ACLU Compares Martin Luther King Jr. To Terrorist Suspects
Big Hat Tip To: AJ Strata
The ACLU, in a full page ad are comparing the illegal surviellance of MLK, authorized by a Democrat by the way, to the surveillance of known or highly suspected terrorists overseas. Notice how they automatically cast guilt on President Bush, and innocence on the suspected terrorists. Quite deceptive, and shameful.
Click To See Larger Version
NEW YORK – The American Civil Liberties Union today ran a full-page advertisement in the Washington Post criticizing the president for authorizing the National Security Agency to engage in illegal surveillance of Americans.The ad invokes Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., the civil rights pioneer who was an innocent victim of illegal government wiretapping and draws the correlation between abuse of government power and illegal warrantless wiretapping authorized by President Bush.
“It has never been acceptable for the government to spy on Americans without having to go to court and present evidence as to why the individual is under suspicion. It was unacceptable when they spied on Martin Luther King and it is unacceptable today,” said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero. “This fundamental tenet of American democracy has been blatantly violated by President Bush and he must be held accountable. No one, most importantly our elected leader, is above the law.”
The full-page ad depicts the image of King with the reminder that “40 years ago, wiretapping innocent American citizens was an abuse of government power. It still is.” The ACLU provides the phone number for the White House and asks that people call and “Tell the administration to stop the illegal spying on Americans.” As a result of surveillance of citizens in the mid-70’s, Congress passed a law mandating that the government receive court approval before instigating wiretapping. It is this law that President Bush has blatantly violated, according to the ACLU.
Similar ACLU ads ran recently in the New York Times and compared the actions and words of President Bush and former President Richard Nixon, both of whom denied allegations of illegal spying. The series was spurred by recent revelations that President Bush authorized the National Security Agency to conduct electronic surveillance of people within the United States, including U.S. citizens, without a warrant.
AJ Strata put it well:
I understand the ACLU is rabidly anti-Bush and suffering from severe BDS, but we cannot allow them to associate Martin Luther King with some Osama Bin Laden. The good reverend abhored violence as a means to political ends. And Bin Laden and Al Qaeda are the moral opposite of what King stood for.
This smearing of this good man’s name must end!
Heh, looks like the ACLU isn’t alone. Al Gore too. The exact same thing! Kevin at Wizbang thinks Hillary gets the quote of the day. Does he know about the ACLU quote?
Linked at Basil’s
Email This
Posted by Jay on January 16, 2006 5:19 pm
» Filed Under ACLU, History, News, War On Terror
Trackback URL:
- reverse_vampyr: More Democrat demagoguery
- California Conservative: ACLU Compare Illegal Wiretapping of MLK To NSA Spying On Terror Suspects
- Stop The ACLU » Blog Archive » The Day of The Martyr: Martin Luther King Jr. pinged this post.
- Peakah's Provocations...: A Day in Honor of a Great American
- Conservative Thinking: ACLU Uses MLK To Bash Bush
- The Political Pit Bull: Where's The Outrage Now?
- The Uncooperative Blogger: ACLU’s New Full Page Ad Compares MLK To Terror Suspects
- The Museum of Left Wing Lunacy: ACLU Comparing Civil Rights Leader To Terror Suspects
- Real Teen- Right on the Right » Blog Archive » ACLU Compares MLK to Terrorists pinged this post.
- The Dread Pundit Bluto: An Exploitative Martin Luther King Day
- Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator: Nation Honors Dr. King
- Interested-Participant: ACLU Throws More Manure
- The Jawa Report: An Exploitative Martin Luther King Day
- Stop The ACLU » Blog Archive » Moonbat’s Galore pinged this post.
- It'sAPundit.com: MLK, ACLU, NSA, and the Chocolate City
- MY Vast Right Wing Conspiracy: ACLU is racist
- MacStansbury.org: The ACLU is racist
- NoisyRoom.net » ACLU Compares Martin Luther King Jr. To Terrorist Suspects pinged this post.
- Sneakeasy's Joint: Stop the ACLU Blogburst 2
Comments
14 Responses to “ACLU Compares Martin Luther King Jr. To Terrorist Suspects”
-
-
-
Affiliations
The Giants
Advertise
-
-
Our Store
- Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
-
- More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
It boils down to this…..if you are innocent you will never know if the government is listening to you or not…..if you aren’t innocent you get what you deserve….
So why all the fuss?
“The good reverend abhored violence as a means to political ends”
That’s not what the wiretapping government thought.
“What a helluve a job Bush is doing protecting us from terrorists, first that whole ignoring that “Bin Laden to strike in US report” and outside of that minor setback of terrorists ramming civilian planes into the WTC and Pentagon, he truly has protected us”
I think you, being intellectually honest, meant to refer to President Clinton letting Bin Laden go 4 times, enabling him to strike again at 9/11. Do a google on how many attacks were made during his administration. You might find it revealing. Not to mention giving Bin Laden so many passes he could kill thousands during Bush’s presidency. Bush by the way, took care of things in a hurry, not by rounding up 3 of 4 “criminals” and arresting them but by declaring war on terrorism everywhere and killing it. This is something the Dems would never dream of doing. You are way off base, just like the anti-war protesters were when it came to Iraq. All we heard was how “unsafe” Bush has made us. I challenge you now to tell me how many attacks on the U.S. we’ve had since.
“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
Benjamin Franklin
Do you really trust the Bush administration to limit its use of illegal wiretapping to just terrorists?
