ACLU - Good and Bad

[Debaser]

It’s not just that the ACLU supports the right of child molestors to have a fair trial or have the right to not self incriminate or anything like that. Those rights are not in dispute. There’s no serious movment against child molestors having those rights.

The problem is that the ACLU has been very supportive of NAMBLA, which is a criminal organization. NAMBLA gives instructions to child molestors on how to abuse and not get caught. This is criminal activity, not speech that deserves protection. For the ACLU to defend this is absurd and washes away any credibility they might have had.

Further, the ACLU’s anti-gun and anti-religion stances rub a lot of people the wrong way. It sucks, because I like the idea of an organization that protects civil liberties. I’d love to be a member of such an organization. But, as is typical with such groups, they have been hijacked by extremists with radical agendas IMO. As such, I cannot support them.

[Frank]

@Debaser

But, as is typical with such groups, they have been hijacked by extremists with radical agendas IMO. As such, I cannot support them.

Just precisely my feelings about the NRA.

The ACLU does throw its weight in on the side of some issues I do not agree with. I’ll accept its work on those issues because of the excellent work it does on issues I do agree with.

[Bricker]

@BobLibDem

I think if you state that the ACLU protects individual rights where individual rights exist, that would be consistently true. The individual vs collective interpretation of the Second Amendment has been done many times on this board and I don’t believe such discussions lead to anyone changing his mind. The individual interpretation might be what some read into it, yet the federal courts have (with the one exception) have never read it that way. I too might take issue with isolated court rulings, but when they have consistently been on one side of the fence for decades the precedent is compelling.

In other areas, the ACLU advocates creating rights that do not yet exist. How does that square with your interpretation? On the Second Amendment, they placidly accept the decades of court rulings and practice finding gun ownership a collective right. On the issue of same-sex marriage, they do NOT placidly accept the decades of court rulings and practice that exist: they fight to overturn those rulings and change that practice.

[Acsenray]

@Bricker

In other areas, the ACLU advocates creating rights that do not yet exist. How does that square with your interpretation? On the Second Amendment, they placidly accept the decades of court rulings and practice finding gun ownership a collective right. On the issue of same-sex marriage, they do NOT placidly accept the decades of court rulings and practice that exist: they fight to overturn those rulings and change that practice.

Believing that one right exists or should be interpreted broadly has nothing to do with believing whether another right exists or should be interpreted broadly or should be defended rigorously or expanded. It’s true that their view and your views are inconsistent with each other, but that doesn’t make the A.C.L.U.'s position inconsistent in and of itself.

[Debaser]

Here is an article that bashes the ACLU and makes a few good points:

In September, the ACLU filed a friend-of-the-court brief urging the Supreme Court to allow a ban on military recruiters at university campuses. The ACLU’s opposition to military readiness is long and well known, dating from their founder Roger Baldwin’s refusal to report for an examination for Selective Service in World War I. The current case involves the Solomon Amendment, a 1994 statute that allows the blocking of federal funds to campuses that deny military recruiters “equal access.”

In another startling case, the ACLU – as it does more often than not – is opposing the democratic process and traditional values in Florida. A group of concerned Floridians is gathering signatures to bring a constitutional amendment protecting marriage before the state’s voters. Not surprisingly, the ACLU opposes this constitutionally valid effort to keep marriage from being tampered with by politicians, activist judges, and other groups – well, like the ACLU.

When the ACLU is not attacking the military or marriage, they are working on manipulating our children’s values and behavior. Last month, they launched “Not in My State,” a nationwide effort to eliminate what they call “dangerous” abstinence-only education in schools.

Yes, they really said that.

Recently the ACLU fought to get some more Abu Ghraib photos released, despite the obvious damage this will do to the US and our troops abroad, and the fact that nobody is claiming that these photos show anything we haven’t already seen.

[url=http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level.php?cat=Trends&loid=8.0.213970455&par=]Link[/ur]

A federal court in New York has ordered that all the images of Iraqi inmates being abused at the Abu Ghraib prison should be released. The ruling came after the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) called for the release of 87 unseen images and three videos that were being held by the US defence department. The US government has 20 days to consider whether to appeal, as they are expected to do.

“Today’s historic ruling is a step toward ensuring that our government’s leaders are held accountable for the abuse and torture that happened on their watch,” ACLU Executive director Anthony D. Romero said in a statement: “The American public has a right to know what happened in American detention centres, and how our leaders let it occur."

