Does the ACLU do more harm than good? (1 Viewer)

[Diogenes]

He should be released if they can't charge him with anything specific. He's a driver. Big crime there. "Your Honor, he was DRIVING!"

You can't be serious. True, he committed no violation of any local, state or federal statutes; therefore he cannot be charged with a crime in any local, state or federal court; and no local, state or federal law enforcement agency can hold him. Fortunately he is not being held by any local, state or federal law enforcement agency. He is in Club Gitmo, enjoying tropical relief from the stress of jihad, and the ACLU is frustrated because he is out of their jurisdiction.

Until they have gone through a judicial process, we don't know what or who they are. They could be innocent civilians. Or they could be a bunch of Charlie Mansons. At this point, we don't know. Have you ever heard the term, "Innocent until proven guilty." That has certain significance in this part of the world. You might want to show a little more respect for our laws. There that way for a reason.

Combatants captured in a combat zone have never been subject to civil trials, and there is a good reason for that, too. You might want to show a little more respect for reality.

This is bullshit. GC applies to anyone that is detained by an occupation force.

I could go along with that, but it seems like a terrible waste of potential intelligence gathering to summarily execute them.

Is that why a bunch of them are on a hunger strike and the military will not let a nuetral organization go in and monitor their condition. Generally speaking. There are cases where they have.

What's to monitor? Don't you think they have a right to die? Especially since they have personally failed to carry out their self-assigned mission to kill us infidels? Would you really deny such a mentally damaged idiot the opportunity to meet his virgins, and perhaps get laid?

If there a threat, charge them with a crime and give them a trial. If you can't charge them with anything, let them go.

There's that misperception about the law again. What would you have charged the 9/11 hijackers with, reckless flying? With a penalty of a suspended pilot's license for two years?

This is ridiculous. Our country is supposed to be better than this.

Certainly we are much better than they are. We haven't videotaped sawing their heads off. Yet.

 

[Caine]

Im going to go off of my OPINION here....Instead of claiming things like they are fact (Osama Loves the ACLU? How the hell would you know? In bed with Terrorists? You a freakin' peepin' tom?)

I believe that the ACLU has done some good, and still have usefullness in America. Like someone else said, they defend the common man from the Idiots in state government who attempt to do things that go against the constitution.

I don't necessarily agree with the attempt to defend the rights of people not even being held in the US, I think they should stick with cases that involve Americans.

I believe with some restructuring of the organization they could be a useful tool in defending Americans against attempts by government to overstep thier own boundaries. Unfortunately, thier big name cases give them a bad rap.

Whats all this about being Anti-Christian? They are not supposed to be PRO-Religion, period. The ONLY case they should be pro-religion is if someone's religous freedom is being diminished by the government. No, this does not include posting religous symbology in/on government property, official national gov. sponsored pledge/mottos/etc. Because we all know this shouldn't be allowed in the first place. Christians are getting over enough in this country anyways, but im not bothered by it anymore.

 

[SKILMATIC]

Yes I think the ACLU has a propose and no I don't see them as Stalinist. In fact I don't even understand the comparison. Stalin was about as anti personal liberty as you could get. The ACLU entire propose is to ensure no one's civil liberties are defended. Regardless of popularity.

Then would you beleive it that the founding father of the ACLU was a stalinist and the sole purpose of the org was to masquerade itself in being a pro freedom org instead its sole desire is to creep through the back door and turn our society in to a stalingrad? Cause thats what it is.

 

[SKILMATIC]

Just said what? Where did I say this, "The law is the law"? Not that I disagree with it. I just don't remember saying these words. I said, "...everyone deserves due process of law". I have to admit, there's never a dull moment reading your posts.

Well its the same thing. You miles well say it. However, I know my posts are just great arent they?

 

[Caine]

Then would you beleive it that the founding father of the ACLU was a stalinist and the sole purpose of the org was to masquerade itself in being a pro freedom org instead its sole desire is to creep through the back door and turn our society in to a stalingrad? Cause thats what it is.

You have something to back up that claim?

