Why does the ACLU suck?

[Necrosaro420]

I mean really...we are trying to protect our people, and there screaming searching bag's of people is unconstitutional. There once was a time that the ACLU actually did GOOD things, but those days are long and gone.

 

[miketheidiot]

pn

edit: nevermind, thought i was in ot

 

[azazyel]

Originally posted by: Necrosaro420
I mean really...we are trying to protect our people, and there screaming searching bag's of people is unconstitutional. There once was a time that the ACLU actually did GOOD things, but those days are long and gone.

It's called the 4th Amendment..

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. "


"Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." (Benjamin Franklin)

 

[irwincur]

The ACLU is great in theory - however they take their PC pimping too far sometimes. All things in moderation...

It is concievable to say that if we get attacked again it will clearly be the fault of the ACLU. You could also say that the attacks in London (the successful ones) were actually their fault. One of the planners was linked to a man here who tried to setup a terror camp in the Pacific NW. He was caught, held, and released because the ACLU kept crying. He has since left the country, and he is now considered to be one of the masterminded (or procured the explosives) of the London attacks.

 

[jimkyser]

Originally posted by: irwincur
The ACLU is great in theory - however they take their PC pimping too far sometimes. All things in moderation...

It is concievable to say that if we get attacked again it will clearly be the fault of the ACLU. You could also say that the attacks in London (the successful ones) were actually their fault. One of the planners was linked to a man here who tried to setup a terror camp in the Pacific NW. He was caught, held, and released because the ACLU kept crying. He has since left the country, and he is now considered to be one of the masterminded (or procured the explosives) of the London attacks.

And none of that is the ACLU's fault.

See, if there was evidence to try him for what he allegedly was doing in the PNW, then they should have tried him. Holding him indefinitely w/o trial is against the constitution. But let's blame the ACLU for that and the fact that they didn't have enough evidence.

As far as what he may have done in Britain, that's the Brits fault for not watching him. It's not like they wouldn't have been privy to the goings on with him in the US. They should have watched him from the time he entered the country.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: irwincur
The ACLU is great in theory - however they take their PC pimping too far sometimes. All things in moderation...

It is concievable to say that if we get attacked again it will clearly be the fault of the ACLU. You could also say that the attacks in London (the successful ones) were actually their fault. One of the planners was linked to a man here who tried to setup a terror camp in the Pacific NW. He was caught, held, and released because the ACLU kept crying. He has since left the country, and he is now considered to be one of the masterminded (or procured the explosives) of the London attacks.

Do you understand why we have rights, and why those rights MUST apply even when they hurt individuals in the short run?

I would have thought that conservatives would be behind the ACLU 100%. After all, what true conservative wants to give up rights because he's scared and thinks doing so will buy him a little safety (absent any proof of this, of course)? The ACLU isn't "great in theory", and moderation in defending our civil liberties is a terrible idea. We need to defend our civil liberties at any cost. We like to make a lot of noise about "freedom isn't free" but when there is danger, we all clamor to be the first to give up the rights of others (and ourselves) if the government would just promise to protect us.

Why is this a bad idea? Well I feel silly explaining it, but it goes something like this. When you expand government power, there is nothing to say that it will only apply to the bad guys. Maybe we can hold people with very little cause. Great stuff, until you "look funny" and are arrested and held without a chance to defend yourself. The problem is that when you give up your rights, you give up your rights. I suppose it depends on how much you trust the government, but I've got to say that no free society has ever been built on putting a lot of trust in the government. The phrase "if you didn't do anything wrong, you've got nothing to worry about" should scare the crap out of any freedom loving American.

 

[Tab]

The only slightly negative thing the ALCU has ever done IMHO, is defended Nazi groups the right to march in Jewish Neighbohrhoods.

Other than that, they've got a very good history from what I know.

 

[Tom]

The ACLU doesn't decide issues, they represent a point of view.

How could it be better to not have issues looked at from different points of view ?

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: Necrosaro420
I mean really...we are trying to protect our people, and there screaming searching bag's of people is unconstitutional. There once was a time that the ACLU actually did GOOD things, but those days are long and gone.

So, if the ACLU didn't exist everything would be just fine? IMO, you don't understand the sort of world you're advocatiing.

 

[azazyel]

I don't know why people are so willing to throw away their rights just because they are not using them at the moment.

"I really don't have much to say, so I guess we can do without freespeech"

 

[Starbuck1975]

In before the lock

 

[daveshel]

They don't suck. They are champoins of freedom. Someof their causes over the years have been unpopular, but that is the price of freedom, just like the First Amendment protects bad ideas the same as good ideas. Rush Limbaugh and his buddies just said it enough times that it sounded true to the uneducated/uninformed.

 

[Strk]

The ACLU isn't bad, at least in the sense that some like to spout off about; they are just strict constitutionalists. In being that way, they do not discriminate on the people they defend; only that their rights - according to the Constitution - have been violated.

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: irwincur
The ACLU is great in theory - however they take their PC pimping too far sometimes. All things in moderation...

It is concievable to say that if we get attacked again it will clearly be the fault of the ACLU. You could also say that the attacks in London (the successful ones) were actually their fault. One of the planners was linked to a man here who tried to setup a terror camp in the Pacific NW. He was caught, held, and released because the ACLU kept crying. He has since left the country, and he is now considered to be one of the masterminded (or procured the explosives) of the London attacks.

