Comments on: The ACLU thinks this is an endorsement? http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2007/11/30/the-aclu-thinks-this-is-an-endorsement/ Beating Them With Their Own Sickle And Hammer Sun, 22 Nov 2009 12:24:34 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.2 hourly 1 By: jerry http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2007/11/30/the-aclu-thinks-this-is-an-endorsement/comment-page-1/#comment-66031 jerry Mon, 03 Dec 2007 21:04:23 +0000 http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2007/11/30/the-aclu-thinks-this-is-an-endorsement/#comment-66031 You're missing the point entirely: those persons the government has labeled as "enemy combatants" are suspects of terrorism, not already-convicted terrorists. You assume that by defending suspects, the ACLU is complicit in whatever the charge may be. That is factually incorrect. When your attorney defends you against a drunk driving charge, he or she is not complicit in the act of drunk driving. The more broad point here is that representation is necessary for all defendants, regardless of the charge, because it is foundational to the rule of law. I suspect that we fundamentally disagree about whether or not these are suspects. You assume that since the US military has deemed them "combatants" that they actually have taken up arms against the US. This is also not correct. Recall in 2006 that a US Supreme Court majority ruled to grant Mr. Hamdan habeas relief, a former limo driver for Osama Bin Laden, because the government couldn't muster any evidence that implicated him as a terrorist. This is a case-and-point that there are innocent people at Guantanamo bay who necessitate the chance to defend themselves in court. The crux of this argument is not access to OUR courts but rather habeas relief to ANY court, as is required by the international laws of war. You’re missing the point entirely: those persons the government has labeled as “enemy combatants” are suspects of terrorism, not already-convicted terrorists. You assume that by defending suspects, the ACLU is complicit in whatever the charge may be. That is factually incorrect. When your attorney defends you against a drunk driving charge, he or she is not complicit in the act of drunk driving. The more broad point here is that representation is necessary for all defendants, regardless of the charge, because it is foundational to the rule of law.

I suspect that we fundamentally disagree about whether or not these are suspects. You assume that since the US military has deemed them “combatants” that they actually have taken up arms against the US. This is also not correct. Recall in 2006 that a US Supreme Court majority ruled to grant Mr. Hamdan habeas relief, a former limo driver for Osama Bin Laden, because the government couldn’t muster any evidence that implicated him as a terrorist. This is a case-and-point that there are innocent people at Guantanamo bay who necessitate the chance to defend themselves in court. The crux of this argument is not access to OUR courts but rather habeas relief to ANY court, as is required by the international laws of war.

]]> By: Glib Fortuna http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2007/11/30/the-aclu-thinks-this-is-an-endorsement/comment-page-1/#comment-66030 Glib Fortuna Mon, 03 Dec 2007 04:16:16 +0000 http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2007/11/30/the-aclu-thinks-this-is-an-endorsement/#comment-66030 Big difference, genius. Read the link to "unlawful combatants" in my post. Based on your latest comment, the distinction between US citizens committing individual crimes in this country and members of international terrorism networks plotting and carrying out operations to kill thousands of innocent Americans seems to be lost on you. Let me help you -- these are not American citizens and they are not "suspected of committing crimes." These are foreign, unlawful combatants AT WAR with this country...they do not have the "right" to access our civilian criminal justice system like a group of money launderers in Chicago. How could you not know the difference? So now you admit the ACLU is taking pride in taking up for unlawful combatants over the national security interests of this nation? I thought it was "satire!" Nice Jerry. Plotting, on foreign soil, the death of thousands of innocent Americans is the same thing as shoplifting in your eyes. Big difference, genius. Read the link to “unlawful combatants” in my post.

Based on your latest comment, the distinction between US citizens committing individual crimes in this country and members of international terrorism networks plotting and carrying out operations to kill thousands of innocent Americans seems to be lost on you. Let me help you — these are not American citizens and they are not “suspected of committing crimes.” These are foreign, unlawful combatants AT WAR with this country…they do not have the “right” to access our civilian criminal justice system like a group of money launderers in Chicago. How could you not know the difference?

So now you admit the ACLU is taking pride in taking up for unlawful combatants over the national security interests of this nation? I thought it was “satire!”

