Why is the ACLU (the American Civil Liberties Union) getting involved with the rights of enemy combatants and terrorists that live in foreign countries?
Okay, I have a question
- Thread starter vraiblonde
- Start date
Larry Gude
Strung Out
I thought you knew you...
...entamology. Or etomology. Enematology? (that's a crappy word) You know, the word stuff.
'American' from the Berkely 'Amer' or to help, and the DU 'i-can' (pronounced 'eek! khan', to un-not help those on the wrong side of John Ashcroft.
Sheesh.
vraiblonde said:
...entamology. Or etomology. Enematology? (that's a crappy word) You know, the word stuff.
'American' from the Berkely 'Amer' or to help, and the DU 'i-can' (pronounced 'eek! khan', to un-not help those on the wrong side of John Ashcroft.
Sheesh.
Lenny
Lovin' being Texican
I work with one of the guys in the Department of Defense who has to answer the press and Congressmen whenever they have questions about the "abuse" of the detainees in Iraq. He is beside himself with the ACLU getting involved in this. Best we can figure, they believe that if we're going to install American values and legal concepts in Iraq, they should also learn how to have an obnoxious, counter-intelligent organization trying to derail them at every turn. Wait a minute. That's what the insurgents are doing!
B
Bruzilla
Guest
I believe that the ACLU is involved because a big part of their efforts is centered on protetcing the rights of accused criminals in the US, and investigating abuses by the police and courts (I would like to see them spend more time investigating the abuses of criminals) so they look at their reach extending to anyone being prosecuted by US officials, citizens or not. I can see their arguments for being involved with US citizen detainees, but they really have no business poking their nose under the foreign criminal tent.
I think it's interesting how these watchdog organizations (ACLU, UN, etc) always turn into these "roll over and bare your belly" organizations.
Some of the causes the ACLU takes up are just UFB to me. Terrorists? NAMBLA? People who are extremely offended by God? School kids with profanity on their t-shirts? Women who want to kill their children?
Who are these people, anyway, and where did they come from? Why do we care what they think? Why do they have any legitimacy whatsoever?
I'm just trying to figure out how this stuff happens - that some people get together and decide to form a group to protect predators and other bad people and basically throw the rest of us to the wolves. And they actually become a powerful force to be reckoned with.
Some of the causes the ACLU takes up are just UFB to me. Terrorists? NAMBLA? People who are extremely offended by God? School kids with profanity on their t-shirts? Women who want to kill their children?
Who are these people, anyway, and where did they come from? Why do we care what they think? Why do they have any legitimacy whatsoever?
I'm just trying to figure out how this stuff happens - that some people get together and decide to form a group to protect predators and other bad people and basically throw the rest of us to the wolves. And they actually become a powerful force to be reckoned with.
Railroad
Routinely Derailed
Seems to me that I recall that when the ACLU was formed, it was composed mostly of lawyers and law students. They made it their (STATED) business to use tort law (civil law) and some of the Constitution to ensure fairness in society. At that time, the overwhelming majority of cases they jumped on were about racial stuff. They used their legal capabilities as a weapon and may have been a catalyst in starting the trend of using lawsuits as a means of shaping society.vraiblonde said:I think it's interesting how these watchdog organizations (ACLU, UN, etc) always turn into these "roll over and bare your belly" organizations.
Some of the causes the ACLU takes up are just UFB to me. Terrorists? NAMBLA? People who are extremely offended by God? School kids with profanity on their t-shirts? Women who want to kill their children?
Who are these people, anyway, and where did they come from? Why do we care what they think? Why do they have any legitimacy whatsoever?
I'm just trying to figure out how this stuff happens - that some people get together and decide to form a group to protect predators and other bad people and basically throw the rest of us to the wolves. And they actually become a powerful force to be reckoned with.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Ok...
...to play advocate for the role the ACLU plays in our society we first accept the premise that people abuse power, yes?
