ACLU Whining About Gov’t Charging Jihadi Involved In USS Cole Bombing
Posted on December 20, 2008
I ended up at ye olde ACLU’s webpage after reading this post at Hot Air regarding an “annoyance law” in Michigan, to see if ye olde ACLU would decry the law. Instead, I found
GUANTÁNAMO BAY, Cuba – In one of its final moves at the Guantánamo military commissions, the Bush administration referred charges in the capital case of detainee Abd al-Rahim Hussain Mohammed al-Nashiri, who is being charged for his alleged involvement in crimes including the USS Cole bombing. The American Civil Liberties Union is sponsoring civilian attorneys to represent al-Nashiri through its John Adams Project, a partnership with the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers to supplement the under-resourced military defense teams that have been assigned to Guantánamo detainees.
“The timing of the referral of these charges is extremely suspect. What we are seeing is another 11th hour stunt from the Bush administration to tie the hands of the incoming president,” said Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU. “Just this week, the Defense Department announced it is making plans to shut down Guantánamo and end these sham military commissions. While President-elect Obama is planning to end eight years of shameful policies that allowed torture and violations of domestic and international law, the Bush administration is desperately trying to extend it.”
Now that Susan Crawford, the military commissions’ convening authority, decided to “refer the charges” for prosecution, al-Nashiri is required to appear before the military commission within 30 days for an arraignment.
The military commissions allow convictions based on secret evidence, hearsay, and evidence derived from torture including waterboarding, a technique the government has acknowledged it used on al-Nashiri.
“This is the last gasp by an administration unwilling to accept the fact that this illegitimate system has failed,” said Nancy Hollander, an attorney from the ACLU’s John Adams Project who is representing al-Nashiri. “The government has admitted to using torture, specifically waterboarding, to extract statements from Mr. al-Nashiri and then destroying the videotapes of his interrogations. One must suspect the motive of charging him now on the eve of a new administration after incarcerating him for six years without charges.”
So, let me see if I have this correct: the American Civil Liberties Union is providing lawyers to represent an Islamic jihadist who was involved in the bombing of the U.S.S Cole a little over 7 years ago, an action which killed 17 United States sailors and wounded 39. All Americans. Perhaps the ACLU might consider representing the civil rights of those who were wounded and the families of those killed to not be wounded and killed by Islamic jihadis, rather then what they are doing, to whit, representing stone cold killers. Maybe the ACLU would be willing to put the little darlings up at their homes. I’ll be sure to send flowers to the funerals.
And the left and the ACLU wonders why those of us on the right question their patriotism and protection of America.
» Filed Under ACLU, Islam, Middle East, National Security, News, RoP, War On Terror, military, terrorism
Trackback URL
Comments
12 Responses to “ACLU Whining About Gov’t Charging Jihadi Involved In USS Cole Bombing”
Leave a Reply
Not so surprising. We know who’s side they are on. We know who they cheer for, and who they don’t. If you think any ACLU member got teary-eyed when they saw the 17 flag-draped coffins of the Sailors of the USS Coles coming home, you mistook tears of joy for tears of grief. Afeter September 11th I’m sure they were all donning their PLO scarves and toasting their portraits of Yassar Arafat.
They couldn’t really be so stupid as to mistake acts of war and terrorism for bank robberies? Yet they pretend these people should have their Miranda rights read to them and be assigned a celebrity defense lawyer. Sure. Either they are stupid or lying. Only one of which is actual treason.
The ACLU doesn’t disappoint. Deep inside you’ve come to believe they can keep sinking lower. And there they are continuing to sink.
Brava to the first three responses. The ACLU started to justify and defend what is decent and fair for Americans. Three to five years ago, people wouldn’t know who I was discussing or the ignorant things they were attempting at the time. Now, it’s over, they gone so over the top. To the ACLU; ” It’s not “Cheers” but, Everyone No Your Name!” Everyone now knows your anti-American hate for the USA. You are the mucus that lives in the fungus that feeds on pond scum. As far as the lawyer joke with all the lawyers at the bottom of the sea would be a good start. You would only pollute that water. We know, first, you’d try to defend the sharks! For those family members that ones on the USS Cole, I am sorry for you to have to even hear what disgraceful asses they are in this. If there’s another terrorist attack may it be on the headquarters of the ACLU. Forgive me for that last statement. It had a ACLUism tone to it!!
The motivation of the ACLU is support due process of law, unlike Bush. The ACLU supports the constitution of the United States unlike you and your low-IQ fascist buddies, who are the real treasonous crowd.
The ACLU’s mission is to defend the bill of rights. Well ok, not that pesky second amendment. The point here is that justice is blind, and many times, stupid. Judge Bork can be just as moronic as the ACLU since he intreprets statue law in the most literal sense possible. Wake up ACLU? Well in that case they would be making value judgements as to what civil liberties cases they took on – instead of blindly attacking ANY infringement of the bill of rights -except for that one clause that talks about “shall not be infringed…. hmmnn.
And with out the aclu taking on such cases due process would truly be a even more of joke.
I keep reading about the ACLU defending “due process.” People need to understand that, in the words of a constitutional law expert at Harvard, “due process” means ‘the process to which you are due.’ If the law regarding a certain situation does not provide for any “process”, then you are not due any.
you all are aware that this nation was based on a judicial system that presumes a person is innocent until proven guilty and that it is the rights of anyone on trial in the US to be subjected to a jury of his/her peers. Helping the overly stretch JAG departments with civilian lawyers is not a bad idea at all.
I’m sure you all are aware that the prisoners held at GITMO are being held against the geneva convention and our elected officials could face war crimes tribunals if the UN sanctioned it. Which I hope they do.
These terrorists are the lowest of the low, they are scum and they all deserve what they get. But, we cannot turn our backs on our laws simply for the fact that these people are cowards and extremists.
I guess everyone here is too well set on being anti-american. Yes thats right, if you turn your back on the constitution and bill of rights when it suits your needs, you are being anti-american.
I seem to remember the same kind of remarks being said about commies during the red scares, or the japanese during WWII or the Irish or Italians during their great immigrations.
Did I say terrorists were the lowest of the low?? I meant Republicans..
“ACLU supports the constitution of the United States” – The constitution was written to protect US citizens, not those who would destroy it. THEY ARE NOT citizens. Your arguments are simple minded and backwards.
If every member of the ACLU were to die tomorrow it would be a great day for America
“The motivation of the ACLU is support due process of law, unlike Bush. The ACLU supports the constitution of the United States unlike you and your low-IQ fascist buddies, who are the real treasonous crowd.” -Clarence Wagonwood
Actually the ACLU cherry picks which parts of the Constitution they support, as shown by their stance on the Second Amendment. In what way is the ACLU upholding the Constitution in this case? The men in question are not United States Citizens, so they do not have the rights of United States Citizens.
As for the low IQ fascist comment, by resulting to name calling you have lost any ground of having a high IQ. You might be surprised when comparing the policies of Nazi Germany (real fascists) and the hard core left. Issues such as gun control, and socialist control of industry stand out.
If you wish to sway people to your point of view in an argument, actually present facts to support your argument. Name calling does not help your case.
The constitution was written to protect US citizens, not those who would destroy it. THEY ARE NOT citizens. Your arguments are simple minded and backwards.
EXACTLY!! couldn’t have said the first part better… but are you aware that the constitution and our judicial system are the law of the land.. anyone tried in our courts are to be given the rights provided by the constitution. just because a person is not a US citizen, but being tried in US courts does not give this person different sets of laws to live by.. tried in America, tried in american courts, tried under american law.