ACLU - Supporting "terrorism" ?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Of course, the right to be a terrorist fits right in with ACLU ideology (Nazis are okay too): there's no lines and there is no right or wrong. Isn't it anyone's right to fly a plane into a building and can't the Constitution be manipulated to say so?

Do you people have ANY clue what the point is of the bill of rights?

I guess a suspected terrorist has NO RIGHTS at all.  I hope you're never a suspected terrorist.  The cops, I'm sure, and our federal gov't, I'm even more sure, has NEVER suspected anyone wrongly of anything.  ugh.

Uh... well unless I'm mistaken, that's not what this is about.

You're very mistaken.
US citizens can now be declared enemy combantants by the Presidents, and lose all of their rights. That's not justice.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

What right would the ACLU have to defend foreign combatants?  They do not fall under American Constitutional law nor the liberties provided to US citizens.

US citizens can be declared enemy combatants. So much for the constitutiion.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

"ACLU Turns Down $1.15 Million in Funding"


The Rockefeller Foundation's provisions state that recipients of its funds may not "directly or indirectly engage in, promote, or support other organizations or individuals who engage in or promote terrorist activity." [/b]

If the ACLU defends someone at Guantanamo, for example, they may not know whether that person is a terrorist or not; but they can damn well choose to defend that person's civil rights, if they feel they were being violated.  I would think that would be directly supporting an individual that engages in or promotes terrorist activity.  Thus they would be violating the foundation's rules.  The ACLU, wanting to maintain control over such decisions made the decision NOT to accept their money.  A VERY principled decision, in my book.

UMM.... terrorist at Guantanamo were caught fighting against the United states.
Since you are so quick to standing up for terrorists' rights, i hope you don't find yourself in a building with a bomb in it. TERRORISTS HAVE NO RIGHTS AND THEY DO NOT DESERVE RIGHTS. A KILLER DOES NOT DESERVE RIGHTS.
let the poor terrorists go, right?

I say Bush is a terrorist.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

As far as I'm concerned in reference to the ACLU, I do not think they're some pro terrorist organization or whatever. What I think is that they're too intwined in theory, interpretation, and language to really understand what a severe kind of threat we're facing. To them, it's just a legality or has the potential to result in a series of legalities that will serve to advance their interests. That's what I'm prepared to go with.

Or maybe they do understand it and just don't want to deal with it. It's like anything else.

That is part of their function though.  Because there are many laws that are interpreted with too much leeway, they force decisions in courts (funny our government, though slow at times has a system that works) that make us write better laws, and stay in accord with the constitution.  Would you want any strings attaced to your system, especially purse strings.  That reminds me, I need to renew my membership with them. 

Which suggests that liberals really do see terrorism as just any other problem. Like bank robbers or gangsters or in some similar category. It's not a war. It's a legality. Wow.

What did Kerry call the terrorists, a nuisance? You bet. Like speeders or drunk drivers.

Kerry said he'd reduce terrrorists to just a nuisance. He didn't say they're just a nuisance now. But that's not in your RNC talking points.