Where Is The Outrage?

Posted on June 24, 2006

Hat tip: Blonde Sagacity. Thanks, I’ve been looking for this video.

You go E.D.! Where is the outrage? The ACLU want Haditha investigated, but they still have no statement about these tortured and butchered American soldiers. Why?

» Filed Under ACLU, News, War On Terror

Trackback URL

Comments

6 Responses to “Where Is The Outrage?”

jimmy on June 24th, 2006 6:06 pm

Cause in case you hadn’t noticed, there may in fact be enough support for an investigation already. As you’ve obviously not noticed the ACLU gets involved when it sees something it doesn’t believe is legal or constitutional. It does not, nor does any other group run around looking for things that are just fine and jumps up and down screaming ‘W00t!’. “Hurray for our side!” “Keep doing exactly what you’re doing!”

Anyone who thinks this incident isn’t going to be investigated by every relevant group, most irrelevant groups and god knows how many boy scouts every day of the week and twice on Sunday is higher than a kite. Rightfully so, I’m not complaining. But it’s hardly a ‘bold’ step to come out against the horrible loss and torture of your own troops. We call that grandstanding to gain political points.
kerwin_brown on June 25th, 2006 2:46 pm

Jimmy,

You seem to be ignorant of what the ACLU is. The ACLU is a NGO partner with the UN. It agreed to forward the policies of the UN. It purposely misuses the law in order to forward the interests of it’s client who is the UN.

That is one reason why there is the living constitution doctrine. The U.S. Constitution does not allow itself to be changed by judicial fiat. You can read the methods of amending the U.S. Constitution and order to see what I say is true.
Mike on June 25th, 2006 6:45 pm

Kerwin,

Isn’t it called the “American Civil Liberties Union”? American as in the United States?

But let’s move beyond that. These men were killed by terrorists, right? Do terrorists usually follow the law? In other cases do they follow a chain of command and identify themselves outwardly as soldiers?

No, of course not. So each and every act of the terrorists would have to be “investigated”, or we could just skip that and call it murder. I mean, if you want to give the terrorists the benefit of the doubt, go for it.

In the case of American soldiers killing civilians this is not the case. Normally our troops do not murder others. Normally they fight bad guys and protect us and others. Because of this, when there is a situation where it seems as though _our_ troops have been involved in an illegal act there should be an investigation to see if it actually took place. If laws were broken, those who broke them should be held accountable in a court of law.

So, I ask you, do you think we should be affording these same standards, such as presumption of innocence in cases where terrorists murder people, or should we just accept the fact that they are evil people and spend our time on more useful tasks?
Jay on June 25th, 2006 6:59 pm

Very good points Mike. Whenever there are violations to human rights they should be condemned and the people who committed them should suffer consequences. A statement of condmenation from the human rights groups would go a long way when they are always the first to attack our soldiers.
kerwin_brown on June 26th, 2006 1:20 am

Mike,

I don’t think I disagree with you. Terrorist is a rather broad term that is used today and covers traitors, saboteurs, and soldiers.

If you capture a terrorist on the battlefield then they should be considered a prisoner of war. If they are captured behind your lines then they are a saboteur or traitor.

Iraq is considered the battlefield while the U.S. is not. In other wars we were well aware of the difference between prisoners of war and saboteurs or traitors. The later were tried in a court of law and the earlier were held until they could be safely returned to their nations. From what I know they all would be debriefed by the authorities before any other action was taken.. Politics is making this war more confusing than it has to be.
kerwin_brown on June 26th, 2006 1:22 am

The name American Civil Liberties Union is a mostly a lie. The union part is the truth.

It is like Planned Parenthood. The origional name which was the Birth Control League is more true but they felt a need to cover up their real intent.