ACLU : who amongst you REALLY believes that the ACLU protects YOUR interests???

Question

this has nothing to do with teaching evolution in schools or religion.

the ACLU is well known for taking on cases to bring even to the us supreme court, which costs a heck of a lot of $$$, to argue on behalf of NAMBLA, to obtain its so-called right to allow them to legally molest little boys under the age of 7 (!!!) inside of our country instead of them having to travel to third world nations where they must "buy" such boys!

in addition, the ACLU says that it should be able to participate in the military tribunals that shall be held at guantanamo bay detention camp that shall be held to prosecute the admitted planner (a BO slob if i ever saw one) of the 911, and many others, [suicide] attacks against our country and the tribunals to be held against his numerous cohorts, also terrorists.

the ACLU wants in so that it can appeal the wise punishments that our government will surely dole out to these dregs of society living amongst us, who are out to KILL YOU.

TBC...

continued: do you really believe that the attorneys of the ACLU could make a buck in private practice, parading for the causes of such despicable criminals that use every trick in the book, literally, for our justice system is so broad and forgiving? what are they worth?

why do so many people support the ACLU? what good has it done for our society, in general, in recent years with its ridiculous calls for justice to be given to those that would hurt you, would hurt your family, who take your taxes to live on welfare in order to carouse around in strip bars, drinking alcohol (banned by muslims) as they take flying lessons to fly BIG AIRPLANES and to build bombs to wear on their chests when they fly such planes into buildings on US soil?

why would the ACLU support the ridiculous causes that it does? IMO, they are vermin, supporting vermin to have RIGHTS to do anything that they want, because we are a country that grafefully supports CIVIL LIBERTIES.

why do YOU support the ACLU?

ADDED AND SENT TO BLACK DR:
i did a search on NAMBLA. then i contacted it to determine what it does, represents, and if in fact it is trying to become a legal organization in the usa, allowing their members to have little boys as their sexual partners. i was told yes.

in addition, i researched the ACLU quite some time ago. at that time we had not been attacked on our soil by muslim fundamentalist terrorists. it did tell me that it was representing NAMBLA in order that its members would get their "civil liberties" as afforded by the constitution!

(also, i really, really searched for all information on NAMBLA and learned about how they buy young boys in poor countries overseas, especially in the east).

else, current news will tell you all about why the ACLU wants in to the military hearings of the terrorists.

ADDED to Paul B, who does not accept email:

you, mr. b., probably retired from the ACLU! yes the aclu has defended a couple of right wingers, but those are the exceptions that disprove the rule.

libs always like to point to one case and think that it disproves the theory about the other 99%.

the aclu has to defend perverts because so few peoples' civil rights are actually being violated that they have to find new alleged civil rights, like the right to sodomy, the right to have sex with young boys, the right to pee on sidewalks, etc.

and what is a civil right anyways? the constitution doesn't say anything about the rights i listed above, but judges routinely find they are rights. so it is only by manipulating the justice system that "rights" are constantly being redefined to include things the founding fathers never intended.

what i find remarkable about this forum is how many people that answer automatically assume that i follow some leader, such as rush limbaugh. my opinion of the aclu has absolutely nothing to do with a person that they represented, right or left. but no, it shouldn't be a right to bugger little boys still in the process of childhood development, nor is it sensible that they object to what i know will be just treatment of that monster and his buddies, the terrorists, in their military tribunals. it is not the "right" for anyone living in our country to direct civil destruction. just like with tim mcveigh: much as i agree that the government is to blame for the horror of waco, tim mcveigh had no business blowing up the omaha federal building. would the aclu have protected him to tear so many decent american citizens into little bits and pieces, all for his own political opinions?

no, if the aclu disbanded, it would not collapse our legal system at all, or force it to be rebuilt!

Answer 1

The ACLU is about as needed in the United States as the Nazi Party is needed.

What part of destroy yourself from within are people having a problem with.

Someone wanted proof of the ACLU rulings that has be a detriment to the future of the United States. We only need to look back at past ruling spearheaded by this subversive organization and how the decisions have affected our society now.

#1 Parents, at one time were able to spank their children without interference from any law enforcement organization. Now even if a child is not spanked or punished the child will threaten to call Child protective Services. This put parents in a very difficult position as to their decision making concerning punishment and the inteaction of the core family group.

