ACLU lawyers at Gitmo?
Posted on August 18, 2005
Welcome Little Green Football readers! If you want to leave a comment please….
JUST CLICK RIGHT HERE. I still have a few bugs at the site, and one is that the comments do not appear on the permalink.
(Via World Net Daily)
Prisoners advised of ‘right’ not to answer interrogators
U.S. military sources tell Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin that American Civil Liberties Union attorneys have been permitted to advise Guantanamo Bay prisoners, including Taliban and al-Qaida operatives, that they have the right not to answer the questions of interrogators.
In addition, the Pentagon has brought in a veteran staff attorney from the ACLU to serve as chief defense counsel in future military tribunals.
That story is breaking now at the premium, online, intelligence newsletter published by the founder of WND.
I think there will be more to come on this. But just a short note…I know all of these prisoners might not be guilty, but many of them are without question. Many are sworn enemies of America bent on destroying liberty. How does this fall into American civil liberties? And why is it not considered aiding the enemy? And why is the pentagon involved in this crap? The ACLU is on the wrong side of liberty yet again.
Other coverage Mr. Minority. He adds…
What a firm, they have great references, like any anti-American atheist, homosexual, anti-Christian, hater of the Boy Scouts, and now terrorist. With references like that you should be able to get a great job in HELL defending the Devil. Let’s hear it for the All Criminals Liberation Union, and their defense of evil.
this kind of justice or should I say injustice is what the killers will end up with.
Thank you Mudville Gazette and Basil and indepundit and My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy and Common Sense Runs Wild
» Filed Under War On Terror
Trackback URL
Comments
29 Responses to “ACLU lawyers at Gitmo?”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Donate
Steal Me
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
See, the key thing about these terrorists is that they think they are “soldiers”. As long as they are alive, no matter where they are at, they feel they will get the chance to strike again. The ACLU will be fooled into thinking these guys are “rehabilitated” and beg for their release. We’ll only find these guys again, tragically, when they have been on a suicide mission killing innocent people.
The government should arrest every card carrying member of the ACLU for treason. Think about it? If they did they’d have no one to defend them.
Oooohh That’s bad…
It’s all so “24″ (the FOX terror series): The first tactic the terrorists use when caught is to have a their friends call the ACLU, to stall the US from getting any info that might prevent another terrorist attack. That was the scenario in the show, but it looks like someone took a cue from that in the real world. The worst part is that the ACLU acts just as their counterpart in the fantasy series, so far. No consideration for the word American in the title of their organization! What a disgrace, which they were portrayed as on the 24 series, also.
They’ll quit. The JAGs have quit before, seeing that the process is a crock.
These traitors sicken me.
Great post, Jay.
I think I’ll link to it!
CUG
As I’ve said before, the main concern, at least for me, is not the detainment of enemies of the state, the concern is the permanent detainment of these people without some process to determine if they should be there in the first place.
The War on Terror is really a misnomer. It’s not a war, at least not in the traditional sense. It’s more akin to an ongoing criminal threat. There is no end to the War on Terror. As such, there is no end to the detainment of people in Guantanomo.
The guilty parties, those who took up arms against the U.S., or threatened to do harm, are rightfully in Guantanomo. They are not soldiers of a recognized army nor do their home countries want them back. That’s fine. But the chance that one innocent person is behind bars for the rest of their life is not an acceptable situation. We should at least have a system in place that questions the legitimacy of detainment on an individual basis.
Arguing for some sort of system to verify a person’s rightful place in permanent detainment is not a position against the prison itself or the rightful detainment of enemies of our country. I think permanent detainment is perfectly justified for guilty parties. There’s very little to argue on that point.
However, this is a potentially explosive diplomatic issue and we need to have a system that verifies a person’s value for ongoing detainment. As much as I favor detaining foreigners who pose an ongoing threat to America, I also favor a system that routinely checks the ongoing value of a detainees continued isolation.
Detaining prisoners of war is on thing, but the possibility of permanently detaining a citizen of a foreign country without any sort of third-party overview is disturbing and possibly detrimental to our diplomatic relationships.
I would much rather that third-party be an American organization than another country or an international committee of some kind.
Yes, I agree the third party should be American, with America’s values at heart, hence not the ACLU.
It really sickens me to see organizations like the ACLU, Code Pink and all of these other leftwing groups fight against America. Your team can’t win if part of the team is playing against you. And that is what is happening on our war on terror.