Nice Jerry. Plotting, on foreign soil, the death of thousands of innocent Americans is the same thing as shoplifting in your eyes.

]]> By: jerry http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2007/11/30/the-aclu-thinks-this-is-an-endorsement/comment-page-1/#comment-66029 jerry Sat, 01 Dec 2007 23:18:57 +0000 http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2007/11/30/the-aclu-thinks-this-is-an-endorsement/#comment-66029 Who is educating? I don't understand why if the ACLU defends suspected terrorists, not real ones, that they're any different in your eyes than a defense lawyer who defends suspected criminals. For example, attorneys who have fought against wrongful convictions, such as those invalidated by DNA tests, are also worthy of condemnation because they--at one time--decided to defend a person who is widely considered an enemy of society? Your position that suspects should be represented in court because our our "civizational struggle" is paramount is disgusting. If you are ever suspected of a crime, I hope you receive the same treatment. Who is educating? I don’t understand why if the ACLU defends suspected terrorists, not real ones, that they’re any different in your eyes than a defense lawyer who defends suspected criminals. For example, attorneys who have fought against wrongful convictions, such as those invalidated by DNA tests, are also worthy of condemnation because they–at one time–decided to defend a person who is widely considered an enemy of society? Your position that suspects should be represented in court because our our “civizational struggle” is paramount is disgusting. If you are ever suspected of a crime, I hope you receive the same treatment.

]]> By: Two Dogs http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2007/11/30/the-aclu-thinks-this-is-an-endorsement/comment-page-1/#comment-66028 Two Dogs Sat, 01 Dec 2007 05:11:27 +0000 http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2007/11/30/the-aclu-thinks-this-is-an-endorsement/#comment-66028 And I had a fern named "Anthony" one time. I wondered what happened to it. And I had a fern named “Anthony” one time. I wondered what happened to it.

]]> By: Two Dogs http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2007/11/30/the-aclu-thinks-this-is-an-endorsement/comment-page-1/#comment-66027 Two Dogs Sat, 01 Dec 2007 05:10:22 +0000 http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2007/11/30/the-aclu-thinks-this-is-an-endorsement/#comment-66027 Hey, the genius, Jerry, is here and he misspelled Romney's name. What a doofus, he must work for the ACLU. Hey, the genius, Jerry, is here and he misspelled Romney’s name. What a doofus, he must work for the ACLU.

]]> By: Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2007/11/30/the-aclu-thinks-this-is-an-endorsement/comment-page-1/#comment-66026 Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator Sat, 01 Dec 2007 03:20:05 +0000 http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2007/11/30/the-aclu-thinks-this-is-an-endorsement/#comment-66026 <strong>Huckabee's South Carolina Strategy</strong> If Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee does well in the Iowa caucuses, he'll have to do Huckabee’s South Carolina Strategy

If Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee does well in the Iowa caucuses, he’ll have to do

]]> By: Glib Fortuna http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2007/11/30/the-aclu-thinks-this-is-an-endorsement/comment-page-1/#comment-66025 Glib Fortuna Fri, 30 Nov 2007 21:34:14 +0000 http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2007/11/30/the-aclu-thinks-this-is-an-endorsement/#comment-66025 Duh Jerry, duh. His "thanks" to Mitt Romney was tongue in cheek, but the defense of his organization and the rest of this message outside the sarcastic thanks is dead serious. "Satire" is always used as a device to make a point. The points (mine and the ACLU's) here are so blazingly obvious, I can't even believe you thought you were "educating" anyone. Duh Jerry, duh.

His “thanks” to Mitt Romney was tongue in cheek, but the defense of his organization and the rest of this message outside the sarcastic thanks is dead serious.

“Satire” is always used as a device to make a point. The points (mine and the ACLU’s) here are so blazingly obvious, I can’t even believe you thought you were “educating” anyone.

]]> By: jerry http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2007/11/30/the-aclu-thinks-this-is-an-endorsement/comment-page-1/#comment-66024 jerry Fri, 30 Nov 2007 21:26:29 +0000 http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2007/11/30/the-aclu-thinks-this-is-an-endorsement/#comment-66024 Romero's commentary was satirical, maybe you didn't get that. Romero’s commentary was satirical, maybe you didn’t get that.

]]>