That evil ACLU...

[muddyboots]

I'm always charmed and heartened to hear someone describing the ACLU as an unamerican organization whose only purpose is to bash good Americans, allow foreign language speaking heathens access to our womens, and help Russian take over the world

How many of you actually know what the ACLU does?

How many of you know that the ACLU provided Olie North lawyers to defend himself in his trials, because his tesimony was coerced and therefore abused his 5th amendment rights? I don't like Ollie--he was a cretin- but I am glad his civil rights were defended.

I'm not always fond of what the ACLU does, but I am certainly happy there is an organization out there whose sole goal is to defend the constitution from those who would userp it, left or right.

Your opinions? No insults, please. Leave those in the bag with the golf clubs and the bottle of Jim Beam today.

[Pat]

Don't forget, they also represented the lowest of the low, The North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). (And I'm sure that you, like myself, don't agree with them for doing that!)

-Pat

[CAPFlyer]

I think that like the NAACP, the ACLU has lost its way in the last 20 years. Too many of its people are the "hate America" crowd, the same kind of people who man the WHO and say that just because the US doesn't have socialized health care it should be docked 20+ positions. Too many of them don't believe the same thing that the the founders of the organizations believed. Instead of defending the rights of the majority, they spend their time defending the rights of the minority at the detriment of the rest without consideration to those consequences. Yes, it's a noble cause to help someone when their civil rights are infringed upon, however it is not noble to cause further infringement on the majority by creating infringements that don't exist.

[Broken-Wrench]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-8ZrtDRyX0

ACLU, aHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

[muddyboots]

Don't forget, they also represented the lowest of the low, The North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). (And I'm sure that you, like myself, don't agree with them for doing that!)

-Pat

The ACLU is no stranger to taking controversial stances. Often, its clients are notoriously unpopular such as Neo-Nazi organizations and the North American Man/Boy Love Association, (NAMBLA), a group which supports lifting all age restrictions on pederasty. In the case of NAMBLA, the ACLU's Massachusetts affiliate represented the organization, on first amendment grounds, in a wrongful death civil suit that was based solely on the fact that a man who raped and murdered a child had visited the NAMBLA website.[51] Although the ACLU does not endorse NAMBLA's message, its defense of the group has been widely criticized. In particular, the ACLU's defense of NAMBLA came under intense criticism when the former president of the Virginia chapter of the ACLU was arrested on child porrnnography charges.[52][53] Additionally the ACLU has initiated several court cases involving the Boy Scouts of America, and their use of government funding while holding discriminatory recruitment policies, concerning homosexuals and atheists, among other groups.

Wikipedia.

Even the worst of us deserve representation, Pat. If we can't allow our worst sinners the same rights and liberties allowed our greatest saints, we aren't the nation we claim to be. THAT is why the ACLU defended NAMBLA and teh Nazi Party, etc etc.

I put Ollie North in a simliar category to NAMBLA. He perverted our justice system and helped murder a large number of people, illegally and against the will of the American people (at the behest of Ronald Reagan, you'll remember). The ACLU took his case because his civil rights were being taken away. He had every right to the same protection you and I would want, and deserve, and are PROMISED IN OUR CONSTITUTION.

I am not a lwayer, and I don't like that murderers and rapists have the same rights I do. But I also believe that I have my rights because we afford them to all. Not just he ones we deem deserving.


(it is kinda creepy that the ACLU's Pres was later whacked with the whole man-boy stick as well! bleck!

The ACLU has always stood for the minority. That's the POINT. When no one else will defy the mob, the UCLU does. We are Americans. If we can't afford the same rights and privelidges to the least of us, why do the best of us deserve them?

Bear in mind, I support the death penalty, and my right to arm bears. But it says WE the people. Not SOME of US the people.

[CAPFlyer]

The ACLU has always stood for the minority. That's the POINT. When no one else will defy the mob, the UCLU does. We are Americans. If we can't afford the same rights and privelidges to the least of us, why do the best of us deserve them?

It is fine to stand for the minority when they are unfairly repressed or oppressed, however the ACLU has taken it to an extreme that is well beyond reason to the point of treating the majority as a minority and doing everything that they can to oppress those who have done nothing wrong by pushing the passing of laws and filing lawsuits in such a manner that the rights of the many get restricted for the benefit of the few.

Remember this - civil rights have limits as do all rights. The ACLU (as an organization) does not believe this to be true. Our founding fathers created the bill of rights with specific limits to the government and the rights of both the government and citizens of the nation. Only through an amendment of that document can those limits be changed, but the ACLU does not want to do that. Instead they spend their time pushing their agenda through the justice system in violation of the balance of powers and find judges sympathetic to their cause to legislate from the bench. It's unfortunate because if they did have a real basis for most of their litigation, they wouldn't need to shop judges as they do all too often to win the case.