 

[Missouri Mule]

The ACLU has done some good things and has been on the right side of some issues. But I think in recent years, through lawsuits or threats of lawsuits, they have frightened, intimidated, coerced, and bullied so many in so many areas they have infringed on our rights far more than they have protected them. School boards, administrators, teachers, and parents should determine what the rights of students will be, not the ACLU. Private organizations like the Boy Scouts should determine what their policies should be, not the ACLU. And towns should be able to decide what decorations they will use for the Christmas season, not the ACLU.

We have had so many set tos with the ACLU in this area, and the ACLU usually prevails. The latest thing was a threat to sue the University of New Mexico because the head basketball coach promised a worried mother that he would take her player son to church if he wanted to go. Now I ask you. Is that a threat to world peace? Or a frontal assault on the Constitution? Surely there are more monumental offenses for them to focus on.

I'm sure the Ku Klux Klan was considered by many to be a worthy organization after the Civil War. I put the ACLU at about the same level and as a danger to the Republic a greater threat today since the KKK is for all intents and purposes a defunct organization. The ACLU is like a metastatic cancer. It just eats away at the foundations of our democracy.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by SKILMATIC:
Well its the same thing. You miles well say it. However, I know my posts are just great arent they?

There are no SKILMATIC imposters on this board. Which is just great.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by Diogenes:
Certainly we are much better than they are. We haven't videotaped sawing their heads off. Yet.

You don't see how your rigid, inflexable, contempt and disdain for people arrested in or near a combat zone, and the need to completely dehumanize them before any trial or proof of guilt, is in some way, on some level, contributing to these beheadings.

 

[Missouri Mule]

You don't see how your rigid, inflexable, contempt and disdain for people arrested in or near a combat zone, and the need to completely dehumanize them before any trial or proof of guilt, is in some way, on some level, contributing to these beheadings.

I'd saw their heads off myself if I could get the coordinates of bin Laden and Zarqawi. Wouldn't you?

And then I would dip their carcasses in pig grease for good measure. Wouldn't even come close to the human suffering inflicted on innocent Americans on 9/11.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by Missouri Mule:
I'd saw their heads off myself if I could get the coordinates of bin Laden and Zarqawi. Wouldn't you?

And then I would dip their carcasses in pig grease for good measure. Wouldn't even come close to the human suffering inflicted on innocent Americans on 9/11.

You got me there, Mule. I have to admit, if I ran into them, I would not be kind.......but I would be certain.

 

[Diogenes]

I believe that the ACLU has done some good, ...

I keep hearing and seeing that, but the only example I know of is when they sided with Rush Limbaugh on the privacy of his medical records. Do you have any other examples?

You don't see how your rigid, inflexable, contempt and disdain for people arrested in or near a combat zone, and the need to completely dehumanize them before any trial or proof of guilt, is in some way, on some level, contributing to these beheadings.

Nope. Not at all. And they dehumanized themselves when they took up their perverted version of jihad - I'm just a realist who sees things as they are.

 

[robin]

From their site..."The ACLU has fought and will continue to fight unconstitutional conditions, and the "lock em up" mentality that still prevails in much of our federal and local legislatures. Use the resources on this page to learn more and take action to protect the rights guaranteed to all Americans by the Bill of Rights."
So if you get raped or burgled by someone that should have been by bars were if not for the ACLU, then you know who to thank.
In the UK something like $10 Billion per annum is spent on dealing with criminals & $50 million on the victims of crime.
Prisons should be sweat shops with the profits going to compensate the victims of crime. If there aren't enough prisons, then build more.
An example of human rights going a step too far is 'The European Convention on Human Rights'
We can't expell Muslims that preach hate for the west if they claim they will be tortured in the country they are returned to !
This is typical to worry about the human rights of society's creepy crawly's at the expense of people that just want to live their lives in peace.

 

[dragonslayer]

You should investigate the ACLU's origins. You would discover it had its beginnings in the Communist movements of the early 1900s that would have enslaved us all. They have changed their spots, so to speak, but they are in bed with the terrorists for sure. You can always tell a person or organization's true intentions by the company they keep.

The Communists like the Islamofacists of today are nobody's friends. They represent their own kind which is to say they would ultimately lead to the destruction of civilized society as we know. it.

