban legend.
Tommy, you are certainly welcome to your opinion.However, just as I refrain from debating someone about religion, I'd as soon not argue with you if your opinions are fixed and unchangeable, not based in fact and reason.
Good catch so the lets review. So far tommy's examples of the ACLU denigrating America are them OBSERVING minutemen to assure no ones rights are violated and something that never happened. By my scoring that would be 0 for 2
Proof positive of what Tommy's argument is built on. When will he learn? Good catch.
Val, If it is not true, then I apologize for my error, I did not check it's accuracy - it was something I had heard but did not verify.
My opinion of the ACLU has not changed however........thank you for clearing up this incident, if it indeed is legend.
Why would it. You listen to lies about them then repeat them. Whether they are true or not apparantly has no bearing on your 'feelings' about them. Since it made them look bad it was immediatly assimilated by you, then regurgitated. You CLAIM the ACLU denigrates America but havent come within a parsec of showing this to be true. The truth is you have no rationality on this issue, facts mean nothing, its the sort of irrational hatred you accuse the left of having against Bush. No need for facts you have an ideology
"My opinion of the ACLU has not changed however" --tommy
++++++++++++++++++++++
Where to begin? Simply unbelievable. I will leave it at that.
Minimum wage security guards hired by private companies with no political agenda vs. the powerful, agenda driven lawyered up ACLU...
So it isn't about "denigrating America" - now it's about money. I guess if you keep moving the goalposts around, as you always do, you might score yet.
High priced lawyers? Do you have any idea how few members the ACLU has? Lawyers volunteer their time to do work for the ACLU. The more off the mark you are the bigger the illusion you create. Stadium full of high priced lawyers picking judges, that is so simple minded and ignorant. I'm not surprised.
And exactly what does your biased take on WHO THEY ARE have to do with WHAT THEY ARE DOING, in this specific instance and how in the world it can be considered denigrating America?
Where's your proof in support of your claim of the group who's hunting the border.
By the way, the Minutemen were the soldiers who fought for the freedom during the birth of this nation. To say that these men who are trying to deny the freedom that the Minutemen fought and died for by that name is insulting.
TOMMY:
You say, "Are you arguing the ACLU's function is to watch over law abiding Americans,..."
RESPONSE: No. The ACLU's "function" is to watch over OUR CONSTITUTION, and to challenge behavior of Americans if the ACLU believes the Constitution is being violated. If they WIN in court following Constitutional procedures ... and the Constitution is found to HAVE BEEN violated, then by definition anyone being "watched over" for their behavior is NOT a "law-abiding American".
The ACLU operates within our Judicial System. They take their claims to court, where they either win or lose. If they WIN, then they were correct in asserting that civil rights were being violated. If they LOSE, then no Un-American activity results, the accused are simply exonerated of violating the Constitution in the instance challenged.
In short, if you fear going to court on a charge brought by the ACLU, it is not the ACLU you fear, but the LAW ITSELF, and our Constitution.
You conclude: "... that is denegrating, disguisting, invasive, ridiculous and anti-American."
RESPONSE: Quite a laundry list of charges.
"denegrating"? den·i·grate: to speak damagingly of; criticize in a derogatory manner; sully; defame. To treat or represent as lacking in value or importance; belittle; disparage: to denigrate someone's contributions to a project.
I suppose bringing charges against someone MIGHT be considered "denigrating", but it is the foundation of our judicial system. The alternative is to take the law into one's own hands (as the "Minute Men" choose to do), and that is the prescription for anarchy. In any event, it is not "denigration" if the ACLU wins in court, then their charges were valid and true, which happens more often than not.
"disgusting"? Subjective emotion on your part.
"invasive"? If true, then the ACLU itself can be brought up on charges. If false, then a useless charge to make.
"ridiculous"? Again, an emotional opinion, useless as argument.
"Un-American"? The very ROOT of the disagreement. The ACLU is "Un-American" ONLY if one considers the Constitution itself to be Un-American. The ACLU can do NOTHING that is not specifically Constitutional, and they work through our Judicial System. Nothing could be MORE "American". In truth, to claim the ACLU should cease and desist is the most UNAMERICAN view imaginable.
Are you also against Neighborhood Watch? Because what you just described sounds like a pretty good description of exactly what Neighborhood Watch does.
What? The neighborhood watch would be what the Minuteman is doing......the ACLU would be watching the neighborhood watch to make sure they don't break laws. Is that what you are advocating?
Your comparison is not a good one. Neighborhood Watch is sponsored and overseen by local police departments. If there were self-appointed watchers in my neighborhood, then hell yeah I'd want a Neighborhood Watch Watch.
Are you of the opinion that there was absolutely no chance of "any" of the Minutemen overreaching? The were carrying guns ( which is there right).
Are you saying there wer "NO" cases of any minutemen acting illegally? I won't do a search. I'll take your word if you say it.
if the Minutemen didn't break any laws, I'd bet the ACLU being there had something to do with that.
God knows what kind of abuses would have taken place without the ACLU there. Now both sides can claim success. I would think the Minuteman would thank the ACLU for making sure nothing happened as well, but they seem a bit too brainwashed for that.
By your arguement you just excused the "Spy on Americans" program that Bush had set up.
It's interesting to me that this argument about the ACLU's concerns over the Minutemen has gone from "traitorous" intentions to "invasive". Again, the "Minutemen" aren't a law enforcement group. If they want to act as a neighborhood watch, fine. I can completely understand why the watchers wouldn't want to be watched, but it's the height of hypocrisy for the Minutemen to turn around and claim that the ACLU doesn't have a right to engage in the same kind of public monitoring that they themselves are undertaking.
Either way... this certainly doesn't constitute treachery, does it?
No, Tommy, Monk
The minutemen did break the law in several cases.
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?sid=356
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=553
That is why the ACLU and other groups decided to place "watchers" to insure the Minutemen were doing nothing illegal (Sort of funny, a group that screams about "Illegal Immagrants" breaks the law themselves).
Thank you for the clarification.
As far as I know they didn't, perhaps because the ACLU was watching them. Please tell me how the ACLU "denigrated America" by watching the Minutemen to insure they didn't break the law.
So, that is the function of the ACLU now? To sit watch over law abiding Americans, like some sort of Big Brother, and ensure no laws are broken. You must be kidding?
How is that "denigrating America"?
Again the function of the ACLU, the American Civil Liberties Union founded by American patriot John Dewey, is to prrotect people's civil liberties. Your fascination with the minutmen ordeal is way off base. Your understanding of their purpose is also off base. Anti-American? Any one who would call the ACLU anti-American has a profound ignorance of the US Constitution. No offense, but "you have no frame of reference here Donny. You're like a child who has walked into the room in the middle of a movie." the Big Lebowski
Big Brother??? Are they checking the Minutemens mail? Are they tapping their phones? You have no expectation of privacy in PUBLIC. Anyone can watch ANYONE in public. They are not doing this in their homes or their yards. The Big Brother comment is ludicrous.
What did they actually do that was anti-America besides make sure all the laws were followed?
No.
There were reports of them breaking the law, and since nobody was doing anything about it, the ACLU sent observers (didn't try to stop them from doing what they were doing) to watch what they were doing. Did you read the links? They didn't ask them to stop calling in illegals coming across the border, but they made sure that they didn't break the law, and or hurt anyone's civil liberties. Because like it or not, once an illegal immigrant makes it onto US soil, he or she is allowed the same protections under our Constitution that we are. This is what the ACLU was protecting here, and it's not un-American as you say. They adhere to the Constitution, that most of American documents.
Are you saying that you don't agree with The Constitution?
If that's your example of being anti-American you failed miserably.
