ACLU - Supporting "terrorism" ?

[Giant Saguaro]

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?

[Giant Saguaro]

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.

[Giant Saguaro]

you're mistaken.

I don't think so. This group won't take money because the people granting the money don't want it being funneled to terrorists. Uh... reading comprehension, anyone?

[Giant Saguaro]

you're mistaken.

I don't think so. This group won't take money because the people granting the money don't want it being funneled to terrorists. Uh... reading comprehension, anyone?

they don't want the money to "directly or indirectly" benefit a terrorist.  As I stated above, the ACLU may choose to defend the rights of a suspected terrorist who may actually be guilty; rather than violate the rules of the foundation, they chose not to accept the money.

Man, they should do a better job of screening who they defend if they're worried about infringing upon that language. Whew. I'm glad I'm not a member of that organization.

[Giant Saguaro]

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.

HELLO!

That's not what this particular thing is about.

It's about the ACLU refusing money because they find language too stringent asking them not to aid terrorists.

[Giant Saguaro]

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.

[Giant Saguaro]

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.

[Giant Saguaro]

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.

Even so, what's that mean, Fern, and what level of understanding does that suggest he has in reference to the problem?

I don't get it. Raising taxes and getting pro choice judges on the Supreme Court take precedence!