BTW, the absurd assertions you have made above are very typical of the far left who feel comfortable defending an organization that opposes what is good and decent in America. None of the things you have listed are rooted in fact. It's trash, pure and simple. "Return of Slavery" indeed. Pure crapola.

Sorry you have been listening to Rush, instead of looking at the evidence.

The hand writing is on the Wall. time start looking at the truth, instead of living in a world of Bushshit.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Diogenes:
Nope. Not at all. And they dehumanized themselves when they took up their perverted version of jihad - I'm just a realist who sees things as they are.

No, your a good example of a bad American. Your attitude gives legitemacy to this sick behavior of jihadists. If you would just get your head out of your (proverbial) ass you might see your not a realist at all. Do you think the people you don't consider human, would care whether your head was attached to your body, or a loved one, or a countryman? I'm ashamed were from the same nation. Why can't you be someone else's citizen with all your hatred.

You have to have a real hate-on to do what these sick people do. Its not something people do on a whim. So don't blow off their reasons. Were not going to solve any of these problems until we get to there root causes.

 

[Dogger807]

You ever notice that when a conservatve is against something they find a way to link it to communism, call it unamerican, anti-christian and the like?

They'd have you believe that the ALCU did nothing more than get criminals out of jail and defile religious symbols.

Oh and the ACLU is in bed with terrorists.

Nice propaganda.

That's all it is..Propaganda.

Yes there are cases they have taken that I do wish they hadn't touched. Supporting NAMBLA's right to free speech is something they'll never live down. Notice I said "NAMBLA's right to free speech" I didn't say they supported NAMBLA, or NAMBLA's views , so just cut the" NAMBLA is a despicable organization argument" before it starts.

My point is every organization has it's ups and downs. Those with views against ACLU are pointing to 3 or 4 cases that they feel are embodiments of the evils of the organization. Mostly an argument of misdirection.

I can point to far more cases that I approve of than I disagree with.

But since they stand firmly against government based religion, and discrimination , the neo conservatives despise them and do their best to discredit them. Well I got news, The ACLU is American, it is composed of Americans and is devoted to Americans. Not just to the majority, to all Americans. There is no way ACLU can be antiamerican , because we Americans are the ACLU.

 

[Caine]

I keep hearing and seeing that, but the only example I know of is when they sided with Rush Limbaugh on the privacy of his medical records. Do you have any other examples?

Nope. Not at all. And they dehumanized themselves when they took up their perverted version of jihad - I'm just a realist who sees things as they are.

There are plenty of examples, Im not naming them for you, do some research, but then again, being a conservative and all, that would be totally un-american of you to find out more about the ACLU than what Michael Savage, Asshat O'Reiley, Ann CoultWhore, and Sean InSannity tell you huh?

And, if you were a realist who sees things as they are, you would see that not every person who is detained in Iraq is a terrorist. If you had been there, you would realize that many people get detained who don't deserve to be detained, some of them get released shortly after, some remain detained for months.

 

[Missouri Mule]

You ever notice that when a conservatve is against something they find a way to link it to communism, call it unamerican, anti-christian and the like?

They'd have you believe that the ALCU did nothing more than get criminals out of jail and defile religious symbols.

Oh and the ACLU is in bed with terrorists.

Nice propaganda.

That's all it is..Propaganda.

Yes there are cases they have taken that I do wish they hadn't touched. Supporting NAMBLA's right to free speech is something they'll never live down. Notice I said "NAMBLA's right to free speech" I didn't say they supported NAMBLA, or NAMBLA's views , so just cut the" NAMBLA is a despicable organization argument" before it starts.

My point is every organization has it's ups and downs. Those with views against ACLU are pointing to 3 or 4 cases that they feel are embodiments of the evils of the organization. Mostly an argument of misdirection.

I can point to far more cases that This post is good and has excellent points. of than I disagree with.

But since they stand firmly against government based religion, and discrimination , the neo conservatives despise them and do their best to discredit them. Well I got news, The ACLU is American, it is composed of Americans and is devoted to Americans. Not just to the majority, to all Americans. There is no way ACLU can be antiamerican , because we Americans are the ACLU.