No they didnt not within miles of an example of un-American activities
"Easy. One example, when the Minutemen project started a couple years ago, the ACLU's spokesperson in Arizona said they would be committing unlawful imprisonment of illegal immigrants. They were going to make sure that the illegals weren't "abused" - which is ridiculous, since the Minutemen had no authority to do anything except contact the Border agents. "
Were they wrong in insuring that the minutemen did not go past there given authority? The minute men have no authority to detain anyone. If the minute men did in fact detain the illegals, would the ACLU be wrong to defend them?
Hypothetical. Never happened. Irrelevant.
What about the first two questions?
So is your example then.
They provided oversight for the activities of the Minutemen. As conservatives like to say so often, if they weren't doing anything wrong, they've got nothing to worry about. They didn't infringe on their ability to report illegals coming across the border, but made sure they were following the law. What's wrong with that?
Tommy, why do you hate McGruff the Crime Dog?
95% of your comments are "Hypothetical. Never happened. Irrelevant." as is the case here. If you can't understand the ACLUs concern that the minutemen might violate people's rights and their desire to make sure that didn't happen then there is no helping you. Your mind is made up. You said yourself the ACLU acts for no reason. An organization over 80 years old appearantly, in your view, has no purpose but to what? Tick off conservatives? Use your brain. Think a little bit. It is juvenile and naive to think as you do that the ACLU wanted to observe the minutemen for no reason. C'mon.
Please tell me this entire act is just that, an act.
Hypothetical? No, because there was reason to believe the 'minute men' were about to do something illegal. That would be like saying the police cannot arrest you before you commit something illegal, even if they catch you shortly before you do it. What about all the CIA people running around the world trying to catch possible terrorists. They had not done anything yet, so by your twisted view, they should also not be observed or anything.
The fact that they did nothing under the observation of the aclu is irrelevent, as the aclu's presence probably 'convinced' the MM not do do anything. Similar to a bouncer in a bar. Without the bouncers nothing might happen, but as it could, you them there to be safe.
Actually Tommy, its not, it did happen and has happened. The minutemen have held individuals as prisoners. See the links I posted before, thats why the ACLU is involved!!
Tommy, your ignorance about the ACLU is showing. Don't despair, just take a gander at the organization's mission statement (at www.aclu.com/about/index.html) and you too can escape the shackles that bind the ill-informed, the uninformed and the gullible, and join the world of the informed. The ACLU's "allegiance" (as you call it) is to the U. S. Constitution and the civil rights it affords everyone within its borders (yes, even you folks who would deny the civil rights of others) -- nothing more, nothing less. The ACLU's "allegiance" is to what makes this country great, Tommy, and that's its Constitution, not its physical borders.
Wrong again Tommy. The ACLU stands up for the Bill of Rights. Unlike Mexico's constitution that specifically denies the rights therin to non-citizens, our constitution is how we treat people alien or otherwise. This is what has set us apart for so many years. No where in our glorious constitution does it say, treat non-citizens how ever you like. The ACLU had a legitimate concern that the "minutemen" many of whom were armed (not that there is anything wrong with that) and angry citizens who just might exercise extreme predjudice. I've been a "card carrying" member since I was a teen. They may take unpopular positions at times but those positions are consistent with the Bill of Rights. Sticking up for Rush Limbaugh and the KKK come to mind. And the ACLU doesn't have the resources to pick and choose cases that give them the best exposure. They aren't funded by George Soros but by people like me that shoot them a few bucks a year and lawyers volunteer their time. I encourage everyone to check out their site and see what they are really about because if someone like O'Reilly had his civil liberties violated by the government, the ACLU would defend him, as they did with Rush.
Tommy, people never do things for "no reason," even if they are seriously mentally deranged... after all, "the voices told me to" is a reason, just not a very good one.
Why is it so hard for you to conceive that there is a perfectly rational position in contradiction to your own?
Wrong again as you usually are when you talk about the ACLU. Their concern is where it ALWAYS is with civil rights which are NOT given in the Constitution ONLY to citizens but to PERSONS. If they werent going to abuse nor imprison anyone then they really werent being threatened in any way by the ACLU.The ACLU are absolutist about civil rights. Protecting our borders is NOT their agenda nor part of the description of what they do, that responsibility belongs to the Federal Government. THEY task themselves to assure the Constitution itself is followed fully and in every case. You might not like that but its hardly a reasonable example of what you were asked to provide.
In Costa Mesa, CA the citizens demanded something be done about the rampant crime being committed in their community by illegal aliens from Mexico. The Mayor fought to have a person from I.C.E present at the city jail to determine the immigration status of these criminals. In December/January, 104 people arrested for various felonies including robbery, auto theft, drug trafficking, and sex crimes were found to be in the country illegally. They will eventually be deported and the citizens of Costa Mesa are ecstatic about the program. The local branch of the ACLU is going absolutely bonkers. Go figure.
Can you provide proof of the ACLU going "BONKERS"? A statement, a law suite? Anything?
What does the going bonkers entail? Please explain.
Notice how Gttntoobed and all of the other conservatives never give legitimate links to backup their suspicious accounts of what they are describing?
It is because the more detail that is known about what they are talking about, the less valid their point becomes. They want to control the debate by only giving us a very small and distorted picture of what is really going on. Gttntoobed will not provide a legitimate link. He knows better than to do that. He is apparently happy just planting seeds. He is full of it just as all of the other conservative ACLU hating zombies who have been exposed on this thread so far.
It just begs the question, why on earth are these conservatives so damned hostile to an organization that fights to protect civil liberties?
Judging from their rhetoric, which is uniformly lifted from anti-ACLU websites and ignorant talking heads like O'Reilly and Weiner, the righties hate the ACLU because they are instructed to do so by people they trust. It would be nice if they would learn to think for themselves about the ACLU but it seems they can't - not even the "independents" among them.
You know what, Rust Bucket? Your ignorance is eternal. I've never even seen an "anti-ACLU" website and I can't stand O'Reilly. I've studied the ACLU and I know what they're all about. Their vision of America is very different from that of our Founding Fathers. But I don't expect you to be aware of that you little Pavlovian Nazi, you.
You don't seem to take losing an argument very well. I must say it doesn't surprise me considering your irrational position to begin with.
Name-calling? Really adult of you.
Go to orangecountyregister.com you moron. You can see it there.
Looks like your URL is another rabit hole. I cut and pasted it and it goes to some search page. Do you even know how to paste an entire link into here? It isn't rocket science. Besides, linking to a top-level domain is pretty idiotic to begin with.
The ACLU and MALDEF fought the city's plan to install personnel from I.C.E. Radicals from various leftist groups disrupted city council meetings. Now that illegals are going to be deported, Hector Villagra from the Orange County branch of the ACLU calls the events "troubling" and is stirring things up by saying "there's a lot of fear [among Mexicans in Costa Mesa] of what might happen if you [mexicans, legal and illegal] have any contact with the police at this point." I live 15 minutes from Costa Mesa. I follow this stuff. It's in the papers every day.
I guess it is just asking way too much for you to provide a link to where you got your information so we can check it out. It would be nice if you could at least try to do something out of character (which I described above).
So the ACLU hasn't even filed a lawsuit on this then? Wow. Nice point.
Are you saying they don't have a right to keep an eye on the police? I fail to see where your argument gives evidence to anything at all. How is that traitorous or denigrating America? Seems like giving the police and city officials carte blanche would be the fascist position here.
