shakenbake19
New member
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2005
- Messages
- 24
- Reaction score
- 0
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Personally, i think that the ACLU does do more good than people think they do. They protect student rights in high school, they do the smaller cases you never hear about because they are constntly being overshadowed by their "ultra-liberal" cases like the "under god" debate.
I think nowadays they do more harm than good but back in the day they did some great things. I admire them in their krux. Now it looks like they hit a bad case of entropy.
I'm old enough to remember the bad old days of the Cold War, McCarthyism; the Communist Party under Gus Hall, Stalin and all of that. In my opinion, the ACLU is a far worst enemy of the Republic. It is a malignant cancer that has done virtually everything to undermine everything that is good about the United States. In point of fact, it ought to register as an agent of a foreign power. It plays into the hands of the terrorists who would destroy us. Compared to the damage that Joe McCarthy did to the body politic, the ACLU is 100 times worse. Bin Laden's name ought to appear on their letterhead if they were required to have full disclosure.
I agree with you.I think they are nothing more than dinasaurs who have outlived their usefulness and they are trying to hang on.
I don't see how protecting your rights can out-live its usefulness.Originally posted by jamesrage:
I agree with you.I think they are nothing more than dinasaurs who have outlived their usefulness and they are trying to hang on.
FinnMacCool said:I dunno much about the ACLU but I took a look on their website and I'm all for protecting our freedom of speech. its very important.
However it is interesting to note that all you guys attacking the ACLU are in fact pro Bush! <gasp>
Well, I suppose if one believes in protecting the rights of terrorists outweighs the rights of lawful Americans to live their lives in peace and safety is more important I can understand your position.
Care to name the terrorists they are [in your words] protecting?Originally Posted by Missouri Mule:
Well, I suppose if one believes in protecting the rights of terrorists outweighs the rights of lawful Americans to live their lives in peace and safety is more important I can understand your position.
Billo_Really said:Care to name the terrorists they are [in your words] protecting?
Agreed. They may have accomplished something at one time, but nothing comes to mind. They remained silent during the internment of Japanese in WWII, but they have come forth occasionally to defend a Nazi prison guard or two from deportation. Nowadays they can't seem to find anything useful to do, so they defend the 'right' of homeless (who are on the streets partially through their efforts) to pollute the rivers, and the 'right' of the predatory perverts at NAMBLA to publish handbooks for not getting caught, they fight against sensible steps to combat terrorism, they selectively protest any symbols of moral authority, and they demand that taxpayers pay for the damage caused by their demands.SKILMATIC said:I think nowadays they do more harm than good but back in the day they did some great things. I admire them in their krux. Now it looks like they hit a bad case of entropy.
They fight for the rights you and I are guaranteed by the Constitution. If Congress tries to make a law that is un-Constitutional, somebody should say something about it.Originally Posted by Missouri Mule:
Gimme a break. When they fight sensible terrorist profiling, they are protecting terrorists. Bin Laden LOVES the ACLU. They are his unpaid allies against the "Great Satan" (the United States.)
Frankly, I hope that the ACLU is forcibly disbanded as an agent of a foreign power. It is craziness to defend this organization of terrorist defenders. They are even worse than those who looked after the interest of Nazi sympathizers during WWII.
Billo_Really said:They fight for the rights you and I are guaranteed by the Constitution. If Congress tries to make a law that is un-Constitutional, somebody should say something about it.
I see your point. But don't you think there is extremism the other way as well? Such as locking someone up indefinetly without charges or access to a lawyer. Don't you think this could destroy a nation just as easily?Originally Posted by Missouri Mule:
In 1949, Justice Jackson (he was not the chief justice) finished a fiery dissenting opinion in Terminiello v. City of Chicago (1949) with these words: "There is danger that, if the court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact."
In the case, a fellow named Terminiello, who claimed to be a Catholic priest, gave a hate-filled public speech blasting "Communistic Zionist Jews, FDR, Queen Eleanor" Roosevelt ("one of the world's communists") and others. Protesters demonstrated against him, violence broke out, and Terminiello was charged with disorderly conduct. At the trial, the judge told the jury Terminiello could be found guilty if the jury concluded his speech brought about a condition of unrest.
Terminiello was convicted and appealed. The Supreme Court eventually ruled for Terminiello in a 5-4 decision, saying the judge's instruction had infringed upon the defendant's right of free speech. In his dissent, Jackson insisted that Terminiello's agitprop had gone beyond the bounds of protected speech and the state had the right to lock him up. Jackson's point was Ashcroft's point: Extremism in the name of civil liberties could lead to the destruction of the nation.
Then, 14 years later in Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez (1963), Justice Goldberg wrote, "[W]hile the Constitution protects against invasions of individual rights, it is not a suicide pact."
Not if you are referring to illegal combatants in time of war.Billo_Really said:I see your point. But don't you think there is extremism the other way as well? Such as locking someone up indefinetly without charges or access to a lawyer. Don't you think this could destroy a nation just as easily?
I don't care what you call them. Everyone deserves due process of law.Originally Posted by Diogenes:
Not if you are referring to illegal combatants in time of war.
Pacridge said:Who made this poll? Oui? Nyet? Was there some need to remind neo-cons they hate the ACLU?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?