Then we accept that our founders knew, many firsthand, what it was like to be ruled by the ultimate in power, a king. Right?
So, then we accept that one of the primary goals of our Constitution and Bill of Rights is to help protect the rights of the individual from not only the majority but from the very government that is the tool of power, yes?
So, the ACLU does not see itself as supporting the role of what may or may not be best, at the moment, for the society as a whole. They play the role of advocate. Their job is to see that the majority gets its way, earns its way, fairly and justly. They see their role as persuing what is best for the society as a whole, long term and that the primary deteriminant of what is best is that the minority and/or the individual was protected and treated fairly along the way.
They support the right of the Klan to march on city hall not for the klans benefit but for the benefit of any group to have free association and right of assembly. A prohibition against the klan assembling and marching that is based on the majority public opinion that they are idiots and potentially dangerous can then be used to prohibit any group based on the public mood of the given day.
The ACLU ran to Limbaughs defense in his drug trial not to support him, for sure, but to support the right of the individual to not unduly or unjustly have his or her medical records drug out into the public domain. We consider medical records intensely personal and private.
The NAMBLA deal I don't know what their argument was but it probably was along the same lines; a right to free assembly. They have not, to my knowledge, argued for a right to have sex with minors. To most people NAMBLA is rather clear as to what they persue but talking about inducting Michael Jackson into their hall of fame is not the same as commiting a sexual crime with a minor. There's a line there.
Homosexuals used to have laws prohibiting public assembly. They're still not allowed to make a marriage commitment.
Blacks had to overcome all manner of poll restrictions and assemply battles.
So, again, it's not support for X behavior but support for individual and minority rights.
The sunny side is that the ACLU is a sign of a robust, vibrant democracy.
There is no equivalent in many truly miserable parts of the world.
So, it's a good thing.
...to play advocate for the role the ACLU plays in our society we first accept the premise that people abuse power, yes?
Then we accept that our founders knew, many firsthand, what it was like to be ruled by the ultimate in power, a king. Right?
So, then we accept that one of the primary goals of our Constitution and Bill of Rights is to help protect the rights of the individual from not only the majority but from the very government that is the tool of power, yes?
So, the ACLU does not see itself as supporting the role of what may or may not be best, at the moment, for the society as a whole. They play the role of advocate. Their job is to see that the majority gets its way, earns its way, fairly and justly. They see their role as persuing what is best for the society as a whole, long term and that the primary deteriminant of what is best is that the minority and/or the individual was protected and treated fairly along the way.
They support the right of the Klan to march on city hall not for the klans benefit but for the benefit of any group to have free association and right of assembly. A prohibition against the klan assembling and marching that is based on the majority public opinion that they are idiots and potentially dangerous can then be used to prohibit any group based on the public mood of the given day.
The ACLU ran to Limbaughs defense in his drug trial not to support him, for sure, but to support the right of the individual to not unduly or unjustly have his or her medical records drug out into the public domain. We consider medical records intensely personal and private.
The NAMBLA deal I don't know what their argument was but it probably was along the same lines; a right to free assembly. They have not, to my knowledge, argued for a right to have sex with minors. To most people NAMBLA is rather clear as to what they persue but talking about inducting Michael Jackson into their hall of fame is not the same as commiting a sexual crime with a minor. There's a line there.
Homosexuals used to have laws prohibiting public assembly. They're still not allowed to make a marriage commitment.
Blacks had to overcome all manner of poll restrictions and assemply battles.
So, again, it's not support for X behavior but support for individual and minority rights.
The sunny side is that the ACLU is a sign of a robust, vibrant democracy.
There is no equivalent in many truly miserable parts of the world.
So, it's a good thing.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Thank you...
I figured you, the Original Innocent Until PROVEN Guilty Man, would appreciate that!
Ken King said:Excellent post Larry.
I figured you, the Original Innocent Until PROVEN Guilty Man, would appreciate that!
Oh what the hell - I"ll poke a pin in this love-fest.