BTW I found this in an article from Jan. 30th of this year:
'Advocacy groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund are closely following Costa Mesa's immigration arrests, but officials with those groups said it's too early to draw conclusions."We've gotten complaints and expressions of concern about what's going on in the jail, and we're definitely investigating," ACLU Orange County Director Hector Villagra said, but he added, "I don't think you can say anything meaningful about two months' worth of data."Villagra said his group is concerned that police officers might use the most minor infractions as reasons to bring people in, specifically so they can be questioned about their immigration status."When the proposal was initially put on the table by the mayor [in 2005], one of the justifications was to go after violent criminals, and from the newspaper reports that have been put out there's some question as to whether minor infractions are leading to immigration review," Villagra said.' --LINK
Once again, you described this reaction exaggeratedly as "bonkers". It is clearly evident Villagra is exhibiting a wait and see attitude here with some reasonable apprehension. Maybe this is why you don't provide links. So you can control the information.
"Denigrates America" equals:
Fights against the one true religion, which this country was founded on. ie. if you are against seperation of church (by church of course, refering to christianity, the supposed faith of our founding fathers) you are thus anti american. After all what "good" person opposes spreading the gospel with taxpayers money?
THis country was founded on Seperation of church and state you idi....nevermind.
Crusty,
"In 1982, the ACLU, in an amicus role, lost in a unanimous decision in the Supreme Court to legalize the sale and distribution of child pornography.”
The case is…: New York Vs Ferber, 458 U.S. 747"
I don't know if kids engaged in adult sex acts is not enough there is tons and tons more.
Again, you are wrong about Ferber. Please return to page one of this thread.
Sorry but this is a case where the CIA and America recieves a huge black eye. Khalid was a German citizen wrongly identified by our so called rendition program. Apparently he has the same name as an actual terrorist. The man was completely innocent. He was kidnapped by the CIA while travelling and then transported to several different countries. I dont believe he was tortured by there was absolutlely no due process. Whoever was in charge of this fiasco should is going to pay, and rightfully so. When you start kidnapping and detaining innocent people from other countries for months on end people and governments tend to get angry.
The reports said he claimed he wasnt tortured but was beaten and abused
I am not sure of the context of your comment, and I am not trying to jerk my knee at you but... what is the difference between "beating" and "torture," exactly?
Yeah, I know, perhaps its in the eye of the beholder but the article I read claimed this is what he claimed himself that he was beaten and abused but not tortured. I guess if that is how HE saw it, who am I to argue.
Thanks ACLU, despite its reputation if it were not for the ACLU minds like Bill O'Reilly would be leading the judicial process in America. The ACLU may be wrong on some issues as are most organizations but we would be worse than the old Soviet Union with out them keeping watch.
Hear hear! Right on thew money Doris.
;^}
Traitors?Of course they are. Anyone who deviates from the neocon agenda is a traitor.The voters who voted for the present congress are also traitors, as are we all who post here.Even my dog has been mumbling traitorous things when he thinks I can't hear him.
He's not conspiring with my cats is he?
Excuse me...am I missing something here?
Why is the ACLU even involved in this case?
Khaled El-Masri is a German citizen. The case is in Germany. While I realize the charges are being brought AGAINST the C.I.A....what reason would the ACLU have for helping a German citizen bring charges against anybody including the American government?
Isn't THIS out of their jurisdiction?
Would prefer non-snarky replies...preferably from someone who understands The Law.
Thanks.
Probably something about government oversight, and the fact that the CIA was involved. I'm just guessing at that here, as I don't have an intimate knowledge of the law. I think that the ACLU can represent anyone that it wants can't it? They are a private organization, and therefore are not tied down with jurisdiction and such.
Thanks for your reply Magnolia :-)
Well I guess I figured the *American* in American Civil Liberties Union, meant they essentially were a National rather than International organization.
I just went to their website. I'm at work and don't have time to read up on all of it right this minute BUT here's their Mission Statement:
The mission of the ACLU is to preserve all of these protections and guarantees:
Your First Amendment rights-freedom of speech, association and assembly. Freedom of the press, and freedom of religion supported by the strict separation of church and state.
Your right to equal protection under the law - equal treatment regardless of race, sex, religion or national origin.
Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake.
Your right to privacy - freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs.We work also to extend rights to segments of our population that have traditionally been denied their rights, including Native Americans and other people of color; lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgendered people; women; mental-health patients; prisoners; people with disabilities; and the poor.
If the rights of society's most vulnerable members are denied, everybody's rights are imperiled.
The ACLU was founded by Roger Baldwin, Crystal Eastman, Albert DeSilver and others in 1920. We are nonprofit and nonpartisan and have grown from a roomful of civil liberties activists to an organization of more than 500,000 members and supporters. We handle nearly 6,000 court cases annually from our offices in almost every state.
The ACLU has maintained the position that civil liberties must be respected, even in times of national emergency. The ACLU is supported by annual dues and contributions from its members, plus grants from private foundations and individuals. We do not receive any government funding. Learn more about joining the ACLU.
J2:
Check out items two and three: equal protection and due process.
J2: the ACLU was helping El-Masri challenge the CIA's practice of "extraordinary rendition." As far as I know the ACLU doesn't limit their representation to American citizens.
You might find better answers to your questions in the ACLU's press release.
Hey Rusty thanks for the link
I'm gonna read it in when I get a minute or two.
You are very well acquianted with the law, Rusty.
What, if any, ramifications for the Patriot Act does this case entail? Isn't the authority of the President to arrest, as an enemy combatant, any citizen of any country at any time granted in one of the provisions of the Patriot Act?
Please forgive my ignorance.
I'm not sure, Roundhouse. I'm not well enough acquainted with the intricacies of the case. Sorry.
That's alright. Thanks just the same.
I believe the controlling law is a presidential directive allowing the CIA to transport terror suspects to other countries. The question of whether this practice vialoates the ban on torture is, as far as I know, still an open one. I think the main purpose of this case is to bring the issue to a head. But IANAL...
Okay. Thank you.
Many believe, including the ACLU that many provisions in the Patriot Act are unConstitutional. Just because Congress passes and the President signs into law a bill doesn't mean it's magically constitutional. The pres. thinks he has the authority to do whatever he pleases but that's not good enough. He swears an oath to uphold the Constitution. Not protect Americans not to be an authoritarian ruler but to protect our founding document. Conservatives have muddied the water but the Constitution is clear.
Many believe? Count me among them. I just wanted to know, actually was hoping, that a case like this could deconstruct at least some of the anti-American legislation in that Orwellian document called the Patriot Act.
power to the people!
"Many believe." Now there's something solid that even "Tex" could hang his hat on.
A mind-reading troll like you has room to talk?
Even if that were true, it would not apply to German citizens IN Germany. We do not take OUR Laws with us when we go to other countries and niether does the CIA
Well, technically he was abducted in Macedonia but I understand completely what you are saying. I mean just because the Constitution and international law prohibits the actions that this administration has committed doesn't mean that these guys are going to cease and desist voluntarily.
True, I was sloppy in my post. Thanks for the correction.
SOLON:
Our Constitution applies to actions taken by our government, no matter where the agents of our government might be. And the JURISDICTION of our Constitution does not say it applies ONLY to citizens of the USA, but to all persons (as example among many, the 5th Amendment begins with "NO PERSON shall ..." The 14th Amendment extends its protections to "ANY PERSON". The Constitution has no citizenship requirment for rights to be extended; Not no citizen, but PERSON.
In practice, Constitutional protections have been found to extend to any person in our "jurisdiction", i.e. in any instance where a person is interacting with agents of our government.
Simply put, the Constitution by statute institutes the "Golden Rule" ... we must do unto others as we would have done unto us ... which is what sets America as being a nation to be exemplified and respected. When we VIOLATE our own principles (as happens, say, with the "Patriot Act"), then we corrupt our claim to morality.
Absolutly. Our laws do not give us AUTHORITY in other coutries was my point. No question our citizens and government officials are under its jurisdiction no matter where they are and I wouldnt have it any other way.