These are the people who started linking the 9/11 attacks to Iraq at 2:40 pm on 9/11/01 (see 9/11 Commission Report and/or Woodward’s “Plan of Attack”).
“So we haven’t been hit since 9/11, great and the same could be said for Clinton (a mediocre President) and the rest of his term”
Guess you didn’t do that google after all. You also didn’t mention the fact that 9/11 happened due to Clinton’s “ignoring the problem” four times.
“yeah, you got it, the ACLU is racists, it must be because they supported protecting Rush Limbaugh’s medical records, Jerry Falwell’s right to free speech, Sean Hannity after he was fired from a Santa Fe radio station”
So I guess those things make all their crookeds straight, huh?
“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
Benjamin Franklin
Great quote, totally irrelevant. Its also funny how you liberals pick and choose when the founding fathers’ opinions are relevant today. But at any rate its irrelevant because no one is losing their rights, or losing their liberty. You people twist the wording in the debate to make it sound like the government just randomly listens in on all of your calls. Wrong. They listen in when they have sufficient evidence that you are working or communicating with terrorists. The fact you libs claim to be afraid of losing your privacy cracks me up, because liberalism breeds treasonous criminals by the bushel, a.k.a. Jane Fonda. The government has done nothing illegal. By the way, my dad was an agent in the NSA and if you knew half the crap they pulled in the 80’s you’d leave the country.
“Do you really trust the Bush administration to limit its use of illegal wiretapping to just terrorists?”
Sure. I don’t wear a tin foil hat and have a conspiracy theory that Big Brother is spying on me. I don’t break the law.
“These are the people who started linking the 9/11 attacks to Iraq at 2:40 pm on 9/11/01 (see 9/11 Commission Report and/or Woodward’s “Plan of Attack”).”
Its either that or trust the party that would rather we sit and wait for Saddam to violate 14 more Gulf War treaties. I politician is a politician, but if its Bush or the U.N., which does nothing but deplete the world of billions of dollars and beg for more when disaster strikes, I go with Bush. I also will not trust Democrats to protect me when they will not properly punish our own criminals, and won’t even stick up for babies whose only crime was that mom didn’t want them. Human rights my a$$.
“well as his undying support for the war”
Seeing as now Dr. King knew better than most what its like to be oppressed I’d say yes, he, being a Christian that cares about people, would be glad to stop the mass torturing and gassing of innocent civillians.
My point was just that trusting the Bush administration, at this point, is not rational. Stop lying for these people, please. No one’s saying you have to like Kerry, or the ACLU, or anyone else, but please do us all a favor and admit that Bush’s track record has not been one of honesty.
Also, while it is great that Republicans have stopped opposing Martin Luther King Day (things have changed a lot during the last 10 or 15 years), don’t try to act like he would have supported the invasion of Iraq.
“don’t try to act like he would have supported the invasion of Iraq.”
Don’t act like a typical liberal and act like you can read his mind. But the fact that he fought oppression, and had a heart for the lost and helpless it stands to reason he would support the war, if for no other reason than liberating the Iraqis.
“Also, while it is great that Republicans have stopped opposing Martin Luther King Day”
We should change its name, because a lot of people disagree with what he stands for. We should call it “Civil Rights” day, or something like that. That way it can include everyone. Sound familiar?
“Stop lying for these people, please”
Its not lying. I’m severly critical of Bush at times, though for different reasons than you are I guarantee. If he broke the law (he didn’t) I’ll rail him too. But its not as if we have proof, or that he committed perjury or anything. (ahem)
Check this out: http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2006/s1548448.htm
I have a post about this on my website. It seems exploitation is going around.
Ever stop and think for a moment without your political hat on?
If anything, this ad was bringing attention to wiretapping by GOVERNMENT. Not a left-wing controlled government or a right-wing controlled government… but just government.
Get over it, nothing to see here.
I don’t think it is “reading his mind” to say that the odds would be against King supporting the invasion of Iraq war. The Iraq war was opposed by:
1) King’s wife and son
2) religious leaders like the Pope, the National Council of Churches, and the Southern Christian Leadership Council (the group King led during the 60’s)
3) WMD monitoring experts like Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei of the International Atomic Energy Association. If the UN’s arms monitoring experts thought the invasion was unnecessary, why on earth would someone who advocated non-violence support it?
Please provide any support, whatsoever, for the suggestion that King would have supported the invasion of Iraq (saying that people who disagree with you wear a “tin foil hat” doesn’t count).
“Please provide any support, whatsoever, for the suggestion that King would have supported the invasion of Iraq (saying that people who disagree with you wear a “tin foil hat” doesn’t count).”
You’re right. The fact that Dr. King respected human life, (like the lives Saddam took and was still taking) tells me he’d support the war.
“why on earth would someone who advocated non-violence support it?”
If you think Dr. King would respect half of the garbage the U.N. pulls today you are sadly mistaken.
“the group King led during the 60’s)”
This isn’t the 60s, and Dr. King was fortunate enough not to have witnessed 9/11. Dr. King had common sense, and respect for law (which includes international law) and when a dictator like Saddam violates multiple Gulf War Treaties, after our country loses thousands of lives, common sense tells rational people what to do.
I’ll also repeat one of my previous posts:
Seeing as now Dr. King knew better than most what its like to be oppressed I’d say yes, he, being a Christian that cares about people, would be glad to stop the mass torturing and gassing of innocent civillians.
Why does the article say Bush approved “illegal” wiretapping. Since when has it been established as illegal? It hasn’t.