I love seeing stories like this, especially after we JUST had Jim sticking up for them a few days ago.
Liberals come here and simply SAY things without facts, without common sense, then I post ANOTHER story supporting my beliefs, and either liberals will repeat their made up reality, or simply not comment on the story.
Once again, a liberal organization is worried about the rights of terrorist, of bad guys, of criminals...
Ann Coulter's comments seem more and more correct. Liberals protect the worst of society, and therefore make the entire western world closer and closer to the third world...
Friday, June 01, 2007
Al Qaida suspects sue Boeing, with ACLU's help
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
27 comments:
There is a reason why the ACLU tries to ensure that anyone--Christian, Muslim, atheist, Democrat, Republican, liberal, conservative, white supremacist, civil rights activist--has full access to all rights afforded to them. It's the same reason I give the ACLU money (I carry my card just to be obnoxious about it).
That's because I want--as anyone would want--someone to stick up for me when I need help.
Why should accused pedophiles get a vigorous defense in court? Why should the ACLU fight to allow the KKK to march? Why should teachers unions fight to make certain bad teachers are only fired for cause? The answer is the same in all those instances: Because I want a vigorous defense, I want the right to march, and I want to be protected from vindictive SOB principals.
When you deny basic rights to anyone, you open the door to the possibility that those rights could be denied anyone else, including, maybe, someday, you. You wouldn't want to be picked up by the CIA, flown overseas, and tortured without trial, would you?
It's not a matter of protecting rights, Jay. With the ACLU, it's far too often a matter of protecting rights that don't, or shouldn't, exist. Case in point, and I brought this up to Jim some time ago, is the ACLU's defense of child pornographers. How can anyone with any sense of decency insist that such people should have the right to produce, sell, possess child porn? The ACLU distorts the definition of civil rights in too many cases to expect public support of any kind. Yet, they don't much care to defend religious freedoms, particularly the Christian religion. There are others who can defend against real violations. The ACLU can't really tell the difference anymore. As a commie group, I'm not sure they ever could.
jay,
I dont think your statement: "You wouldn't want to be picked up by the CIA, flown overseas, and tortured without trial, would you?" is relevent.
Seems how we're talking about non-citizen terrorist suspects and the "you" in your example (Game) is an American citizen (I'm assuming).
Ya I know the ACLU is the self-appointed watch dog of Government excesses. Unless of course the Gov't excess is something they agree with, like trampling our second amendment rights etc.
Jay, your a smart fellow. Surely you know the history of the fondation of the ACLU, surely you've read the accounts of ex-members. Surely you don't believe the ACLU's sole purpose is as stated in their swell sounding little slogans (excuse me, I meant to say "mission statements").
I did not know Constitutional rights extended to Ethiopian nationals. I do know the ACLU was founded by communists and remains a socialist organization with socialist goals to this date.
very, very, very welld done again!!!!
Seems how we're talking about non-citizen terrorist suspects and the "you" in your example (Game) is an American citizen (I'm assuming).
*cough*JosePadilla*cough*
Jay, you are SO right on. They don't get it and they never will.
I believe the article refers to the plaintiffs as suspects. If they are suspects, they aren't proven guilty.
Whatever happened to believing in the rule of law?
Jay, these people think the Bill of Rights is one amendment, the Second, and they don't even understand the history of that one.
I'm with you, Jay. Got my card in my wallet!
jay
Was "*cough*JosePadilla*cough*" one of the defendents in this case?
No?
Then I guess he's not relevent to this topic.
Unless your argument is "a good deed excuses a bad deed"?
Jim,
I'm afraid you don't "get it". We're at war, it doesn't matter if they're just suspects! They're not citizens, but suspected enemy combatants.
There is a big difference, no matter how much effort the ACLU has spent in convincing you otherwise.
They might as well just change their acronym to the UNclu.
jay & jim
You don't seem to understand there's a different set of rules that apply to non-citizens in wartime, regardless of what you may wish to apply. The people have spoken, that's the way we want it. Of course, you and your friends in the ACLU can do everything in your power to change the laws and put Americans at a greater risk, if that's what you want.
jay--
There is a case to be made about Jose Padilla, who is an American citizen. However, the ACLU above is talking about extending Constitutional rights to non-citizens, which is insanity.
Jason, as I read the story, the plaintiffs here are suing under existing US law. The ACLU here is not trying to invent anything or extend rights to non-citizens, but rather assist people who have been tortured recover damages against those who facilitated that torture as the law allows.
Like to make this point again...what would the world be like if modern day liberals existed during the civil war, or WWI, or WWII? The bad guys would have won
Absolutely true, game.
Today's left is so radicalized they would have had ***non-citizen**** Nazis and Yamato supremacists in our courts suing corporations for violating their Constitutional rights.
This is not hyperbole. The ACLU is suing on behalf of al-Queda operatives!!!! Unbelievable! And you pay money to help people do this, Jay?