What's wrong with trashing Communism? It is responsible for over 100 million deaths in the 20th century. Even the Islamofacists have yet to match that number although I'm sure they will begin to approach it if the ACLU manages to gut the law enforcement processes here in the U.S.

It's a fact that the origins of the ACLU were formed by communists. That is not a debatable point. I could give you all kinds of quote by such founders such as:

Roger Baldwin (the ACLU's Founding Director):

A comment to my "the ACLU, Communists, and private organizations" post asked for evidence supporting my claims about Roger Baldwin, the ACLU's Founding Director (for the details of those claims, see that post). That's a very fair question; part of the answer is to point people to Robert C. Cottrell's Roger Nash Baldwin and the American Civil Liberties Union (Columbia University Press 2000), which I believe is generally seen as a fair-minded and on balance positive biography. But I thought I'd also quote excerpts from a rather striking article published by Mr. Baldwin in Soviet Russia Today in 1934 (I've also put a copy of the entire text here) (emphasis in original):

I believe in non-violent methods of struggle as most effective in the long run for building up successful working class power. Where they cannot be followed or where they are not even permitted by the ruling class, obviously only violent tactics remain. I champion civil liberty as the best of the non-violent means of building the power on which workers rule must be based. If I aid the reactionaries to get free speech now and then, if I go outside the class struggle to fight against censorship, it is only because those liberties help to create a more hospitable atmosphere for working class liberties. The class struggle is the central conflict of the world; all others are incidental.

Proletarian Liberty in Practice

When that power of the working class is once achieved, as it has been only in the Soviet Union, I am for maintaining it by any means whatever. Dictatorship is the obvious means in a world of enemies at home and abroad. I dislike it in principle as dangerous to its own objects. But the Soviet Union has already created liberties far greater than exist elsewhere in the world. They are liberties that most closely affect the lives of the people — power in the trade unions, in peasant organizations, in the cultural life of nationalities, freedom of women in public and private life, and a tremendous development of education for adults and children. . . .

I saw in the Soviet Union many opponents of the regime. I visited a dozen prisons — the political sections among them. I saw considerable of the work of the OGPU. I heard a good many stories of severity, even of brutality, and many of them from the victims. While I sympathized with personal distress I just could not bring myself to get excited over the suppression of opposition when I stacked it up against what I saw of fresh, vigorous expressions of free living by workers and peasants all over the land. And further, no champion of a socialist society could fail to see that some suppression was necessary to achieve it. It could not all be done by persuasion. . . .


http://volokh.com/posts/1126138099.shtml

Still want to support this bunch? Inquiring minds want to know.

 

[Caine]

What's wrong with trashing Communism? It is responsible for over 100 million deaths in the 20th century. Even the Islamofacists have yet to match that number although I'm sure they will begin to approach it if the ACLU manages to gut the law enforcement processes here in the U.S.

It's a fact that the origins of the ACLU were formed by communists. That is not a debatable point. I could give you all kinds of quote by such founders such as:

Roger Baldwin (the ACLU's Founding Director):

A comment to my "the ACLU, Communists, and private organizations" post asked for evidence supporting my claims about Roger Baldwin, the ACLU's Founding Director (for the details of those claims, see that post). That's a very fair question; part of the answer is to point people to Robert C. Cottrell's Roger Nash Baldwin and the American Civil Liberties Union (Columbia University Press 2000), which I believe is generally seen as a fair-minded and on balance positive biography. But I thought I'd also quote excerpts from a rather striking article published by Mr. Baldwin in Soviet Russia Today in 1934 (I've also put a copy of the entire text here) (emphasis in original):

I believe in non-violent methods of struggle as most effective in the long run for building up successful working class power. Where they cannot be followed or where they are not even permitted by the ruling class, obviously only violent tactics remain. I champion civil liberty as the best of the non-violent means of building the power on which workers rule must be based. If I aid the reactionaries to get free speech now and then, if I go outside the class struggle to fight against censorship, it is only because those liberties help to create a more hospitable atmosphere for working class liberties. The class struggle is the central conflict of the world; all others are incidental.