Now the child is on the street, without the parent really having control and we have the worst drug problem we have ever had.

But what do the kids do join an organization (Street Gang) with stricter rules and harsher discipline than they would have received at home Conclusion: Children want to live by rules and be disciplined.

#2 Educators at one time were able to spank and retain children in the same grade if they failed to achieve the necessary goals to move to the next level.

Now the child is passed along even though they can not achieve at the next level.

Now with them defending these idiots calling themselves NAMBLA and saying they have a right to do as they please.

The founding fathers, I am sure, did not have grown men doing boys in mind when they framed the constitution. This was not a right as defined in any history of any documents we are presently using or have used in the past.

The ACLU is doing what the terrorist will not be able to do and that is destroy a country from the inside and using a great document to do so.

I agree that at one time there might have been a need for such an organization. I am equally sure that if you could have been a fly on the wall in the organizations inception, this is not what the group was founded to do.

I am sure that if the people that first formed this group called the ACLU could see what they are doing now would object very strenuously to it’s current policies.

My feeling for the organization has grown from admiration to plain detest.


I hope this has been of some use to you, good luck.

"FIGHT ON"

Answer 2

I feel good knowing that the ACLU is there. Without such watchdog organizations, we may quickly become a state of political murder and imprisonment like many of the former soviet states.
Also, it's good that they're pushing for some accountability at Guantanamo. Few of the people there have been charged with specific crimes - for all we know, some could be simple farmers or townspeople who were at the wrong place at the wrong time. It's good that the ACLU is there to fight for these people - were not Communist Russia and I dislike the idea of having a huge, unaccountable state run prison in my country.

Even terrorists deserve the right to an attorney. If they admit wrongdoing and plead guilty, then their lawyer is morally obligated to proceed in that way. Also, they need lawyers to explain whats happening in the legal process and to assist then in filing the necessary paperwork and motions. Their attorneys will not try and let terrorists run scott free - everyone involved is trying to punish those who are guilty via the most appropriate legal means. Everyone involved is there to see that justice is done.

Terrorists are hardliners to be sure, but if we dole out extreme punishments then it will only serve to perpetuate their cause. Hanging a terrorist may cause Al-Quaeda to be outraged and would really impact their recruiting efforts (See what the evil west is doing to our soldiers! enlist now to combat these atrocities). But if they were to go into prison for a life sentence, and treat prisoners with some degree of compassion, it shows that we are morally better and hinders their recruiting goals.

But yeah the NAMBLA thing is extreme. I guess you have extremists in every organization though. The way I see it, its good to have some wacko liberals to cancel out the wacko conservatives - this way nothing too extreme is done!

Answer 3

proper wing Republican Christian Conservatives hate the ACLU. feels like they could't get used to the concept that we as individuals have civil liberties and they favor safe practices from over zealous fools which have their personal narrow minded agenda. The ACLU isn't protecting pedophiles in step with se...yet they are making damned particular that their rights at the instantaneous are not being violated. and that is a sturdy element. If the pedophile is to blame then dangle the SOB....in simple terms make darned particular you do it legally and under no circumstances as a lynch mob. I salute the ACLU!

Answer 4

Yes, I do think ACLU attorneys could make a good living. Why is it that the very people who preach hatred for attorneys who make a lot of money then turn around and criticize attorneys who are willing to work for low wages to protect people's civil rights?

Also, I notice there are a lot of people who like to cherry-pick through ACLU cases and use those specific cases to denigrate the ACLU while disregarding the hundreds of other cases they bring.

That usually lasts until their own civil rights or the civil rights of someone they love are being abridged, and then they are on the phone to the ACLU for help!

This was true for Rush Limbaugh, for one prime example, and for Steven Hatfill, who is extremely right-wing but needed help when he was suspected by the FBI of sending anthrax in the mail.

Hello, ACLU? I know I've slammed you and defamed you my whole life, but uh...well...you see the FBI is following me or they want to see my prescription history or the police are harassing my wife and me, so...well...do you think I could get a little help??

louiegirl: this sentence from a later answer is the real key to answering your question. I hope you read it: Making sure that the constitution is adhered to is not the same as espousing the point of view of your client.

Answer 5

The ACLU operates legally and within the provisions of the American judicial system.