[Bill Greenwood]

The ACLU upholds the civil rights as given to Americans in the Constitution, that document Bush is said to referred to as a "GD piece of paper".
Many of their clients are unpopular minorities, and not who I'd want to invite over for dinner.
But give these guys their due, they not only talk the talk, they back it up in principle.
They have defended all sides of the spectrum, from the KKK and Ollie North on the right to journalists, teachers, and soldiers.
As for pushing for some extreme view, CAPflyer, never fear the ACLU is easily outnumbered by lobbyist for Big Oil, Defense Contractors, Unions, Cops, Civil workers, and about every other special interests group you can think of.

[Broken-Wrench]

NAMBLA states that they are on an important, historic mission. They state that their mission is simple. Abolition of age of consent laws that classify sex with children as rape. NAMBLA is the North American Man/Boy Love Association.

Charles Jaynes, 25, reportedly viewed the group’s web site shortly before the killing of Jeffrey Curley, a 10 year old boy, slain in 1997. Jaynes also had in his possession some of NAMBLA’s publications. Also convicted in the killing was 24 year old Salvatore Sicari. Sicari, convicted of first degree murder, is serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole. Jaynes’ second degree murder and kidnapping convictions enable him to seek parole within the next 20 years. Was this a case of misunderstanding? Does this fit with NAMBLA’s philosophy of man/boy love that is non violent? Hardly. Prosecutors said Jaynes and Sicari were sexually obsessed with the boy, lured him from his Cambridge neighborhood with the promise of a new bike, and then smothered him with a gasoline soaked rag when he resisted their sexual advances. They then stuffed him into a concrete filled container and dumped it into a Maine river. Non violent? No. Loving? No.

The ACLU is a supporter of NAMBLA, representing the organization in the civil case related to the aforementioned murder. The ACLU is representing NAMBLA PRO BONO. Their official position: “In representing NAMBLA, the ACLU does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children. What we do advocate is robust freedom of speech. This lawsuit strikes at the heart of freedom of speech. The defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive.” I am repulsed. Repulsed by the idea that my children may not be able to say “�one Nation, under God” in school some future day .. thanks to the ACLU .. but this disgusting, vile organization is supported due to freedom of speech?

In February 2005, the FBI arrested three NAMBLA members at Harbor Island as they waited for a boat that undercover agents told them would sail to Ensenada for a sex retreat over Valentine’s Day with boys as young as 9. The FBI also arrested four additional NAMBLA members in a Los Angeles marina where they also planned to set sail to the same bogus retreat. These men are a cross section of people you and I might interact with regularly: a dentist, a special education teacher, a substitute teacher, a handyman, a flight attendant who is also a psychologist, a paper company employee and a personal trainer. How horrific to know that a number of these men had daily interactions with children! As noted in court papers, most of these men told the undercover agent they had been sexually involved with children historically, including boys they met on the Internet and others. Looking more closely at these men, at least one of the men is a member of NAMBLA’s national leadership, a second organized their national convention in 2004 and a third has been a NAMBLA member since the 1980s. Thank God these criminals have been discovered so no more boys are harmed.

So what of Charles Jaynes? The Boston Herald reports that Jaynes is now battling efforts by his victim’s mother to uncover whether NAMBLA is bankrolling Jaynes’ prison canteen. There were court affidavits from two inmates claiming Jaynes engages in sex acts in the prison without discipline, shows off his victim’s autopsy and has a fat canteen account courtesy of NAMBLA. While one of these inmates has now recanted their story, questions are still present about what NAMBLA is doing for Jaynes while he is in prison. I won’t link to NAMBLA’s disgusting site, but they do have a Prisoner Program for those convicted of pedophilia. The program on their website clearly states that they do not financially support prisoners, but provides instruction on what type of information should be sent to these criminals. Here’s what NAMBLA says about those incarcerated for, what they believe, are unfounded criminal acts: “Incarceration is a terrible thing. For a boy lover ground into the criminal justice system, it is an especially harrowing fate.” What about the fate of that 10 year old boy whose lifeless body was stuffed into a container and tossed away into the river?

[muddyboots]

And what does this have to do with the fact that our constitition affords equal rights to every American citizen? It doesn't say anything at all about "not for pedophiles, or right wingers, or jews or ni*****,". Our nation has a history of denying rights, one step at a time, based on the premise that person A isn't as good as person B and shouldn't get the same rights. No matter how bad a human being is, until we execute him, he should be afforded the same rights as every other citizen. THAT is what the ACLU stands for (he...I almost typed UCLA--who do deserve all the hatred and disdain the receive)

Last edited by muddyboots on Mon Dec 10, 2007 3:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[Broken-Wrench]

Wait a minute! Now are you telling me you support an organziation that supports a group that preys on the exploitation of underage young boys for perverse sexual activites? We better find something else to debate because this is just wrong

Last edited by Broken-Wrench on Mon Dec 10, 2007 7:01 pm, edited 2 times in total.