Proletarian Liberty in Practice

When that power of the working class is once achieved, as it has been only in the Soviet Union, I am for maintaining it by any means whatever. Dictatorship is the obvious means in a world of enemies at home and abroad. I dislike it in principle as dangerous to its own objects. But the Soviet Union has already created liberties far greater than exist elsewhere in the world. They are liberties that most closely affect the lives of the people — power in the trade unions, in peasant organizations, in the cultural life of nationalities, freedom of women in public and private life, and a tremendous development of education for adults and children. . . .

I saw in the Soviet Union many opponents of the regime. I visited a dozen prisons — the political sections among them. I saw considerable of the work of the OGPU. I heard a good many stories of severity, even of brutality, and many of them from the victims. While I sympathized with personal distress I just could not bring myself to get excited over the suppression of opposition when I stacked it up against what I saw of fresh, vigorous expressions of free living by workers and peasants all over the land. And further, no champion of a socialist society could fail to see that some suppression was necessary to achieve it. It could not all be done by persuasion. . . .


http://volokh.com/posts/1126138099.shtml

Still want to support this bunch? Inquiring minds want to know.

Im sorry, I think I read that article was published in 1934, could you please explain to me how this applies to today's ACLU?

Or, if this is your explaination, are you telling me that we should let the government trample on our constitutional rights? Or, just the constitutional rights of the people who are unpopular, like American Muslims/Islamists/Jews/Polytheists/Athiests/and other non-christians.
How about the constitutional rights of Murderers/Rapists/Pedophiles/other criminals? Do you believe just because they have been arrested they should give up thier rights before they have had a chance at a fair trial?
Please, tell me how the ACLU does bad. Tell me.
And have it not be some opinionated emotional shitfest of some whiney person who thinks only the white american christian man deserves his constitutional rights.

 

[Missouri Mule]

Im sorry, I think I read that article was published in 1934, could you please explain to me how this applies to today's ACLU?

Or, if this is your explaination, are you telling me that we should let the government trample on our constitutional rights? Or, just the constitutional rights of the people who are unpopular, like American Muslims/Islamists/Jews/Polytheists/Athiests/and other non-christians.
How about the constitutional rights of Murderers/Rapists/Pedophiles/other criminals? Do you believe just because they have been arrested they should give up thier rights before they have had a chance at a fair trial?
Please, tell me how the ACLU does bad. Tell me.
And have it not be some opinionated emotional shitfest of some whiney person who thinks only the white american christian man deserves his constitutional rights.

No, I don't. I think the rest of your post is rather silly and very typical of the shallow thinking of the Bush Bashers here. If you want to be serious, I will be pleased to debate you but I'm not into a cafeteria food-fight as you evidently are

 

[AlbqOwl]

Many organizations that had rather shady pasts by 21st Century standards have cleaned up their acts and do things pretty well these days. So the origins of an organization, while worth considering, is not always pertinent to what they are now.

Since the subject was brought up, however, yes! When there is sufficient evidence to arraign or indict a serial killer, pedophile, rapist, or any other violent offender, then absolutely that person should have his rights restricted pending trial. Would you want such people turned loose in your neighborhood? The ACLU should not be allowed to interfere with that, but they do. If the ACLU wants to be constructive, it should be working to reform our court systems so that the defense can order a speedy trial to shorten the time of incarceration for those who are innocent.

When there is sufficient evidence that a non-citizen, especiall an illegal one, presents a threat to the life, liberty, or well being of American citizens, such person should absolutely be restrained and held indefinitely for as long as a danger exists. Other than for reasonably humane treatment, persons in this country illegally should have no rights whatsoever and the ACLU should not be allowed to interfere with that.

The law should require that persons under the age of majority must be fed, clothed, housed, educated, and should not be treated inhumanely, but otherwise all authority over such persons should rest with legally instituted law enforcement,etc., their parents and whatever organizations (schools etc.) to which the parents consign the minor person. Persons with authority over minor children should be able to enforce standards of conduct, discipline, dress, deportment, and respect for authority, and the ACLU should not be allowed to interfere with that.

There are many other examples that would be pertinent.