“I know all of these prisoners might not be guilty, but many of them are without question.”
How can you or anybody else possibly know who is guilty or not guilty when the prisoners in question have not yet been brought to trial via due process so that their guilt or innocence could be properly determined through examination of the evidence?
The right to presumed innocence and the right to not answer questions (self-incriminating or not) are essential human rights because we cannot presume to know which of these prisoners are guilty without due process.
Our principles will eventually come to mean absolutely nothing if we are willing to cast them aside because we are afraid of terrorists. Not to mention the obvious fact that when we become so terrified of terrorism that we are willing to use terrorist-like tactics ourselves, the terrorists win by default.
And, of course, we must all ask ourselves WWJD (What would Jesus do?), for He provided us with His divine guidance with regard to how we should treat the least of our brethren.
34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: 36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. 37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? 38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? 39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. — Matthew 25:34-40 (KJV)
If the people being held down in Guantanamo Bay are not among “the least of these,” I don’t know who is.
Somebody should be looking out for the human rights of all of those prisoners precisely because of the possibility that some of them may not be guilty of anything other than having the wrong sort of name while being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
There is no justification for “collateral damage” in the form of injustice (toward those who might be innocent) that is meted out for the purpose of expediency.
“the concern is the permanent detainment of these people without some process to determine if they should be there in the first place.”
- They only have 600 prison cells in Gitmo. You would think that they would want to place the worst 600 people that they can find in there.
- The military says each case is reviewed each six months. We already know that at least ten who have been released have ended up back fighting against us. So there seems to be a process in place. What I think you mean is a Court process. I am against this. Look to the Moussaoui trial and what a joke that was until he got tired and came clean that he was indeed a terrorist.
- I skares me to think of the court trials that would have gone on if we had stopped the 9/11 hijackers as they were boarding those planes. There would not be a whole lot of physical evidence to confirm what they were up to. You can bet that if they admitted anything it would be something like holding the plane hostage for some prisoners somewhere.
- I bet the ACLU would have jumped to defend them too!
Jay –
Yes, I agree the third party should be American, with America’s values at heart, hence not the ACLU.
Can we agree that American justice is built upon the notion that, through opposing advocates, the truth is revealed?
Since you have agreed that some system of review should exist, do you also agree that such reviews must have a final word or decision-maker whether a single judge (civil or military) or a panel of judges?
If our sense of justice relies on opposing advocates to discover the truth, and if the truth is to be determined by a judge, then it reasons that we must have two advocates who will fight feverishly for their respective clients or else the truth remain hidden.
If we are to assess the intentions or beliefs of an advocate before they are allowed to do their job, then I fear we will always find something to quarrel over. Perhaps an advocate sees the world exactly as you do, but then does that not bring an objection from the other side?
The term ‘litmus test’ has been mentioned recently in relation to Judge Roberts confirmation hearing. Would you extend your new litmus test to the person who would eventually judge the evidence against a detainee? Should the government’s lawyer also be investigated to ensure he or she has America’s values at heart?
At what point do we simply rely on the merits of the evidence presented by both sides?
I would trust the military tribunals set up. Being in the military I have seen how fair they are, and not biased towards their own at all, fairly disciplining their own when they are found guilty. I would not trust the ACLU not to be biased to their terrorists buddies.
It would have been simpler if we could have a take no prisons doctrine but that would be too cruel, unthinkable especially since all the people in the world trade center did not have a chance.
MargaRAT, the protections of the founding documents of the U.S. of A. extend to American CITIZENS, period!!!
What part of that is so hard to understand???
It is people exactly like you that claim that ILLEGAL aliens, (you know, FELONS) have the same rights under our laws, when in fact they do NOT have those rights either.
Dethaniel? When the terrorists decide to have a “take prisoners” policy, (and I don’t mean take ‘em and keep ‘em until they saw off their head) I will consider changing my policy to one of more compassion….as for now, if you catch ‘em alive, get any info you can from them any way you can, and if they have info on terrorists then that proves guilt and needs a firing squad……
Jay –
First, military tribunals are fine but even defendants in those tribunals are allowed to choose their own advocates as long as they, the advocates, are familiar with military justice.
Second, your argument speaks highly of the military justice system in handling their own members but you fail to demonstrate how that fairness would be construed on a hostile group.