I guess all defense lawyers put us at risk too...only prosecutors are patriotic.
Nice observation.
I know prosecutors who think exactly that.
O'REILLY: People are going to be rounded up, and they shouldn't be. This is what happens in a war.
So I guess if Bill O' was mistakeningly picked off the streets of NY by a group of Israeli spies thinking he was working for the Palestenians. Detained for weeks and tortured. Then they realize they mad a mistake and released him. He would understand that since they are at war. He would not claim damages or seek any retribution.
Bill apparently thinks that the US is above international law, and can disregard our constitution and our democratic moral principlas whenever it suits us. We are accountable to know one. We can make the rules up as we go along.
Bill can't even handle being criticized.
Hmm, I think I remember the minutemen waving confederate flags at one of their parades...
Now that is un-American. There is no other symbol of anti-Americanism than the stars and bars. I can't stand people waving that hateful rag around and claiming they're being patriotic. It's a symbol of the South's desire to split the union so they could keep their slaves. The yanks won, the rebs lost, burn that flag!
Nazi flags too.
The Minutemen and similar groups definitely attract a disproportionate share of racists and generally paranoid wackos.
The ACLU will always protect Bill's right to march with his friends in Skokie.
Absolutely on the Minutemen. I don't believe for a second that more than at most a handful of them have anything on their minds except playing soldier and playing God. I believe that if someone believes the Minutemen have some higher, altruistic motive then you are being incredibly naive. They are defending our borders? Please-I'd like to see a socio-economic profile on the members of that group and then come to my own conclusions about their motivations. Their angry, displaced white men, most of whom are probably unemployed or underemployed, poorly educated, and bent on blaming the Mexicans because they can't get jobs or lives. And others of them just wanted to be cops and probably flunked the pshychological test to do so, because they are so out of whack with reality. I'm sorry, but I do not assign to them any "pure" motivations at all. And I think that 95% of people who criticize the ACLU don't even know what it is an acronym for.
Yes "Isthisagreatcountry actually one of the concerns about the minute men project is the large number of racist groups attracted to it. See the links below:
http://www.splcenter.org/center/splcreport/article.jsp?aid=150
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/news/item.jsp?aid=13
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/news/item.jsp?aid=18
It seems like the "Minutemen" care less and less about "protecting the country" as they claim and more about the race of those crossing. It would be interesting to see what they would do if they caught a white european crossing the boarder.
It's simple. The ACLU has a very different vision for America than that of our Founding Fathers. Read the history of the ACLU from its founding and even their current literature alongside the Federalist Papers, The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution and the two visions are like night and day. But that would require some effort and some independent thinking, something that's tragically missing from most of the Lefties on this site.
I'll provide a link since once again you didn't.
<[link to en.wikipedia.org] review the evil things the ACLU supported in its early years:
Right to be a concientious objector (we have that today), right to belong to a politcal party of your choosing (I'm all for it), and right of assembly (again, what a great idea put forward by our framers.)
Hmmm. So much for bulleted formatting.
You forgot about them defending NAMBLA, or more specifically "the right to pedophilia"
Wrong.
The right to free speech is extended to all speech, not just popular or pleasant speech. Read their press release on the subject. This quote is especially clear:
Don't you think Ollie North deserved a defense?
I'm not a big fan of North's but what he did is not comparable to an organization that supports pedophilia
They never supported any such thing. That is an outright lie. They supported the right of a group. ANY group to attempt to change the law. No matter how sick and misguided their attempts are they have the right to try. This has been gone over a hundred times. You are lying. Repeating this stale, dishonest rightwing talking point is a lie. The ACLU has never supported pedophelia. You have already shown your reading comprehension ability is about nil. But I guess propaganda parrots like you gotta do what propaganda parrots gotta do.
distibuting crack on our streets to fund an illegal war behind the American public's back not repulsive enough for you? Here's the difference between cons and libs. We can support an organization that defends civil liberties even if those they defend are unpopular. I don't like the Nazi party or the KKK and I certainly don't like pedophilia, but it wasn't racism or child endangerment that they were defending. Can you make that distinction? I don't think so. It's black and white to you. Unfortunately that kind of thinking needs a twisted view to support it. Like the ACLU is a group of child molesting, wealthy lawyers that pick and choose their cases to fit a radical un-American agenda. And consequently those who support the wicked ACLU must also be those types of people. People like O'Reilly perpetuate this ridiculous notion and it's easily digested by you, the con. Eager to hear an acknowledgement of said ridiculous notion. It's small minded and petty. Despite all efforts you will cling to your belief because you can't possibly be wrong, or be ill informed or worse yet have been duped. Well you have friend. You have bought a bill of goods that don't ring true. But what do I know? I must be a whacked out commie-pinko liberal hippy type stoned out of my mind. I'm sure that's the ridiculous notion you'll use in this case.
"...lawyers that pick and choose their cases to fit a radical un-American agenda."
Thanks, Bing. You just described the ACLU perfectly.
Provide a link where the ACLU is "supporting pedophilia". The ACLU is defending NAMBLA against murder related charges. The Constitution allows everyone a defence. You can't just pick and choose who is entitled to one and who isn't.
Savage Rocks in the head. They did no such thing. They have represented a convicted pedophile before. Because a term of his punishment meant he could no longer access the internet. The ACLU filed suit arguing that he was now a free citizen and had every right to information. Not on-line child porn mind you, that would be illegal, but his right to lawfully surf the web. An unpopular case for saure, and one right wing moonies have used to claim they support NAMBLA. The ACLU has consistently represented the Bill of Rights as our founding father's intended. Go to Chicago University's Founder's Constitution web site for an excellent reference on the writings of those who wrote our Constitution in context with the document. Anyone that would suggest that the ACLU contradicts their work has not done enough reading. And by the way, the Federalists were also called royalists for their desire to turn our federal government into a monarchy. The federalists were considered nuts by Tom Jefferson. The federalists were so reviled an anti-federalist party was formed to combat them. You may remember Patrick Henry who famously said, "give me liberty or give me death!" He was an anti-federalist too. I can't sit idley by while some con tries to rewrite our heritage and history. Before the revolution, conservatives were called loyalists, liberals were called patriots. This country was founded on liberal principles, that civil liberty be essential. The federalists wanted only land owners to vote. They wanted a strong federal government that oversaw the state's governments. In other words the federalists sucked.
To put it quite simply any organization that would defend another organization which applauds pedophelia is clearly not acting in the benfit of the country or human decency. Or maybe u think Michael Jaclson would make a great baby-sitter for your kids?
simple minded and ill informed.
Again (though I know accuracy is not something you care that much about), they defend free speech, not pedophilia. Pedophilia is against the law, as is obstruction of justice. However, people espousing hateful ideas do not lose their right of free speech.
I will gladly let idiots like Michael Jackson, Oliver North, and you speak your minds if it means my freedom of speech is similarly protected. Or, put more simply, I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
You wouldn't defend ANYTHING to the death, Val. You probably don't even own a gun (they're so...so...ICKY!). And even if you saw one, you wouldn't know which end the bullets come out of.
Nice mindreading. You conservatives are seemingly so good at that. Who can argue with that at all? I guess that is the only thing left you have to argue with these days as the facts don't seem to support anything you say or do.
The ACLU defends civil liberties of EVERYONE, that is the thing about RIGHTS either everyone has them or no one does. I admit the ACLU takes on some unsavory and downright maggot infested clients. Limbaugh for instance.
Savage,
Provide a link where the ACLU is "applauding pedophilia". Just because you say it, doesn't make it so. The ACLU has filed briefs on behalf of Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh in their specific cases. Should that be taken as some sort of endorsement for the idiocy that regularly spouts from Hannity and Limbaugh?
