Why Does the ACLU Hate the Troops?
Posted on November 28, 2005
Many have heard the ongoing debate on military recruiters in schools and the counter-recruitment efforts of the Left. Some schools are going so far as to sue the federal government on the grounds that their free speech is adversely affected by being compelled to allow military recruiters on campus in exchange for federal money. Get that? Schools (government actors) say their free speech is prevented because of conditions in accepting federal money don’t allow them to deny free speech to military recruiters (government actors). War is peace and all that. You know the drill.
Enter the ACLU. An organization that is solely devoted to the protection of the bill of rights is in the role of advocating the removal of military recruiters from schools and campuses. Much like their war on abstinence education, this isn’t an issue having to do with rights. You are free to listen to a recruiter, to ignore a recruiter, and to have protests about recruiters in schools. But the presence of a recruiter in no way, shape, or form impedes anyone’s rights.
The ACLU and others are not fighting military recruiting because it is a Bill of Rights issue. Nothing in the Bill of Rights implies that one has an absolute right to never be presented with ideas you disagree with, or, in this case, someone else being presented ideas you disagree with. They are fighting military recruiters because they insist only THEIR policies and ideas be presented. They fight Christmas because Christianity is unacceptable in the public sphere. They fight abstinence education because that ideas is unacceptable. Likewise they fight military recruiters because people signing up to serve is unacceptable. This is not the advocacy and welcoming of free speech, this is the enforcement through judicial fiat of social conformity.
You can’t be all you can be if you’re dead, reads one sign. This is the side that the ACLU is on, the side that is against the troops. The side that says America is not worth dying for. The side that says people are stupid to serve. The side that says an 18 year old is too young and ignorant to join the military but a 14 year old is old enough to make intelligent choices about getting an abortion. The side that is trying to disarm us in the hopes that our weakness there is strength. The side that insists on due process rights for unlawful combatants not entitled to them by law, but routinely undermines due process rights of soldiers awaiting trial for their abuse of prisoners.
Our pre-9/11 response was weakness. Did that help? Osama was quite clear and is quite clear; he thinks he can win because we are weak. Our Asia allies worry that we can’t win a war against China. The ACLU is on the fronts making sure we can’t.
» Filed Under 1st Amendment, ACLU, Christmas, News
Trackback URL
Comments
8 Responses to “Why Does the ACLU Hate the Troops?”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Advertise
Donate
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
Stop the ACLU blogburst
-
More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
The assumption that the American Civil Liberties Union is contributing to the downfall of America by limiting the government’s power to defend American freedom is preposterous, ridiculous, and dispicable. If you think that the ACLU’s legal motion lacks solid legal basis, feel free to debate the law.
1) We are not fighting for American Freedom in Iraq. We went in based on false intelligence, unbacked by the United Nations (a very credible ally), and have lost 2,000 American lives for the army of Haliburton. This is not a war for freedom.
2) America is worth dying for. The oil industry is not.
3)The ACLU does not impede on due process rights of alleged torturers
4) YOU IDIOT!!! YOU WANT TO WAGE WAR ON CHINA?!?!?! that would lead to nuclear armageddon, the destruction of the American-based economy which depends so heavilly on China, and they outnumber us! And outgun us, for that matter. Let them become democratic on their own.
5) Your logic is flawed in more ways than I care to count.
The problem I have with you conservative idiots is that you think we’re against the troops, that we don’t think they should fight for America. This is where you morons are wrong, you see, because we think America is worth dying for–but Bush isn’t defending America, let alone protecting it. We believe that the troops are being misled. We believe that THIS IS NOT THE RIGHT WAY TO DEFEND AMERICA. We believe that protecting the US Constition is more important than protecting the oil industry, because millions of men died to protect both without destroying the other.
1) We are not army of Haliburton
False intelligence != inaccurate intelligence. But feel free to keep repeating you mantra, maybe someone will believe it.
The UN is ‘a very credible ally’? Whatever you say…too rediculous to even reply to, where to even begin with that one…
2) America is worth dying for. The oil industry is not.
Wow, another one I didn’t see coming. Very original argument. BTW, what do you think will happen if the mid-east oil taps are ever turned off to the US? I’m sure that wouldn’t have any adverse effect on the economy. I know you probably walk or ride your bike everywhere, but there are a few of us here that do use oil from time to time.
3)The ACLU does not impede on due process rights of alleged torturers
Umm, that’s right. I would not expect the ACLU to impede the rights of torturers, real or alleged. I would expect them to put up a formidable defense of course. Criminals, illegals, fugitives, pedophiles, the ACLU loves those people!
4) YOU IDIOT!!! YOU WANT TO WAGE WAR ON CHINA?!?!?! that would lead to nuclear armageddon, the destruction of the American-based economy which depends so heavilly on China, and they outnumber us! And outgun us, for that matter. Let them become democratic on their own.
First, who said anyone WANTED to wage war on China? If you RTFA, it says that our Asian ALLIES are saying we CAN’T win a war against them. Try doing a simple google search for ‘chinese military buildup’. Oh, I’m sure all 11,000 hits are a vast right-wing conspiracy. Keep your head in the sand, but you better start brushing up on your Mandarin if all you think they want to do is ‘become democratic on their own’.
Tell them Will. They do not in any way resemble an intelligent person. A couple of good towels to dry behing their ears. They have exactly no experience in world affairs.
Flawed logic? Such as the U.N. being a credible anything, much less a freakin ally. What a joke.
I am a criminal defense attorney in Kansas and am intimately familiar with the absurd “civil liberties” positions taken by the ACLU. They side with perverts like NAMBLA by claiming that 13 year olds have a right to have sex with adults while bashing our courageous heroes fighting equally dispicable scumbags in Iraq and elsewhere who are determined to destroy everything we know and love. Civil rights of law abiders deserve protection, not those of the jackballs trying to kill and maim our children.
Jay,
as much as i agree with you, the original article had much more to do with the privacy of allowing schools to hand out names, phone numbers, and addresses of students, not neccessarily their presence on campus.
correct me if im wrong, please.
Did you even read the article you linked to? The ACLU is not advocating the removal of military recruiters from schools and campuses. The only thing the ACLU is advocating is that students and parents have a choice as to whether or not the student’s personal information is provided to military recruiters.
Nobody is fighting “abstinence education”. What is being fought by many groups is “abstinence only” education which is unacceptable. “Abstinence only” education keeps facts from students that may prevent unwanted pregnancies, STD’s and even death.
The U.N. is a credible ally? What have they contributed to the world other than gang rape and oil for food? and lets see here, parents have the right to choose whether their child’s personal info is provided to the military or not, but they are not required to know whether said child is going to have an abortion? Glad to see the consistency.