Pictures of the humiliating treatment of inmates at Abu Ghraib shocked the world and further damaged the image and credibility of the United States, already impaired by its invasion of Iraq in 2003. The Bush administration has blamed the abuse on a small group of individuals and denied that it was a policy condoned by their superiors. Several US soldiers have already been charged and jailed over the incidents of abuse that were revealed after the photos of the abuse were leaked to the media.

The US government argues that releasing more of the images of the abuse at Abu Ghraib would help the insurgents in Iraq.

It is “probable that al-Qaeda and other groups will seize upon these images and videos as grist for their propaganda mill,” the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Richard Myers, argued in court papers.

There is no benefit to releasing these photos. No American’s civil rights are going to be helped by having them released. However, it will put US troops and our allies abroad in danger just as when the false Newsweek story aired on abuse that resulted in more than a dozen deaths.

I hope that this idiotic ruling by a loony liberal judge will be overturned on appeal, but by even attempting to release these photos the ACLU is showing itself to be a anti-american organization.

[Debaser]

@acsenray

It’s true that their view and your views are inconsistent with each other, but that doesn’t make the A.C.L.U.'s position inconsistent in and of itself.

It does if the ACLU claims that they claim to “conserve America’s original civic values - the Constitution and the Bill of Rights” but in fact ignore some aspects of the bill of rights and construe others as widely as possible.

From ACLU.org about us main page, top paragraph:

The ACLU is our nation’s guardian of liberty. We work daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States. Our job is to conserve America’s original civic values - the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

[Stonebow]

A snipet from the oft-quoted A Man for All Seasons sums up why I support the ACLU. Some folks are all too happy to ignore laws when they find the inconvenient, but a consistent rule of law that applies to all, high and low, guilty and innocent, is necessary for justice to be served.

---

Roper: Sophistication upon sophistication.
**
More:** No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what’s legal not what’s right. And I’ll stick to what’s legal.

Roper: Then you set man’s law above God’s!

More: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact - I’m not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can’t navigate. I’m no voyager. But in the thickets of the law, oh, there I’m a forrester. I doubt if there’s a man alive who could follow me there, thank God…

Alice: While you talk, he’s gone!
**
More: ** And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law!

Roper: So now you’d give the Devil benefit of law!

**More: ** Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

Roper: I’d cut down every law in England to do that!

**More: ** Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you - where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast - man’s laws, not God’s - and if you cut them down - and you’re just the man to do it - d’you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake.

---

There are times when we all look like Devils. For my own safety’s sake, I’ll uphold the refuge of law.

[Debaser]

Fixed link to the Abu Ghraib photos story:

Link

[Digital_Stimulus]

@Debaser

Here is an article that bashes the ACLU and makes a few good points:

How are these “good” points? I see mostly twaddle.

But it’s refreshing to see you make such good use of the “anti-american” soundbite.

Oh, wait. No, it’s the other thing. Tedious and hackneyed.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Debaser

In another startling case, the ACLU – as it does more often than not – is opposing the democratic process and traditional values in Florida.

What’s startling? The “democratic process” and “traditional values” are not the same as upholding constitutional civil liberties, in fact if they did there’d be no need for court cases on the subject.

Not surprisingly, the ACLU opposes this constitutionally valid effort to keep marriage from being tampered with by politicians, activist judges, and other groups – well, like the ACLU.

I trust you can recognize the falsities in this sentence.

When the ACLU is not attacking the military or marriage

They are doing neither.

Last month, they launched “Not in My State,” a nationwide effort to eliminate what they call “dangerous” abstinence-only education in schools.

Yes, they really said that.

Yes, there is a fair amount data to show a higher rate of teen pregnancies and sexually-transmitted diseases among teens whose only sex education has been abstinence only. It’s no stretch to call it dangerous, as indeed the promulgation of any ignorance is dangerous.

@debaser

There is no benefit to releasing these photos. No American’s civil rights are going to be helped by having them released.

You really don’t think that publicity is a deterrent to misconduct? That releasing the photos will help us all understand what has gone on there? That it might stop it from happening in the future? That knowing it’s stopped might help reduce passions among the people fighting us? That not mistreating prisoners helps keep our own people from mistreatment? That last reason is why the Geneva Conventions matter - each signatory knew it would help their *own * people.