(One more try.)
I'll provide a link since once again you didn't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aclu#Organizational_history
Let's review the evil things the ACLU supported in its early years:
Right to be a concientious objector (we have that today), right to belong to a politcal party of your choosing (I'm all for it), and right of assembly (again, what a great idea put forward by our framers.)
While the sedition was a little too broad (one should have free press), it SHOULD come back in a smaller dose for those who speak out against America. Such as the fanatical muslims in dearborn who support Hezbollah. And anything protecting illegals from deportation (including Chicago churches) should be against the law
A "little" censorship is like being a "little pregnant," Sav... once you take away a little free speech in the name of defending America, who says you can't take away it all?
Plus, who decides? What if we terrist-lovin liberals get to control the Presidency and the Supreme Court, as well as both houses of Congress, and decide your speech in anti-American?
U mean like the "fairness doctrine"? The senate is already trying to silence conservative talk radio so your whole "upholding freedom" argument is out. And are u actually saying that someone who openly sides with a terrorist organization shouldn't at least be investigated?
Misinformation will be silenced friend. Is it so much to ask to be truthful when making statements on the publicly owned air waves? It's not our fault that cons can't tell the truth. They should be silenced. Lies and divisive misinformation is not free speech. Limabugh, Hannit, Coulter and O'Reilly have stopped just short of yelling fire in a crowded theater. Against the best interest of the country they misrepresent political opponents, stifle debate and political discourse and needlessly divide the community by insisting that half the country are terrorist sympathizers. Bring back the fairness doctrine. We need really balanced reporting. We need point and counterpoint debates on the evening news again. The only reason to feel threatened towards the fairness doctrine is you won't be able to lie and smear anymore on the public airways.
Yes only libs should speak....this is free speech to you is it not? It is laughable that libs chant "FREE SPEECH, FREE SPEECH" until they are opposed and then they cry foul. BTW the only reason the left SUX in radio is because the ratings are not there. People get enough left views from ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ETC. This is why fownews beats the crap out of them
BTW, I'll be back in an hour, maybe by then you can defend your argument. Try not to flood google with your queries Lenin
Glad too. You didn't read my post very well. Lying and slander is not protected free speech. If cons can keep from lying and slandering they are welcome on the public airwaves. If you are inferring that only libs are truthful and use facts , on that point I concede. The fairness doctrine does not censor free speech or opinion. You may not realize this but your pals on the radio lie and slander. They could be sued but they always fall back on the "it's only satire" defense. Mr. Savage is especcially prolific in lying and slandering. It is not their opinions that are the problem. It's there lack of facts that support them and the lies spoken to justify them that are the issue. Do you understand that? There's a difference. Truth, protected free speech, lies and slander, not.
We will. Try not to rupture yourself pulling stuff out of your ass, Franco.
Man are you stupid. Were you under the delusion that you are challenging? We answer you with half our brains tied behind our back and still take you apart time after time only your near infinite capacity for self delusion has you thinking you hold your own here. Basically you are embarrassing yourself.
I'll take a stab at it--
Out of the big 3 (NBC, ABC, CBS) The ratings for CBS News are the lowest of the 3, yet they are 4 fold Fox"News" ratings. Go figure. I admit that Fox"News" ratings are higher than CNN, & MSNBC's, however, MSNBC has been growing at a record clip (18-32 %), while Fox"News" has been dying at double digit rates for the last few months.
Even though this is the case, does higher ratings mean that they are more trusted, or do they tell their viewers what they want to hear? I think bigotry will always have some sort of market, if only on cable channels. And if your trying to convince me that there is a Liberal Media Bias--give me some facts to back it up.
It's true that Republican scandles are reported more often than Democratic ones, however, that's only because thay have more scandles. If that's Liberal Media Bias, I plead guilty.
There is no freespeech right to have a place on the airwaves OWNED BY THE PUBLIC. No more than I have a freespeech right to put up a liberal billboard in your front yard. No one is trying to stop anyones freespeech. Savage can be insane on a streetcorner, or a soapbox in the park all he wants. Both I and the ACLU would fight for his right to do so but he has NO INHERENT RIGHT to OUR airwaves. Talk radio apprantly doesnt appeal to liberals. Perhaps we prefer to read. While conservative propaganda parrots prefer to tune into Limbaugh and Hannity to tell them what to think and what their propaganda parrot talking points are for today and tomorrow
I wish the lefts view was as wide spread as you suggest. It is not. I have no reason to lie. It just simply isn't so. You are confusing sensationalized mass media and sensationalized rightwing radio as being intersted in facts or debate and give them both more credibility than they deserve. And don't call me Lenin. I am not now nor have I ever been a member of the communist party and even the ACLU spoke publicly against the rise of communism.
From Bing: "Misinformation will be silenced friend. It's not our fault that cons can't tell the truth. They should be silenced."
Congratualations Heir Bing. You take the MMFA Nazi of the year award.
I don't agree completely with bing, but I can't see how anyone could be threatened by not being allowed to perpetuate misinformation. At least not enough that I would call him a NAZI. The NAZI's were prolific at giving out misinformation, which makes your complaint additionally perplexing.
Why does that scare you? I mean, can't you argue with facts? Oh wait. I see the problem now.
OK, Open Mind. You can be Heir Bing's Information Minister.
I didn't say anything about the "fairness doctrine," so don't put words in my mouth. You want to bring back the Sedition Act. Or, sorry, the Sedition Act Lite.
Where did I say I don't want terrorists investigated?
The sedition act was wrong because it censored any speech derogatory to the country. However with it gone in any form people are using frre speech to chant supports for Nasrala and hezbollah. IS IT YOUR CONTENTION THEY SHOULDN'T BE INVESTIGATED IN THE NAME OF FREE SPEECH?
I do not think "free speech" means what you think it means.
Oh, and your "Caps Lock" key is on.
Oh, thanks but I knew that....but u still didn't answer my question. Should they be investigated?
What does investigation have to do with free speech?
If you enforced sedition on people who said such things they would be investigated. Not people who bash bush or republicans (he is one of our worst presidents) but people who openly say that they support a group that wants to hurt america are being seditious but it gets over looked for "free speech"
So you believe that it is now against the law to investigate people who speak in favor of Hezbollah, or al-Qaeda, or any other terrorist organization?
You are saying that the FBI does not now have a file on people who support Nasrallah?
Is that what you are saying?
I am simply sayin that in some cases we should put the prtection of our country ahead of SOME people's civil rights. If a group of people stand in the street and chant that they support a enemy of the US when we are still at risk from attack should be rounded up and in the very least questioned of their loyalties
Again, who decides?
What if the government wanted to round you and your friends up for speaking out in favor of something it found "seditious?"
I'm sorry, but you are dead wrong! I love this country, AND THAT IS A FACT THAT I DON'T NEED TO SELL.
I don't need to go into the ALL the reasons why, but a couple of those reasons are:
1) If I decide tomorrow to be a member of the Democratic party, the Republican party, the Green party, the Communist party, or if I decide tomorrow that I want to switch religion to Islam, Baptist, Catholic, Methodist, Bhuddist, Scientologist, or no party or religion at all--IT IS MY CHOICE. I CAN !
2) I can say what I want, either in support, or oposition to those which I agree or disagree. I may be arrested and even prosecuted for crimes I commit--but not for my speech.
Certainly people say things I think shouldn't be said. But until YOU become President, that is not a crime.
Sometimes I say things that others think I shouldn't, and here's an example: YOU ARE A FASCIST.