Third, what does it matter if the ACLU is, “…biased to their terrorists buddies”? Wouldn’t you say the attorney on the government side is biased too? As long as they both present arguments and facts that represent their client’s interests then what does the bias of one advocate have on the judge or judges who make the final decision? None. If the ACLU attorney’s break rules of evidence or procedure then the court will rightfully punish them.
As I understand it, your position is that the detainees should have representation and it would be best if that advocate came from the U.S. though they cannot be involved with the ACLU — though you really haven’t justified why it makes a difference where the U.S. advocate comes from.
If our only disagreement is on the ACLU’s participation then we might as well break bread because their involvement is of no consequence to me. Though I think it is an unreasonable position, it is not crucial to the larger issue of making sure we don’t hold an innocent foreign citizen in detention for the rest of his or her life.
Can we agree that American justice is built upon the notion that, through opposing advocates, the truth is revealed?
Maybe, but the ACLU is built on the notion that the rights of paedophiles and terrorists to commit evil is more important than the right of good people to live in peace… or in the case of terrorists… live.
Against Citizens Like Us, indeed.
And isn’t it utterly fascinating that the ACLU will devote massive energy and resources to help terrorists exert non-existent rights… but they won’t support the Free Speech rights of pro-lifers to protest outside abortion clinics, or anyone’s Second Amendment right to bear arm.
And in that, we see the central lie of the ACLU exposed. They aren’t about “civil rights.” They are a left-wing group bent on destroying the American system by empowering criminals and terrorists.
V and K –
You’re absolutely right the ACLU is wrong in not supporting the rights of abortion protestors to peaceably demonstrate.
However, your characterization of the ACLU as a group who seek to enforce the rights of people to commit acts of evil is shocking in its naivete. Surely you don’t think such gross mischaracterizations help make your case?
The ACLU is trying to help terrorists attack the New York subway system by preventing the police from carrying out random searches. The ACLU is defending the right of NAMBLA to distribute instructions on how to rape children without getting caught. The ACLU is trying to prevent the military from extracting information from terrorists who want to kill Americans. And, yet, somehow, I am the naive one?
Now remind me…we went to war to get rid of Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction. Right…?
Margaret, I assume next you’ll say we shouldn’t punish terrorists because Jesus stopped the stoning of the woman at the well?
Jesus also said “love your enemies” but such a philosophy in this war against terrorism could means lots of deaths on our side.
Most people in Gitmo are not foreign nationals, or allied with any known foreign armies. They do not have prisoner of war rights. What part of that is so hard to understand?
Also, when you’re caught in the act of war, it’s awfully hard to claim you’re innocent. Or “just a the wrong place at the wrong time.” I guess that AK-47 just all of the sudden morphed into their hands out of thin air?
I see Marc S the troll is up here too evacuating that toilet that he calls a skull. You can run you anonymouse troll, but you cannot hide.
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Marc S has all the substance of cotten candy. All sugar and air.
Just because I think that people who are suspected/accused of terrorism should get fair trials does not mean that I do not think that people who are found guilty of terrorism — via due process — should not be punished to the fullest extent of the law.
When you have to make such contrivances in order to support your point, then your point must be weak.
I can speak up for the human and civil rights of all people (and not just those of my fellow Americans) and make an excellent case without having to resort to the transparent practice of feigned obtuseness and deliberate ignorance of essential details, such as the vast difference between the rights afforded to people who are accused of crimes and those afforded to people who are convicted of crimes via due process.
C’mon folks! Where’s that good ol’ American pride? Aren’t we supposed to be better than terrorists? Aren’t we the “good guys” here?
Why should we have to stoop so low as to become terrorist-like ourselves, rationalizing the violation of peoples’ human and civil rights simply because they aren’t Americans?
Isn’t that what terrorists do to “infidels,” as they call us, people who aren’t like them?
We’re Americans here! We’re supposed to be better than terrorists, we’re supposed to be willing and able to fight the good fight against terrorism while keeping our most important principles in tact.
If we violate the human and civil rights of non-Americans simply because it is expedient, then what will we have become?
How will we ever be able to hold our heads up?
And what sort of example are we setting for our children and the rest of the world?
Margaret,
You gave a Biblical quote, and I was just giving you a few more. Just to say that because Jesus said something does not make it wise governmental policy. And I say that as a Christian.