I question your patriotism.
And I question your belief in American values.
Real American values that are not "jumbled" have allowed this country to have the greatness that is now under attack by those "jaded" points of view that say it's those idiots right to be a
"moron." Still,it is laughable to see the viewpoint of the comedians
who defend some of these views of the aclu.(ALL CLUELESS LEFTIES UNITED)
Jim--
Well, you shouldn't question my belief in this country. I would never suggest the Constitution be used to protect foreign nationals who are al-Queda.
People like you do.
I know socialists hate markets, choice, corporations, and private property. But suing American corporations on al-Queda's behalf is taking the working-class Revolution a little too far. Y'think?
Suspected.
You all keep leaving out that word.
And here's a serious question: Do you really condone US complicity in the abduction and torture of men who have not been proved guilty in any court?
Of course they do. They are so danged frightened by the threats that Bush bangs home that they are willing to compromise the values that this country has lived on and the military has fought for for over two centuries.
It must be awful to live in such fear that they are willing to cede the very rights and protections that make this country extraordinary.
I read this in the newspaper today:
Charles Rust-Tierney, 51, a former president of the Virginia chapter of the ACLU has been charged with possessing child pornograpy. The images include pre-pubescent girls being violently raped.
Maybe that's why they defend child molestors so vigorously.
Here's some more. And here.
Please site a case where the ACLU defended someone against child pornography charges.
I already did, Jim, you goof! I gave you a website to check out the last time this worthless group was discussed, and it concerned child porn and how the ACLU defends it. Didn't you read any of it? I read your links and they've been crap and less than supportive of your points. But apparently you never read the one I offered. The ACLU defends child pornographers. It's a fact.
Jay,
We're aware of the meaning of the term "suspect". I would wager on the accuracy of our people calling these guys terrorists, than I would these guys calling our people torturers. Why aren't you? And shouldn't we be using the term "suspect" in relation to those who supposedly tortured these suspects? Or do you just prefer to take the word of anyone the ACLU is defending? I noticed that no where in the story is there any mention of how they were tortured, and in this day and age, the word applies to most anything the anti-Bush people want it to mean.
But there's another thing you need to understand regarding the word "suspect". It's a legal term to protect law enforcement from being sued for slandering someone arrested for a crime. The term, along with "allegedly", is used until conviction or dismissal of the charges. However, in the arena of intelligence and spying, such terms are used in a different way. An operative may use the word upon first coming upon the slightest evidence regarding an individual. But it takes far less than what the courts require, for the operative and his superiors to know the individual is guilty and the man they're looking for. So I say again, I'd put my money on our people first. If they say the jerks are terrorists, odds are great that they are. If they indeed torture, even if that means what I know it to mean, I'd wager the chump had info he's not telling. That's assuming they suspects were indeed tortured. It is their policy to claim they were tortured if taken into custody, whether they were or not.
Jay--
Using your language, your position is still indefensible.
You want to extend Constitutional protections to noncitizens. Not any non-citizens, but specifically to those who are suspected al-Queda members.
What in God's name is wrong with you?
And you pay money to support this?
It is like the nihilist left chooses the bad because it is bad. This is a little bit different than stupidity, since a stupid person will be wrong by chance and at least can get things right once in a while.
You want to extend Constitutional protections to noncitizens.
The Constitution already protects non-citizens. For example, the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment refer to "persons," not citizens.
You should know this from your study of Roe v. Wade.
Not any non-citizens, but specifically to those who are suspected al-Queda members.
If you're referring to the ACLU's suit against Jeppesen Dataplan, it's based in international law and the Alien Torts Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1350, an Act of Congress that gives federal district courts jurisdiction over civil actions brought by aliens.
It raises no prima facie constitutional issues.
illusory--
It is pretty clear what the ACLU wants to accomplish. The perceived violation of the due process clause is either America holding captured foreign al-Queda operatives, or America using the rendition program that has been in place since the Clinton administration to transport foreign al-Queda operatives back to their country of origin.
Again, the ACLU and the Democratic Party is making up rights for al-Queda members, trying to accomplish in the courts what they cannot do with their sad Congressional majorities. If I may remind you, al-Queda butchered 3,000 Americans on our own soil, and we're still fighting them in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The press release seems to indicate the ACLU is upset because al-Queda members sent back home are being "tortured" there, so Americans and American corporations are responsible for what the other government does. The argument is that what we're doing violates international norms (another example of the left undermining American sovereignty), and that isn't going to hold up in court.
The ACLU will lose this case.
The perceived violation of the due process clause ...
Is in your mind, and not in the ACLU's complaint. As a matter of fact, the ACLU expressly acknowledges the Department of Justice's arguments that plaintiffs such as those named in the complaint are not protected by the Constitution.
I suggest you read it in addition to the "press release."
Post a Comment