Again the ACLU has come down on the right side of some issues, but they have also developed a nasty habit of meddling in affairs where they had no business and with undesirable results. The power of lawsuits is the terrible weapon they wield, and rather than incur the unaffordable expense of defending themselves against such lawsuits, schools, business, organizations, United Ways, etc. are too often extorted into capitulating.

This, in my opinion, gives the ACLU way too much power. It isn't healthy and it isn't right.

 

[Caine]

Many organizations that had rather shady pasts by 21st Century standards have cleaned up their acts and do things pretty well these days. So the origins of an organization, while worth considering, is not always pertinent to what they are now.

Since the subject was brought up, however, yes! When there is sufficient evidence to arraign or indict a serial killer, pedophile, rapist, or any other violent offender, then absolutely that person should have his rights restricted pending trial. Would you want such people turned loose in your neighborhood? The ACLU should not be allowed to interfere with that, but they do. If the ACLU wants to be constructive, it should be working to reform our court systems so that the defense can order a speedy trial to shorten the time of incarceration for those who are innocent.

When there is sufficient evidence that a non-citizen, especiall an illegal one, presents a threat to the life, liberty, or well being of American citizens, such person should absolutely be restrained and held indefinitely for as long as a danger exists. Other than for reasonably humane treatment, persons in this country illegally should have no rights whatsoever and the ACLU should not be allowed to interfere with that.

The law should require that persons under the age of majority must be fed, clothed, housed, educated, and should not be treated inhumanely, but otherwise all authority over such persons should rest with legally instituted law enforcement,etc., their parents and whatever organizations (schools etc.) to which the parents consign the minor person. Persons with authority over minor children should be able to enforce standards of conduct, discipline, dress, deportment, and respect for authority, and the ACLU should not be allowed to interfere with that.

There are many other examples that would be pertinent.

Again the ACLU has come down on the right side of some issues, but they have also developed a nasty habit of meddling in affairs where they had no business and with undesirable results. The power of lawsuits is the terrible weapon they wield, and rather than incur the unaffordable expense of defending themselves against such lawsuits, schools, business, organizations, United Ways, etc. are too often extorted into capitulating.

This, in my opinion, gives the ACLU way too much power. It isn't healthy and it isn't right.

I addressed this issue already in one of my earlier posts.
But, since nobody read that post because all they saw was me defending the ACLU, so that makes me agree with everything they do (Typical Black and White generalization on behalf of MOST, not all, of the conservatives on here), I will state again, that the ACLU has no business trying to defend those who are not americans and are outside of our country in our custody. Nor should they be defending those that are not citizens, the constitution should not apply to them, Although some would argue that it still does because they are within US borders.

And... I disagree that the ACLU has too much power, they are just using the power they do have for the wrong purposes in some instances. They do DO alot of cases that you don't hear about. But some conservatives tend to focus on the weird **** they do and blame them for supporting terrorists and being the tool of Osama Bin Laden and Communists. This is a lame sorry excuse to dislike them in the effort of trying to make thier conservative group look more like patriots.
Patriots don't take away the constitutional rights of others, at least not in the USA.

 

[Diogenes]

Do you think the people you don't consider human, would care whether your head was attached to your body, or a loved one, or a countryman?

Of course they don't care. That's what makes them subhuman.

I'm ashamed were from the same nation.

So am I.

You have to have a real hate-on to do what these sick people do. Its not something people do on a whim. So don't blow off their reasons. Were not going to solve any of these problems until we get to there root causes.

I don't hate them, just as I don't hate a mad dog. I simply want to see them dead and harmless. The root cause of their problem is irrelevant for that purpose, but it is no doubt their cultural sewer that spawns it.

Those with views against ACLU are pointing to 3 or 4 cases that they feel are embodiments of the evils of the organization. Mostly an argument of misdirection.

Can you point out 3 or 4 cases that go the other way, and argue that they are not misdirection?

There are plenty of examples, Im not naming them for you, do some research, but then again, being a conservative and all, that would be totally un-american of you to find out more about the ACLU than what Michael Savage, Asshat O'Reiley, Ann CoultWhore, and Sean InSannity tell you huh?

Can't do it, eh? So you rely on name -calling to make your point? That's a very convincing argument, but perhaps not in the way you intended.