While the ACLU is going to battle to defend a group's right to assemble and protest, they're not taking into consideration the rights of the rest of us to avoid that group's message.
What's the purpose of a bunch of Nazis marching through a Jewish neighborhood? To say "We hate you and want you to know it so here we are to legally rub it in your face."
Why doesn't the KKK hold their rallies in a building somewhere and put out flyers? Because the people that would attend those rallies aren't the ones the KKK wants to hear their message.
Why didn't Bush protesters rent a hall and hold a big "I Hate Bush" meeting there? Because they don't want to preach to the choir - they want to preach to the rest of us and force us to hear their message. Or at least be largely inconvenienced in order to avoid it.
While the ACLU is busy filing lawsuits on behalf of gays who want to teach at Bob Jones University and be Boy Scout leaders, they're ignoring the right of free association these groups are supposed to enjoy.
When they go to bat for some kid who was kicked out of school for wearing profanity on their t-shirt, they ignore the rights of the rest of the students to not have to be exposed to that kind of crap.
In trying to ensure that government and corporations don't abuse their power, the ACLU has grown powerful and become an abuser itself. Classic Communist cause and effect. It's how Castro got started.
While the ACLU is going to battle to defend a group's right to assemble and protest, they're not taking into consideration the rights of the rest of us to avoid that group's message.
What's the purpose of a bunch of Nazis marching through a Jewish neighborhood? To say "We hate you and want you to know it so here we are to legally rub it in your face."
Why doesn't the KKK hold their rallies in a building somewhere and put out flyers? Because the people that would attend those rallies aren't the ones the KKK wants to hear their message.
Why didn't Bush protesters rent a hall and hold a big "I Hate Bush" meeting there? Because they don't want to preach to the choir - they want to preach to the rest of us and force us to hear their message. Or at least be largely inconvenienced in order to avoid it.
While the ACLU is busy filing lawsuits on behalf of gays who want to teach at Bob Jones University and be Boy Scout leaders, they're ignoring the right of free association these groups are supposed to enjoy.
When they go to bat for some kid who was kicked out of school for wearing profanity on their t-shirt, they ignore the rights of the rest of the students to not have to be exposed to that kind of crap.
In trying to ensure that government and corporations don't abuse their power, the ACLU has grown powerful and become an abuser itself. Classic Communist cause and effect. It's how Castro got started.
B
Bruzilla
Guest
Great post Larry. I don't think that 99% of Americans have any problem with the ACLU, nor would have any problems with them, except for when they stray from defined rights and start getting into interpreted rights. For example, seperation of church and state. There is no right there, nor is there any declared intent on the part of the Founding Fathers. There is only a misinterpretation that has blossomed for years under the ACLU's efforts. I think that if you'ld ask any group of Americans about why they like or dislike the ACLU, their efforts in this regard would be the majority reason for liking or disliking them.
I think that their getting involved with foreign detainees is going to get them into more hot water as they are again trying to interpret rights rather than dealing with properly defined rights like freedom of speech and assembly. Unfortunately, defined freedoms are now pretty well protected by the press, the government, judges, etc., so no one's going to make millions of dollars in donations to organizations that exist to protect them. If the ACLU is going to keep a roof over their heads and their kids in college, they need to come up with new "threats" to personal liberties.
I think that their getting involved with foreign detainees is going to get them into more hot water as they are again trying to interpret rights rather than dealing with properly defined rights like freedom of speech and assembly. Unfortunately, defined freedoms are now pretty well protected by the press, the government, judges, etc., so no one's going to make millions of dollars in donations to organizations that exist to protect them. If the ACLU is going to keep a roof over their heads and their kids in college, they need to come up with new "threats" to personal liberties.
When did we get the right to avoid things we find distasteful?vraiblonde said:
As to BJU and BSA if they are 501(C3) organizations they are bound to the laws concerning discrimination to maintain that exempt status. If they give up the exemption and become truly private organizations then they should be able to do as they see fit.