ACLU

Post Reply New Topic

Have they done everything possible to defend terrorists?

and other people whose rights have been denied them.

Since the ACLU has not killed off everyone else, then the answer is 'No'.

If by defending terrorists you mean making sure people go through an actual trial and the state provides evidence before getting considered terrorists, then yes.

i have to say, deciding that there are certain people who don't deserve due process and should be considered guilty until proven innocent beyond any shadow of a doubt sounds to me like the height of patriotism.

The ACLU makes a decision on who it believes is oppressed and goes with it all the while ignoring other oppressed groups that don't fall into their idea of what determines a person has rights to.

I believe in due process but their is due process by citizens of their peers and then their is due process with non citizens. It should remain innocent until proven guilty but gone about a different way. Its a little hard to bring a matter of national security into the public sector. No I am not a psycho babbler when it comes to national security but I believe a reasonable approach should be taken.

The way I see it the Red Scare of the fifties WAY over did it but today its becoming to politically correct to do anything about it. Where's the middle ground.

I support both the NRA and the ACLU; it confuses people and keeps all of my civil liberties at least marginally defended. The NRA seems to be doing a bit better lately, but then again they only have the one amendment to fight for..

The funny thing is when I saw this ACLU thread I thought it would be full of venom towards the Union
but I guess the right has moved on to new bogeymen.

Yep, the ACLU isn't considered as subversive at it used to be, Moveon.org and MSNBC have stolen their thunder as far as anger from the right goes. The NRA still manages to rile up the left though, you could say I get more bang for my buck there...

The NRA has lost me because they frame the gun issue in hunting/anti-crime terms.
When the 2nd amendment has always been about the threat of revolution/putting fear into over-zealous cops thing
at least for me.

The NRA take owning guns to far but the gun isnt the problem its who owns the gun thats the problem.

Huh, I always thought they framed it that way because they didn't want to scare the liberals with the revolution talk; shows how much I know. I've learned that it's not guns that scare the cops, it's cameras they really fear. Forget trying to fight them physically, just get their asses on film and take them to the cleaners later, it's the new American Way.
Now for non badge wearing threats I still prefer a .45 to a Nikon, hot lead is more convincing than bad press to thugs of that type.

There is no greater joy to be had in the kingdom of men then to inform an officer that he is being videotaped.
The Smart ones get really polite the dumb ones try to tell you that is illegal and whine like babies.
But I do reserve the right to shot any home invader regardless of the presence of a shiny badge.
(I do observe warrants)

Originally the second Amendment was created as a right to take up arms against a corrupt government should the people feel the government had over stepped their boundaries. Is that what you were referring to Jacob?

Well that's just common sense, I mean anyone can buy a badge or a jacket that says FBI on it. What was it G. Gordon Liddy said, "if the jacket says fed then aim for the head"? No need for fancy shooting in my case, I've usually got something handy that won't even slow down for kevlar.