Nat Hentoff: Battle for the ACLU
Posted on October 31, 2006
The ACLU’s totalitarian impulse is deeply rooted and inseparable from its ideology, so it’s no surprise that the ACLU’s PR image as a “defender of the Constitution” is now in full implode mode. This group cannot not even run its own operation according to the principles it claims to hold sacred, so how can anything they claim to stand for publicly be taken at face value. Well, you can’t trust the ACLU and this current controversy is emblematic of this truth.
Of course I don’t agree with his conclusion that, ” The ACLU is indeed more needed than ever,” but Hentoff’s piece in USA Today is an important look into the (empty space normally occupied by a) soul of a souless organzation. His conclusion:
The executive director and president of the ACLU could make a lasting contribution to saving the Constitution by resigning their posts. As Goldberger told The New York Times, “It’s clear that the organization’s leadership has let it drift away from its core principles, and without those principles, it has no value.”
Trackback URL
Comments
5 Responses to “Nat Hentoff: Battle for the ACLU”
-
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
Vlees Herenen,
You need to read the U.S. Constitution specifically Article 1 Section 9 which states “The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.” The attack on 9/11 meant the condition so Congress does have the power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus if the want. As far as I know they have not decided to do so. When suspended that writ allows the President to do all that you say Glib defends.
That “unchecked totalitarian” power is written into the Constitution that protects our freedom.
You may not believe the current situation is sufficient to present a need which is your opinion and may not be shared by the majority. You are free to make your case as is Glib.
Was there a comment deleted?
I would be glad to make my case, but it sounds from KB’s comment that whatever comments he’s responded was irrelevant to my post anyway. What have I “defended” here that has anything to do with suspending habeas corpus?
I don’t know if a comment was deleted. If so, it wasn’t me.
Wait, I remember a comment there. It was just a quote from ol’ Ed Brayton someone pasted in there. Don’t know who deleted it.
What a joke meatbrain!
In case you didn’t go back and read the comments on the post from which you pull Brayton’s quote…your hero got his tail handed to him big time. You might have checked that out before you encouraged more people to go over there to witness that mess.
It’s obvious who the real coward is meatbrain. The last several times you’ve “confronted” me it’s with Brayton quotes. Come up with an idea of your own and then maybe we can talk.
The reason why your comments are deleted is because you add exactly nothing to the debate and you’ve proven yourself unable to do so. What, do you think that a quote from Ed Brayton makes you some sort of invincible debater that makes the folks here just shrivel?
You are not booted from the comment section because you are a threat, you are booted because your contributions are worthless. Thanks for proving it all over again.