If there is probable cause, go to a judge, get a warrant and investigate them. If there is no indication that anything illegal was being done then no they shouldn't be investigated. Free speech means you have a right to make a fool of yourself if you so choose. I don't like people chanting terrorist slogans in the street either. Go stand on a streetcorner with a bull horn and chant USA! USA! USA! when ever they come by and I'll stand there next to you chanting with you. But you can't deny freedom of speech just because it is unpopular.
Now that being said. If you could prove their speech was trying to incite violence, or they were blocking traffic or causing a distrubance then by all means round them up.
Exactly as Chomsky always says if you dont support speech you disagree with you dont really support free speech, even Hitler and Stalin supported speech they agreed with.
And you have the right to speak publicly against the idiots chanting hezzbo slogans in the street. That's free speech. No one said being an American was easy. I'm sorry you can't just sit back and while away your time because the government hasn't succesfully silenced all the things you find unpleasant. It's a free country. A congressmen is free to say we should bomb their holy sites and some people are free to chant slogans in the street. Both don't help our cause in the war on terror and may indeed give some aid and comfort to those who wish to blow us up. We can't allow that to curb one ofour most basic rights. Teddy Roosevelt once said it was morally servile and treasonous to not question the president in times of war. Bully!
The fairness doctrine wouldnt silence anyone only demand that both sides be heard. I understand that since conservatives know they have no hope of winning arguments when both sides are heard they would oppose this. But the meme that it would silence conservatives is another Limbaugh induced propaganda parrot talking point.
According to YOU. Their only client is the Bill of Rights but then I dont expect you to understand that. Higher brain function is something that sadly lacks in conservatives like you.
Yeah, it hard for me to type....my drool rag is in the way and I can barely see through my helmet. My whole point is that some of the groups the ACLU chooses to defend should not be afforded the dignity of civil liberties
That flies in the face of the constitution. Once you start hedging whodeserves civil liberties the book burning will be soon to follow. Rise above your base fears and accept the fact that everyone deserves civil liberties. Even cons.
Not pedophiles. Cons yes, but those who pray on children should not
Or the KKK, or the Nazi Party or the Communist party. Where are you going to stop denying rights? What is the line? Legal precedent says the line is where others civil liberties are interfered with. Slander for example, or the popular fire in the theater. Inciting violence etc. But anything that doesn't threaten civil liberties is protected free speech. Even for pedophiles, however repulsive they may be. Or the KKK, etc. etc. Even Rush Limbaugh has a right to privacy regarding his medical records.
just to clarify, cons is short for conservatives. I am not reffering to convicts who do surrender certain liberties when incarcerated or on parole.
Your "whole point" is completely contrary to everything this country stands for, Mathis. Civil liberties are not a cookie we give to people for being good - they are inalienable rights that belong to each individual, no matter how reprehensible.
You disgrace the uniform youwear with such anti-American gibberish.
You disgrace the uniform youwear with such anti-American gibberish.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I would say gibberish is being kind.
It's funny you would claim "inalieable rights" who gives us those rights Val? I think if you read the constitution it is God, you know, the guy the ACLU tries to squeeze out of every government builing in the US. Now I'm not for a theocracy but that's what the constitution says so I guess the ACLU has a paradox, defending our god given rights while getting mad if anyone says that god should have something to do with Gov.
Wrong again. The word "God" does not appear in the Constitution.
Look it up.
All men are created equal. Who created men? You?
That phrase is from the Declaration of Independence.
as is "inaliable rights granted by our creator."
There is no doubt that our founding fathers were religious men or believed in god. But they took great pains to be generic and you'll notice never mention god or jesus in the constitution or declaration of independence. A document written long before the constitution was ratified or our country was formed.
Nice one. ROTFL
Oh, well never mind I guess that particular document has no bearing....wait yes it does! The whole point is that this is what the bill of rights is based on
Well at this point it is painfully clear you never EVER have any idea what you are talking about. The Bill of Rights is based on the Declaration of independence???? Man what is the color of the sky on your planet? It is an integral part of the CONSTITUTION. You are attempting the bob and weave here anyway since you have been shredded unmercifully. They ACLU never supported pedophelia, the word GOD does NOT appear in the Constitution. In fact the only mention of relgion in the constitution prior to the Bill of rights is where it says there will be no religious test to hold office. I dont care if you disagree with the ACLU's take on the first amendment they also go to court to PROTECT the rights of religious people to freely practice their religion. They have done so many times. So once again YOU HAVE NO POINT.
THE ENTIRE COUNTRY IS BASED ON THE DECLARATION IDIOT.
"THE ENTIRE COUNTRY IS BASED ON THE DECLARATION IDIOT." --savagerocks
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I found the first part of your argument completely uncompelling until the part when you called Solon an "idiot". Then I figured you must be right. Who can argue with such an obvious genius as you? I mean, all we really have to do in order to prove a point is to call the other guy a damning schoolyard epithet. I find "poopy-pants" particularly devastating (at least when I was in the first grade...should fit in nicely with your current repertoire as well). Why don't you try that one next time. That will prove your point is inarguably correct!
The Declaration is a document declaring our dissolution of ties with England our whole Country is based on the Constittuion if you get any stupider you will forget to breathe and die. You are so dumb you embarrass those from morons anonymous. Lose one more brain cell and they will have to water you and turn you toward the sun twice a day.
Solon,
Sometimes I think you take it too easy on these guys.
;^)
Savagerocks' point was that The Founders believed that natural (human) rights come from God, not government and that government is there to protect those rights. The ACLU has for decades been trying to scrub the notion of God from public discourse and uses the power of government to curtail our rights (you know, like "prohibit[ing] the free exercise thereof.)
Were that true. It would still be wrong. The ACLU has gone to court many times to UPHOLD the individuals right to freely express their religion. Your assertion is a rightwing talking point without the slightest validity. Keeping the government from establishing religion does nothing to stop individuals from expressing their religious beliefs nor their religion. If you thought someone had the right to demand government endorsement or imprimatuer of THEIR religion, then you were mistaken.
Listen, you pedophile-protecting leftist, repeat after me: "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Repeat this several hundred times and it might just get through to the yogurt in your skull.
Tiresome troll there is citation after citation posted on this very thread that will link you to documented cases where the ACLU has protected individual's rights to freely express their religion.
So, you repeat after me: "I am a lazy, stupid troll and my sole purpose on this website is to smear, lie, deflect and obfuscate in the drollest possible manner."
My god you are stupid. Listen up you ignorant semi-literate troglydite moron. The ACLU has often protected the rights of people to freely express their religion. That is a fact as evident as the fact you are so stupid I am suprised you can use a keyboard. You must be left over from some primordial ooze of pure stupid. I know this last post was pure trollery, I just wish you had the game to make it at least interesting as it is what with higher brain function being so far beyond your capabilities its just sad and pathetic
I didn't mean to imply the Declaration of Independence is not a significant document.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. That we ar endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights such as life, libery, and the pursuit of happiness"
I have a beautiful copy framed hanging on my wall and I love reading it in this context. Incidently we owe a great debt to the Iriquois nation for planting these ideas in the heads of our founding fathers. Those savages.
Your changing the subject and undermining your own point at the same time. You claim that God (more accurately a "Creator" or even better Nature's God) gave us inalienable rights, which I suppose you know that the Founding Fathers simply recognized existed all along throughout all of time. Now you come along and say some of those Nature's God given rights do not exist at all. Who do you think you are to take away what Nature's God gave us? You must be some ultra-deity that Nature's God is completely ignorant of.
Yes! Oh that was goooooooooooooooood!
;^}
It's the ACLU who's trying to take away our rights. What part of "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" don't they understand?
They understand it perfectly apparantly YOU dont. The ACLU has many times gone to court to support individuals freely expressing their religion. No one has the right to demand the government establish THEIR religion or religion itself, not to endorse it, not to give their imprimatuer to it.