Wow, what logic!! In "threory" Muslim citizen X could be the mastermind of 8/11/2007, therefor we should lock up all Muslims, just in case. I love how the "Support the Troops" "God Bless America" crowd loves to stomp all over the Constitutiona and the Bill of Rights. We should just get rid of this pesky democracy, I think a dictator could make us safer since he/she could select which laws to keep. Sounds like Germany 1939 is the role model of the Neocons.

 

[gopunk]

nm bad grammar

 

[IndieSnob]

Originally posted by: Tab
The only slightly negative thing the ALCU has ever done IMHO, is defended Nazi groups the right to march in Jewish Neighbohrhoods.

Other than that, they've got a very good history from what I know.

Beleive me, I am far from sympathetic towards those with supremicist views, but, we can't block out speech just because we disagree with the ideology. No matter how disgusting it is, the rights of everyone is important. And I think the majority of Americans see those groups for what they really are; simple minded people who are too lazy to work within the system, so they blame everything on anyone different from them.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Tab
The only slightly negative thing the ALCU has ever done IMHO, is defended Nazi groups the right to march in Jewish Neighbohrhoods.

You're referring to the infamous Skokie case of 1977-78. What the ACLU did was defend the right of a group to legally hold a rally and march. The fact that the group, the National Socialist Party of Chicago (led by Frank Collin) had an unpopular message (and I write this as a Jew) is not relevant.

The U.S. Constitution states the inalienable right of "speech", not the right of "pleasant speech" or "popular speech" or "good speech" or "wise speech. The case took place over a period 13 months, and the ACLU's position was upheld on three separate occasions by the USSC.

Ironically, after winning all its legal battles, the Nazi group held a rally at their preferred venue, Marquette Park in Chicago, rather than in Skokie (a Chicago suburb). Even more ironically, the ACLU sued the Chicago police for damages on behalf of a group of counter-demonstrators at the Marquette Park rally. The counter-demonstrators were kept away from the Nazis by the police, and could not effectively get their message out.

Our right to free speech would be meaningless if all that we were free to do is say things that large segments of the population support. "Freedom" is measured in part by the extent to which UNPOPULAR speech is allowed.

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: Strk
The ACLU isn't bad, at least in the sense that some like to spout off about; they are just strict constitutionalists. In being that way, they do not discriminate on the people they defend; only that their rights - according to the Constitution - have been violated.

You're sort of right. Try getting them to support you on a pro-Second Amendment case and they'll run from you like their asses are on fire.

 

[EyeMNathan]

Originally posted by: azazyel
"Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." (Benjamin Franklin)

Ben Franklin knew more about BEING a terrorist than defending a country from one. I see this quote tossed around all the time, but I think there are probably more relevant and recent quotes if you look around.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: azazyel

Originally posted by: Necrosaro420
I mean really...we are trying to protect our people, and there screaming searching bag's of people is unconstitutional. There once was a time that the ACLU actually did GOOD things, but those days are long and gone.

It's called the 4th Amendment..

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. "


"Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." (Benjamin Franklin)

Ah yes, but there is probable cause.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: azazyel

Originally posted by: Necrosaro420
I mean really...we are trying to protect our people, and there screaming searching bag's of people is unconstitutional. There once was a time that the ACLU actually did GOOD things, but those days are long and gone.

It's called the 4th Amendment..

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. "


"Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." (Benjamin Franklin)

Ah yes, but there is probable cause.

Apparently the courts didn't think so...care to share that cause with us?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: EyeMNathan

Originally posted by: azazyel
"Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." (Benjamin Franklin)

Ben Franklin knew more about BEING a terrorist than defending a country from one. I see this quote tossed around all the time, but I think there are probably more relevant and recent quotes if you look around.

"Security and privacy are not two sides of a teeter-totter. This association is simplistic and largely fallacious. It's easy and fast, but less effective, to increase security by taking away liberty. However, the best ways to increase security are not at the expense of privacy and liberty."

-Bruce Schneier

If anybody doesn't know who Bruce Schneier, he's very well known (in security circles) as an expert in the big picture thinking about security. He started out designing encryption algorithms (most famously, Blowfish) and later moved into consulting on a wide variety of security issues for the government and private companies. By the way, read his book "Beyond Fear" if you get the chance. Just thought I'd share

Edit: By the way, that was written less than a month after 9/11. The article of his that was in is great reading on the security/privacy trade-off...I might post that in another thread...

 

[zendari]

Where is the ACLU's rabid defense of the 2nd amendment?

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: zendari
Where is the ACLU's rabid defense of the 2nd amendment?

BINGO!

And there is the thing that drives me nuts about the ACLU - Their very selective defense of specific liberties. It's ok to defend NAMBLA but screw anyone who would want to excercise their 2nd ammendment Rights.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: zendari
Where is the ACLU's rabid defense of the 2nd amendment?

BINGO!

And there is the thing that drives me nuts about the ACLU - Their very selective defense of specific liberties. It's ok to defend NAMBLA but screw anyone who would want to excercise their 2nd ammendment Rights.

I'm not sure I'd call that "very selective". So far as I can see, the only question is their defense of the 2nd Amendment. Fair enough, but I'd be interested in hearing what cases they rejected.