Loving your neighbor doesn’t always work, such as when you’re engaged in war, or have a real threat at the gates.
Sometimes you have to bend the rules to keep the homeland safe. I’d rather break the rules and have a few million Americans alive, than to go 100% by the book to make sure a terrorist got his “due process.”
And again, civil rights/liberties does not apply to those who are not aligned with any recognized state militaries. And they shouldn’t.
If there is anything wrong with Gitmo, it’s the prisoners there are being treated too well.
You don’t have to love your neighbor to respect his rights as a human being — especially when you don’t really know whether he is a “real threat at the gates” or not.
Jay prudently caveats his assertions by noting that some of the people being held at Guantanamo Bay might not be guilty, which is indicative of someone whose conscience cannot fully ignore the essential human right to the presumption of innocence — even if it cannot quite be reconciled with a sense of pragmatism born of a very real and understandable fear.
Our high-minded American principles with regard to human and civil rights can be very difficult to hold onto when we are afraid — and with good reason, too — of the sort of people who would perpetrate horrible atrocities that might be even worse than 9/11.
I’m sure that rationalizing the “bend[ing of] the rules” so that our physical bodies will be safe from terrorists (and maybe other violent criminals, too) gives many people immediate comfort and a sense of security (even if it is ultimately a false one).
But what of our souls? What good does it do for us to keep our bodies safe if we lose our souls in the process?
And, make no mistakes, that is exactly what we are sacrificing here, trading our principles in order to save our own hind quarters and therefore becoming what we are fighting against.
Now, you all can go ahead and accuse me of coddling terrorists (even though I am 100% in favor of duly convicted terrorists being locked away for life without any chance for parole), if you must do so in order to maintain your illusions of safety and righteous indignation.
Having felt the very same temptation to sacrifice essential liberty for temporary security (9/11 scared the feces out of me, too), I really do understand how you all feel.
In the meantime, I will pray for all of us in “the land of the free and the home of the brave” to find and keep the fortitude necessary to hold our eternal souls more valuable than our mortal flesh.
My idea was one that is far fetched, but still could be a reality. If a terrorist had a nuclear device pointed at LA, and if it could be stopped by torturing the terrorist, then I’d say go for it. My soul be damned, I’d apply the pliers, or whatever, if it meant saving the citizens of LA.
Also, you don’t believe terrorists should be executed?
Maybe not all of them, but in the case of somebody like bin laden, who could kill people from beyond prison walls, I can’t imagine not executing them.
Mararet Romao Toigo…
“I can speak up for the human and civil rights of all people (and not just those of my fellow Americans) and make an excellent case without having to resort to the transparent practice of feigned obtuseness and deliberate ignorance of essential details,”
You do that, while at the same time explaining to these good people why it is that the U.S.(as well as all nations) has national borders and sovereignty.
Explain why all nations SHOULD observe ‘human rights’ but not all nations enjoy U.S. Constitutional Rights.
Explain to them why Cubans, Haitians and others that are intercepted before they make it to land are turned back or deported, while those who touch American soil are treated and handled differently.
As for using Scripture… I’m not as forgiving to those who use it to support their ideology or political agenda or quote Scripture out of context.
Some of our commentors could take a page out of Margaret’s book. I don’t agree with her, but I respect her opinion. Why? Because she backs up her words on her own site. We are able to visit her site, read what she has chosen to say, and understand that she is consistant in her stance.
We are on total opposite sides of the political fence, but I do respect her opinion because she doesn’t hide. TAKE NOTICE TROLLS.
I don’t understand what is so hard to comprehend about human rights vs. American Rights….
People caught by our military are getting much better treatment by their captors than those caught by the terrorists are getting from those same terrorists….
Yet, people that are caught by our military are NOT, let’s say that together kids, N-O-T to be afforded teh protections of our founding documents if they are NOT American citizens….and if they are NOT a recognized combatant (GC standards; wears a uniform of an enemy that has lawfully declared war for one), then that “detainee” is NOT afforded the protections of the GC….
Why can you people on the left NOT understand this simple premise?
I swear, you gusy are like a bunch of petulant six year olds…..you are old enough to know better than to throw a fit when you don’t agree with the truth, yet you continue to thorw yourselves down in the aisle and beat your little fists against the floor and scream at the top of your lungs, so to speak…..maybe you all need a good spanking with a nice hickory switch eh?
Good blog