Many organizations that had rather shady pasts by 21st Century standards have cleaned up their acts and do things pretty well these days. So the origins of an organization, while worth considering, is not always pertinent to what they are now.

(snip)

Excellent post, very well argued. I only wish all other posters could follow your example of civility.

... I will state again, that the ACLU has no business trying to defend those who are not americans and are outside of our country in our custody. Nor should they be defending those that are not citizens, the constitution should not apply to them, Although some would argue that it still does because they are within US borders.

And... I disagree that the ACLU has too much power, they are just using the power they do have for the wrong purposes in some instances. ...

Agreed. The question for this thread is whether the "wrong purposes" now outweigh the "right purposes." Current examples of wrong purposes have been cited, but I haven't seen any current examples of right purposes.

 

[AlbqOwl]

I addressed this issue already in one of my earlier posts.
But, since nobody read that post because all they saw was me defending the ACLU, so that makes me agree with everything they do (Typical Black and White generalization on behalf of MOST, not all, of the conservatives on here), I will state again, that the ACLU has no business trying to defend those who are not americans and are outside of our country in our custody. Nor should they be defending those that are not citizens, the constitution should not apply to them, Although some would argue that it still does because they are within US borders.

And... I disagree that the ACLU has too much power, they are just using the power they do have for the wrong purposes in some instances. They do DO alot of cases that you don't hear about. But some conservatives tend to focus on the weird **** they do and blame them for supporting terrorists and being the tool of Osama Bin Laden and Communists. This is a lame sorry excuse to dislike them in the effort of trying to make thier conservative group look more like patriots.
Patriots don't take away the constitutional rights of others, at least not in the USA.

You're entitled to your opinion of course. And this is just an observation, and I can't speak for anybody else, but I tend to read more carefully a post that makes an argument on its own merit. When the argument is mostly insulting generalities about the other members' point of view, I will usually skim over it.

 

[dragonslayer]

You ever notice that when a conservatve is against something they find a way to link it to communism, call it unamerican, anti-christian and the like?

They'd have you believe that the ALCU did nothing more than get criminals out of jail and defile religious symbols.

Oh and the ACLU is in bed with terrorists.

Nice propaganda.

That's all it is..Propaganda.

Yes there are cases they have taken that I do wish they hadn't touched. Supporting NAMBLA's right to free speech is something they'll never live down. Notice I said "NAMBLA's right to free speech" I didn't say they supported NAMBLA, or NAMBLA's views , so just cut the" NAMBLA is a despicable organization argument" before it starts.

My point is every organization has it's ups and downs. Those with views against ACLU are pointing to 3 or 4 cases that they feel are embodiments of the evils of the organization. Mostly an argument of misdirection.

I can point to far more cases that This post is good and has excellent points. of than I disagree with.

But since they stand firmly against government based religion, and discrimination , the neo conservatives despise them and do their best to discredit them. Well I got news, The ACLU is American, it is composed of Americans and is devoted to Americans. Not just to the majority, to all Americans. There is no way ACLU can be antiamerican , because we Americans are the ACLU.

I have to agree with most of yur statements. The ACLU take care takes care of those who are not strong enough or rich enough to take on the system. They also take on clients that are very unpopular. All Americans have the right to speedy and fair trial. I can imagine that anyone supports the Patriot Act, does not support one's right to a speedy and fair trial. Therefore they cannot support the Constitution, and there fore they are looking for reasons to bash and lie about the ACLU.

this is what neo conservatives do, the lies and spread Bushshit inuendos.

 

[Missouri Mule]

I have to agree with most of yur statements. The ACLU take care takes care of those who are not strong enough or rich enough to take on the system. They also take on clients that are very unpopular. All Americans have the right to speedy and fair trial. I can imagine that anyone supports the Patriot Act, does not support one's right to a speedy and fair trial. Therefore they cannot support the Constitution, and there fore they are looking for reasons to bash and lie about the ACLU.

this is what neo conservatives do, the lies and spread Bushshit inuendos.

I'm in favor of giving all terrorists a speedy trial and then duly hanging them. Or hanging them first and then a trial. All the same to me.