Either everyone has civil liberties or no one does. THAT is how rights work. Either they are afforded all including venal people or no one has them. They are not PRIVELGES. If they can be taken from anyone then they are not assured everyone.
Are you familiar with the American concept of innocent until proven guilty? If everyone is initially presumed innocent, then how do we decide who deserves civil rights and who doesn't? Wouldn't that mean we would have to start judging people before they are even tried?
You couldn't possibly have thought through your argument past the first step to think like you do.
Listen I'll say it REAL SLOW FOR YOU. The only thing I said is that PEDOPHILES and people who prey on children DO NOT DESERVE CIVIL LIBERTIES, I'm talking about after they are convicted moron.If you do not agree with this there is clearly something wrong with you
The funny thing is, no matter how slowly you type it, it comes out the same speed on the screen.
Convicted felons have the same free speech rights as others - they have certain limits imposed on their freedom as prescribed by law... however, "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech" is as clear as clear can be on that point.
Yes but the discussion is about the ACLU defending NAMBLA and my point is that this group which openly supports pedophilia should not be defended. It is reprehensible that any "civil liberties group" would support them this is the kind of thing O'reily was talking about
Make up your mind. Do people lose their rights when they are convicted, or when they merely support behavior for which they can be tried and convicted if found guilty.
You must be getting tired carrying those goalposts back and forth...
That was my point as well when he called me a "moron" above. This guy can't even keep his argument straight.
I think the problem is he tosses out a talking point he got from Limbaugh or Savage, it gets thouroughly shredded, since he doesnt think for himself he cannot possibly defend the talking point so he searched in his parrot memory for a new talking point. We see it all the time here.
The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States disagrees with you, whether you like it or not.
That same constitution, CTT2 (SW) Timothy Mathis, which you swore an oath to "protect and defend."
On that note I am also a member of the Geneva convention, unlike the people the ACLU seeks human rights for "uniformed combatants ...under a flag". These people do not deserve civil rights
No one asked you. You don't have the authority. We all understand perfectly. you don't like pedophiles being represented by the ACLU. We're telling you the constitution over rules you.
Apparantly you know as little about the Geneva Convention as you do everything else. EVERYONE has human rights and the GC protects rights other than uniformed officers under a flag.
My friend, your ass must be large and capacious, as you have many things in there which you pull out at the oddest times.
What is the relevance of the Geneva Conventions to the discussion at hand?
His watch broke he wants it repaired under warranty.
I'm sorry that was mean but I think this thread is done anyway.
The whole argument is that the aclu defends some organizations that are not worthy fo defense. That is what o'reiy was saying. While people are innocent till guilty and should be defended, a group which OPENLY supports people who hurt the most innocent and vulnerable of our citizens should not be worhty of this. Furthermore, once convicted and losing ONE appeal a pedo should not have civil rights....ever. It was o'reily's contention that the aclu is being traitorous through defending the rights of not just NAMBLA but also terrorists at gitmo, who are treated better than anyone they themselves have captured, it is a simple case of the ACLU defending groups which do harm to America
This "whole point" of which you speak is contrary to the Consititution, and thus objectively anti-American.
Again the terrorists who fight for a radical religion and not a country are not subject to the geneva convention, and if they were they aren't any more after the war crimes of torture (not "sleep exhaustion and water torture" more like "beheading and mutilation)
Yes I did from enemie foreign and DOMESTIC, are you saying that we don't have any domestic enemies?
No, based on this discussion I would say you are clearly inimical to the Constitution and the protections it offers.
We have higher standards than you apparently. Torture is never acceptable, I don't care who you are or what you've done. On this we disagree. Our founding fathers remeber, inalienable rights, remember?
WOW I missed the part where EVERYONE at Gitmo was tried and proven to be a terrorist. OH WAIT, thats because it never happened. See you CALLING them terrorists doesnt MAKE them terrorists even the Pentagon admitted that some of them for intance the Uigers were non combatants who just got swept up. We paid people in Afghanistan to inform on and capture many of those held there IF they are terrorists they should be tried it can be proven then they are guilty and can be punished if NOT then they should be treated as prisoners of war. YOU seem to just want to put them in a blackhole where the law doesnt apply. The law is king in this country and must be upheld at all costs. This is a protection for everyone. You want an ACCUSATION to be enough to treat them as if they are GUILTY of something, that is completely un-American
Your pre-9/11 mentality is what is so wrong with libs. The simple fact is that anyone with even the most minute detail should be ivestigated. If we have to arrest 100 people to find 1 terrorist so be it. My point is that our prisoners our treated like kings compared to the one's of our's they capture and if your enemy is not playing by the GC then they are not subject to the GC
How quickly and easily cowards give up their civil liberties for a little temporary security. The truth is you are scared enough to tear up the very thing that makes us who we are. You would alter our way of life and lower our standards because Bush did nothing to stop 19 hijackers 8 months into his first term.
Hey moron, did you ever read the case where the ACLU defended a NAMBLA member?
If you dis, you would have realized that the ACLU did NOT defend his "right" to have sex with a minor (as O'Reilly tried to spin it a couple of years ago). They defended him under equal protection so his sentence would not be harsher than anyone else who commited statutory rape.
Your arguments will be better when you take the time to become informed, as oposed to being a knee-jerk reactionarian.
The problem with conservatives like you is that your mentality is SOOO pre 1776. By that logic I guess it would be ok if we just arrested and held 100 people in the nieghborhood treating them as if they were guilty and holding them for YEARS to get one serial killer. And if one of those innocent people was you and another your SON I suppose you wouldnt mind taking one for the team? As for how terrorists act it is reprehensible. I expect more from the values of my country than claiming we have joined the evil doers club but we arent as bad as these other guys.
"Your pre-9/11 mentality is what is so wrong with libs." --savagerocks
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Classic BS. You guys have filled your quota of using 9/11 as a pretense for doing anything you want. The Constitution still applies no matter how hard you guys work to make us just like the terrorists.
Some twenty years ago an Egyptian told me that, according to one reading of Islam, it was ok to kill 100 believers in order to get one infidel. Mirror image, eh?
They were defending the proposition that ANYONE has the right to lobby to change the law. ANYONE. To lobby even to make bad changes. They were not defending their right to molest children which of course doesnt exist. YOU are not the arbiter of who gets to have rights and who doesnt THANK GOD.
But people who want to loby to change laws that would allow for such behavior should be arrested should they not?
No. They should not.
I feel sorry you care so little for the safety of children. It is sad really
It's not what I think, it is the law. People are free to lobby in favor of laws allowing the abuse of children, murder, rape, mayhem, and the posting of incoherent arguments on blogs.
Again, I am ashamed at that fact that you don't care about the safety of children.
"Again, I am ashamed at that fact that you don't care about the safety of children. "
And I am ashamed you would allow your fear to effect your judgement. You are willing to spit on the Bill of Rights because you are afraid. You would allow our good name to be dragged through the mud, our heritage and standing in the world at an all time low, so you can feel a little safer? And how safe will you be in your brave new world where torture is fine and civil liberties are optional? By allowing and condoning these acts in the name of our security, you are giving fodder for enemies to recruit more terrorists. You are creating resentment towards us and embolden the enemy. The traitor here is you.
As usual you assume facts not in evidence I am sure he cares very much about children. The difference is he also cares about FREEDOM. Unlike YOU apparantly. No one here is advocating allowing people to predate on children they should be locked up for a very long time. They should be able to ADVOCATE whatever they want.
"Again, I am ashamed at that fact that you don't care about the safety of children." --savagerocks
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Do you think NAMBLA has a chance in hell they will repeal age of consent laws? Are you so affraid they have a shot, that you won't let them even speak? If not, why not let them make their silly argument?