[elucidator]

@Debaser

…There is no benefit to releasing these photos. No American’s civil rights are going to be helped by having them released. However, it will put US troops and our allies abroad in danger just as when the false Newsweek story aired on abuse that resulted in more than a dozen deaths…

But of course there is a benefit, an unfortunate benefit, to be sure. It prevents our enemies from making up lies about what the photos show. As it stands, they are free to let their imaginations run amok. Our credibility is in tatters, it is useless to hide the photos behind our collective back and claim that there is nothing to see there, move along, you looky loos. It isn’t about our enemies, its about those who don’t hate us yet.

…the ACLU is showing itself to be a anti-american organization.

A most unfortunate error in wording. I’m sure friend Debaser does not mean to imply that the ACLU is motivated by villainy and a keen desire to harm America. That would be a wholly repugnant and repulsive thesis, and I have no doubt that he will rush to clarify, and repudiate any such obnoxious misunderstanding.

[BobLibDem]

Advocating that the Abu Ghraib photos NOT be made public is un-American. Yes, they may help terrorist recruiting. But guess what- if the US hadn’t done it in the first place, then it wouldn’t be an issue. There’s a simple solution for not wanting photos of war crimes being released, and that is don’t commit war crimes.

There are very good reasons to publish these photos. They are war crimes being committed with our tax dollars and in our name. If we don’t see the photos, how are we supposed to be outraged enough to force a change in policy? The McCain bill just passed in the Senate may well be a consequence of those photos, and if so, publishing them worked.

[Debaser]

@ElvisL1ves

Yes, there is a fair amount data to show a higher rate of teen pregnancies and sexually-transmitted diseases among teens whose only sex education has been abstinence only. It’s no stretch to call it dangerous, as indeed the promulgation of any ignorance is dangerous.

What’s the rate of teen STD’s have to do with civil liberties? I actually happen to agree with the ACLU on the subject, but I do think it shows the liberal bias of the group that they are even making an issue out of such a thing. It’s got nothing to do with what they claim to stand for.

You really don’t think that publicity is a deterrent to misconduct?

There already has been publicity. Everyone knows what happened. What’s this have to do with American Civil Liberties again, BTW?

That releasing the photos will help us all understand what has gone on there?

We all already have an understanding of what goes on there. Nobody on either side, the ACLU or the pentagon, is claiming that these photos show anything new. It’s just more of the same, by the same people that have already been punished. What’s this got to do with American Civil Liberties again?

That it might stop it from happening in the future?

How will releasing these photos have any impact on abuse happening in the future? Those responsible have already been punshed. Nothing constructive whatsoever will come of these photos being released. What’s this got to do with American Civil Liberties in the first place?

That knowing it’s stopped might help reduce passions among the people fighting us?

Now this is just silly. Are you actually claiming that providing Al Jazeera with 80 more photos of US troops torturing Iraqi’s will reduce passions among those fighting us? That’s absurd. The opposite is in fact true, and any rational person realizes this. Even the ACLU and the judge in the case acknowlege this.

That not mistreating prisoners helps keep our own people from mistreatment? That last reason is why the Geneva Conventions matter - each signatory knew it would help their *own * people.

That’s great that you’re a big fan of the Geneva Convention. I am too. What went on in Abu Ghraib was clearly a violation of the rules of war and the rules of the US military. I’m glad to see that those responsible have been punished. Wait, what’s any of this have to do with American Civil Liberties again?

International issues like Abu Ghraib should be an issue for Amnesty International to deal with. The ACLU has no business getting involved in the first place. However, even if they do want to stray from their stated purpose and support the Civil Liberties of Iraqi terrorists instead of Americans, it is still a horrible idea to release those pictures. Nothing constructive will come of it, only our soldiers being put in more danger. It’s irresponsible and, yes, unamerican to seek for that to happen.

[Debaser]

@elucidator

A most unfortunate error in wording. I’m sure friend Debaser does not mean to imply that the ACLU is motivated by villainy and a keen desire to harm America. That would be a wholly repugnant and repulsive thesis, and I have no doubt that he will rush to clarify, and repudiate any such obnoxious misunderstanding.

I’m in no rush to clarify your thesis.

[BobLibDem]

@Debaser

Those responsible have already been punshed. Nothing constructive whatsoever will come of these photos being released.

Has Rumsfeld been punished? Making buck privates take the blame for orders from above isn’t justice, it’s cowardice.