[muddyboots]

I never said taht I support NAMBLA, or its ideals. I said the individuals who make up NAMBLA are afforded the same civila rights BY OUR CONSTITUTION as you. If you can't get that maybe you should go like in Iran, where civil rights are only afforded to those a small minority picks. You'd be comfortable there. No gays, jews, thieves, crossdresers, Scientologists, Hollywod actors. Or freedom. Thanks, I'll stick with my constitution.

Code:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Me, I like my constitution. The one that affords ALL of us the same civil rights. Th ACLU isn't committed to any ideal but that. It is a non partisan agency, willing to take any case that threatens to abridge our civil rights. Yours as well as a boy lover. Mine as well as a right wing radicals.

[muddyboots]

BW, please edit my quote above to remove the N word. It was intended sarcastically but there really is no excuse or reason good enough to whip that one out. So if you will, please cut it.

To any who are insulted by it, I apologize. It is offensive and unkind under any circumstance.

[T2 Ernie]

BW, please edit my quote above to remove the N word. It was intended sarcastically but there really is no excuse or reason good enough to whip that one out. So if you will, please cut it.

To any who are insulted by it, I apologize. It is offensive and unkind under any circumstance.

You are part of the problem if you think that you should edit yourself because someone might be offended. I can read what you write & decide all for myself, without the help of a communist organization, that I don't like what you write & therefore, I can choose, because I am free to do so, not to read anything else you write. While I may not agree with your words, I support your right to say/write them. I'm also smart enough to understand context & usage.

The problem with the ACLU & others (that tend to be very left-wing) is that somehow they have interpreted the Constitution to say, "Thou shalt not be offended by anything anyone, especially those in the majority, does, says, or thinks."

There is nothing in the Constitution that says you have a right not to be offended. If you don't like something, don't look at it, listen to it, or think about it, but you don't have a right to foist that OPINION on me anymore than I do on you.

By shrouding this freedom & choice in the very specific lexicon of hurtfulness & hate, the ACLU & others terrorize people into complying with their views which is, IMO, much worse a crime than simply calling someone a name, displaying a holiday decoration, or leaving government artifacts in place.

Yes, the Constitution guarantees every citizen the rights contained within - no matter whether or not we agree with them. However, that goes for the majority too - so don't take a myopic, minority viewpoint & tell me I have to listen to it. I can exercise my RIGHT not to.

To grossly mis-interpret the words within the Constitution is just as agregious as mis-applying it or denying its rights to anyone.

Be very careful of supporting ACLU's questionable, literal interpretation of Constitutional law, you may find you don't like their interpretation of the 2nd Amendment firearms verbiage...

[Bill Greenwood]

I don't think too many of us are familiar with Nambla's ideals, I am not on that mailing list. And I doubt if it is subject most of us on WIX want to waste our time worrying about or debating.

[Broken-Wrench]

You are part of the problem if you think that you should edit yourself because someone might be offended. I can read what you write & decide all for myself, without the help of a communist organization, that I don't like what you write & therefore, I can choose, because I am free to do so, not to read anything else you write. While I may not agree with your words, I support your right to say/write them. I'm also smart enough to understand context & usage.

The problem with the ACLU & others (that tend to be very left-wing) is that somehow they have interpreted the Constitution to say, "Thou shalt not be offended by anything anyone, especially those in the majority, does, says, or thinks."

There is nothing in the Constitution that says you have a right not to be offended. If you don't like something, don't look at it, listen to it, or think about it, but you don't have a right to foist that OPINION on me anymore than I do on you.

By shrouding this freedom & choice in the very specific lexicon of hurtfulness & hate, the ACLU & others terrorize people into complying with their views which is, IMO, much worse a crime than simply calling someone a name, displaying a holiday decoration, or leaving government artifacts in place.

...[/quote]


Sure we can say anything we like but sometimes it is best to do what's right to get along and respect other people.. It has nothing to do with the ACLU. Not to counsel you but what's lacking to day is respect for others...Although , Me and muddy like to argue and poor gas on each other he would never do anything to inteninaly hurt another inocent persons feelings... I probably spooled him up . Not that I'm pure as the driven snow by any means Please let's move on and just let it go... Please. Now if you want to be on my side and run the ACLU over some more let'm have it!