Like any individual or organization ACLU can bring suit on behalf of plaintiffs or on their own behalf. Its up to the courts, not the ACLU to determine if such cases should be heard.

And its up to the courts, not the ACLU to render verdicts.

Getting rid of ACLU would require a wholesale overhaul of the way the American judicial system works. It would mean throwing out 200 years of proven procedures and starting from scratch.

I would venture to say that rush found ACLU helpful when they were the ONLY organization to stand up against a Florida prosecutor and successfully argue that his medical records could not be used in the case against him (Oxycontin abuse).

Where were all the right wing ditto heads? Why didn't they come up with the cash and legal skill to defined him?

If you hate ACLU so much, why did you put your beloved leader in a position where they were the only ones to successfully defend him?

So give me a thumbs down for disagreeing.

Answer 6

First, let me state clearly that I believe that NAMBLA is a despicable organization. Having said that, there are two fundamental flaws in your argument. First, you misrepresent the facts here. The ACLU has represented NAMBLA in a civil suit. In that suit, a family is suing NAMBLA for publishing materials which "encouraged" a pedophile to rape and murder a 10 year old boy. The National Review, not exactly a liberal rag, explains the case this way:

"The Manhattan-based public-interest law firm is defending the North American Man-Boy Love Association in a $200 million civil lawsuit filed by Mr. and Mrs. Robert Curley. The Curleys claim that Charles Jaynes was driven by the literature and website of NAMBLA, an outfit that advocates sex between grown men and little boys, reportedly as young as age 8.

Jaynes did not simply read NAMBLA's materials and ponder its message. He and Salvatore Sicari actively sought a boy with whom to copulate. They picked 10-year-old Jeffrey Curley of Cambridge, Massachusetts. They lured him into their car as he played outside his home in October 1997. When Curley resisted their sexual advances, they choked him to death with a gasoline-soaked rag. Then they took the boy's body across state lines to Jayne's apartment in Manchester, New Hampshire. They molested the cadaver and stuffed it into a cement-filled Rubbermaid container. Finally, they crossed state lines again into Maine, whereupon they tossed Jeffrey Curley's remains into the Great Works River, from which it was recovered within days. Jaynes and Sicari were convicted of these crimes in 1998, for which they are serving life sentences.

So why blame NAMBLA? Is it any more responsible for this atrocity than is Vintage Books, the publisher of Vladimir Nabokov's Lolita? Imagine that Jaynes and Sicari had read that 1955 novel about a middle-aged intellectual's affair with a 12-year-old girl. What if these two men found an equally young female who they abused and killed, just as they murdered Jeffrey Curley in real life? Putting aside the fact that Lolita is a work of fiction, would Vintage Books face civil justice?

Probably not, nor would NAMBLA if it limited its output to fictional depictions of "man-boy love." It is difficult to pin imaginary crimes on actual criminals who turn make-believe into mayhem.

Within the realm of nonfiction, as revolting as its ideas are, NAMBLA certainly has a First Amendment right to argue that America's laws should be changed to permit sexual relations between adult men and third-grade school boys. Most Americans would disagree vehemently, as well they should. That's called debate. It's the American way."
http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200402270920.asp

This is consistent with the ACLU's non-partisan position on free speech. As for representing the prisoners at Guantanamo, regardless of whether you want to believe it or not, there are some innocent people being held there. Held without any of the rights normally afforded criminal defendants. No one else will take on these unpopular cases. It is left to the ACLU to ensure that our system of justice is preserved in such instances.

In addition to misrepresenting the facts, you fail to appreciate the role of a legal advocate. When you look at the surface of what the ACLU does it is easy to criticize, even to be repulsed. They often represent the most repulsive individuals in our society. But that is exactly what the ACLU is for, representing those that otherwise would not have representation in our criminal justice system. Making sure that the constitution is adhered to is not the same as espousing the point of view of your client.

Answer 7

Proof please.

I get hearsay about the ACLU all the time, however whenever I ask for proof what I get is a pointer to someones Blog or "Well, that's what I heard"

So, can you back up what you are saying with some fact?



********************************************************
Still got no proof eh?

Answer 8

You mean the "American Communist Liberties Union?"

Answer 9

They are a bigger threat to the security of America than any terrorist group could ever be