What are the odds that lobbying for the right to bugger children would be successful? Same odds that a giant squid gets struck by lightening. Protecting a person's, any person's, right to peacefully take part in the democratic process doesn't imply approval of his goals.
I don't know if the real Sir Thomas More said this or not, but in "A Man for All Seasons," playwright Robert Bolt has him say, "I give the Devil himself protection of the law, FOR MY OWN SAFETY." I'm working from memory here, so the words might be a little off, but the sense is accurate.
WOW, please tell me you arent really this fascist.
"I'm talking about after they are convicted moron." --savagerocks
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
How was I supposed to know that? That was the first time you mentioned "after they are convicted". I suppose it is never your fault. Always us "moron" liberals not reading what you didn't write.
Besides, you attacked the ACLU for defending pedophiles, when they haven't been convicted yet. You also talked about denying civil rights to people of which is a right to a fair trial and a right to a defense with representation. All well before you moved the goalpost by saying you were only talking about "after they are convicted"
Shameless.
Yeha I have to "move the goalposts" if someone is dumb enough to think I was advocating premptive stripping someone of their civil liberties
OK folks, at this point I feel I am abusing a mentally challenged person. Good night to all.
Don't worry, this "mentally challenged person" will protect you while u sleep and dream of how wonderful it would be if we could only lived in a land where a maqn and a boy were free to love as they choose
And dont worry we will protect American freedom and not allow fascists like you to turn this into a Police State. What I dont get is if you are so FOR pedophelia then why are you attacking Nambla. You are the only person I have EVER met that actually believes in their agenda. I will protect your right to advocate that sick and perverted agenda you have but I will turn you in, in a heartbeat and testify against you if I find you have been acting on your sick fantasy.
There goes Solon again, defending pedophelia. Incredible.
There goes gett'n2Bed again displaying monumental moronity and an inability to understand simple concepts. I appologize to morons everywhere Gettn would need to gain a couple dozen IQ points to qualify as a moron
It is obvious to anyone with the slightest amount of cognative ability that wasn't what he was doing. You are simply trying to inflame the conversation. You are a troll.
"OK folks, at this point I feel I am abusing a mentally challenged person. Good night to all." --valentinian
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yeah. I'm done, too. This guy is just shameless or clueless.
... shameless or clueless.
Well, he does call himself SAVAGEROCKS. That might have been some indication.
On that, I have to leave you guys, I hope you soon get your wish of an America where Man/boy love is accecptable and we're never allowed to question anyone who wants America's demise. Don't fear these will both soon be brought to you with help from the ACLU.
Did you ever read the case where the ACLU defended a NAMBLA member?
If you did, you would have realized that the ACLU did NOT defend his "right" to have sex with a minor (as O'Reilly tried to spin it a couple of years ago). They defended him under equal protection so his sentence would not be harsher than anyone else who commited statutory rape.
Your arguments will be better when you take the time to become informed, as oposed to being a knee-jerk reactionarian.
You are a liar and a fool. No one but YOU has advocated such a thing and I think you are sick. Not us, not the ACLU. YOU. The ACLU and us liberals are protecting the values of America YOU would trash. Your ignorance and pathetic stupidity make me tired. I guess that is why you like Weiner. He appeals to your inner neandrathal.
You would think with so many enemies your responses would have been more timely and I would not get bored but defending terrorist and pedophiles isn't as easy as it seems is it?
No one defended terrorists. They defended a person's right to speak.
I must assume that being beaten over and over again must be boring to uninformed cowards such as savagerocks.
Sir I called you a coward. Have you no spine to defend yourself or are you scurrying under a rock? It is painful to witness such stubborn ignorance. There is no reaching you with reason. You are resigned to being wrong and scared.
Putting people in danger by protecting civil liberties? hmmm. I haven't even looked at the other comments yet, but my faith in humanity and education is shattered when a PhD says that a non-partisan group that fights for the constitution and against injustice is dangerious.
You pegged it correct. No need to read back any farther.
Only the fascisti would whine at the defense of civil liberties. But when your goal is an autocratic, theocratic, secret police state reminiscent of the reign of Ivan the Terrible....well, then we know who the real traitors are.
Long live the Bill of Rights and all who defend it!!!
Long live the Bill of Rights and all who defend it!!!
The ACLU is very picky when it comes to the 2nd ammendment. I believe it is also part of the Bill of Rights, but they choose to remain neutral. Damn founding fathers for including that one.
Because it's debatable at best. The second amendment is conditional, and that condition no longer applies. We have no militia, because the militia is no longer necessary. If the second amendment stated merely "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed" in its entirety, then I see no reason to believe that they wouldn't defend it wholeheartedly.
Dave,
Amongst ACLU lawyers, there is no real concensus about the 2nd amendment. That is why they are neutral. The other parts of the Bill of Rights are a little more clear cut.
Not to mention that the NRA and other groups zestfully fight the VERY few 2d Amendment battles that arise, so the ACLU probably doesn't feel the need to waste its resources on them.
The 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to personal firearm ownership. It's there to keep the Federal government from removing the states' right to keep and maintain militias (aka the National and State Guards). Personal firearms ownership is an internal state issue, governed by state constitutions and laws.
Let us look at the 2nd Amendment: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Take out the adjective clauses and you are left with "A well-regulated militia shall not be infringed." Also take particular note of the "well-regulated" part, which the NRA keeps out of it's motto. If you look at Article 6 of the Articles of Confederation, you would see that "well-regulated" was about states maintaining an organized and equipped official militia.
I'd like to point out that the Minutemen who fought at Lexington and Concord did so with arms issued by the colonial government of Massachusetts, not their own personal weapons. In fact, they used the same Brown Bess musket as the English. Of all the state regiments formed for the War of Independence, very few, mainly the rifle battalions, used personal firearms. Most were armed by the colonial governments.
I am a firearms owner, a hunter. According to the Pennsylvania constitution, I do have the right to bear arms not only in self-defence, but for the defence of the Commonwealth. If I were to move to, say, Maryland or Minnesota, I would no longer have that right. Personal ownership is purely a state matter. the 2nd just keeps DC from preventing a state from giving up the right of protecting it's own territory by organizing and equipping it's citizens for that defence.
I suppose my question would be: why is he NOT an ACLU member and why does he so distain the document that allows us to be members of the ACLU?
Perhaps a re-reading of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution might jolt him out of his Stalinistic mind-set.
Now, think what you may? But the Tommy/Rusty exchange is the coolest thing. These two folks are really great at expressing themselves. Agree or not, the are pretty 'well written'. It drives me wild that we can't get this kind of exchange on the a.m. radio. Go back and read that Imus thing again. How come Tommy and Rusty don't have a show? That would be great. But no...we get Imus, Limbaugh, o'Reilly, and Sean and that weasley Colmes guy (who makes people thing that all liberals need to look and sound like Art Garfunkle)Hats off to Tommy and Rusty. I dig it.
I don't think this thread is a very good example of Tommy at his best.
I think O'Reilly is a traitor. The more people take his (and Hannity's) attitude toward the world, the more the terrorists want to terrrorize us. He is putting us in more danger by dispersing these views.
Define danger. You know, bearing injustice should be preferred to committing injustice. Who caused more Americans to be killed, the ACLU or Bush/Bill'O? It's not like they've found Bin Laden or WMD's in µIraq, did they? For all we know these intelligence-idiots may have kept Bin Laden in one of them secret prisons in Europe only to find out a day later that he had somehow managed to escape. Bush couldn't win a popularity contest to Saddam Hoessein, he's going to bring peace, democracy and all the good of mankind to the world? That's so funny it's almost not funny anymore.