[Debaser]

@BobLibDem

If we don’t see the photos, how are we supposed to be outraged enough to force a change in policy?

You guys seem like you’re doing just fine at getting outraged without them.

The McCain bill just passed in the Senate may well be a consequence of those photos, and if so, publishing them worked.

AFAIK the photos have not yet been released. They won’t be until the appeal process runs its course. Maybe some Senators have seen them, but I don’t believe that they have not been published for all to see.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Debaser

You guys seem like you’re doing just fine at getting outraged without them.

So how much more would it take to get “you guys” outraged as well? Maybe the pictures would do it, maybe not.

What’s the rate of teen STD’s have to do with civil liberties?

That was in reply to your “cite’s” denigration of the ACLU’s use of the word “dangerous”.

Are you actually claiming that providing Al Jazeera with 80 more photos of US troops torturing Iraqi’s will reduce passions among those fighting us?

No, I’m claiming that stopping the torture would reduce passions, and that release of the photos would help stop it. I had thought that was clear.

International issues like Abu Ghraib should be an issue for Amnesty International to deal with. The ACLU has no business getting involved in the first place.

The abuses were the actions of the US government, which is intended to operate under US law, derived from the US constitution, which defines and guarantees US civil liberties, which is the province of the ACLU. US civil liberties are part of the same mainstream of the philosophy of civilization that created the Geneva Conventions, as well. Amnesty has no institutional authority at all, so how do you propose they “deal with” it?

[Acsenray]

Yes, something constructive will be accomplished – we will see exactly what is being done on our behalf by our employees in our name. And that is something we have not only the right but the responsibility to know all the specific details about. In order for democracy to work, our government can have no secrets from us.

Hiding the photos on the other hand is what has no constructive purpose. All it allows is for everyone to make misleading claims (from those in support of as well as those opposed to the government) about what was done.

Truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and all its accompanying evidence is the only weapon against propaganda, whether it’s the anti-American propaganda of freelance terrorists and hostile regimes (and that’s a correct and accurate use of the word “anti-American,” unlike your usage above), or whether it’s the propaganda of our own government trying to make everyone think that they are doing a good job and that they should remain in power.

[Debaser]

@ElvisL1ves

So how much more would it take to get “you guys” outraged as well? Maybe the pictures would do it, maybe not.

I was outraged when I saw the pictures. (The ones that have been realeased, those many months ago.) I’m ashamed of the actions of Lindie England and the others. I’m pleased that they are going to prison for years to come.

I guess I’m not outraged if you only consider demanding Rumsfeld and Bush be punished as a measurement of outrage.

No, I’m claiming that stopping the torture would reduce passions, and that release of the photos would help stop it. I had thought that was clear.

I know what you’re claiming. It’s completely rediculous. The passions that would be increased by the release of the pictures would vastly overshadow any potential decrease in passions resulting from theoretical stopping of torture that they might or might not contribute to. This is obvious to everone, including the ACLU and the loony judge who made the ruling and the pentagon. Everone except for you.

The abuses were the actions of the US government, which is intended to operate under US law, derived from the US constitution, which defines and guarantees US civil liberties, which is the province of the ACLU.

The US civil liberties only apply to American citizens, not to terrorists that we are at war with. Do you seriously suggest that before entering a house in Iraq that our soldiers need get a warrant first? Or that terrorists captured on the battlefield are entitled to Miranda rights?

Everone agrees that what occured at Abu Ghraib was wrong. But, this isn’t an American Civil Liberties issue.

US civil liberties are part of the same mainstream of the philosophy of civilization that created the Geneva Conventions, as well.

What the heck is this sentance supposed to mean? You’re rambling.

Amnesty has no institutional authority at all, so how do you propose they “deal with” it?

What “institutional authority” does the ACLU have? Either group can get a lawyer to sue to have the pics released. A private individual could do it for that matter. One does not need “institutional authority” to file a brief. I’m just pointing out that ACLU has strayed far from their stated purpose by getting involved in such things in the first place.

[Debaser]

@acsenray

whether it’s the anti-American propaganda of freelance terrorists and hostile regimes (and that’s a correct and accurate use of the word “anti-American,” unlike your usage above), or whether it’s the propaganda of our own government trying to make everyone think that they are doing a good job and that they should remain in power.

The photos themselves are anti-American propaganda.