ACLU - Supporting "terrorism" ?

[MODU]

"ACLU Turns Down $1.15 Million in Funding"

According to the article above, the ACLU has turned down donations from the Ford Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation due to language included with the grants by these two firms were too strict.

The Ford Foundation now bars recipients of its funds from engaging in any activity that "promotes violence, terrorism, bigotry, or the destruction of any state." [/b]

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]

Romero said such vague grant language "could have a chilling effect" on civil liberties. "The ACLU cannot effectively defend the rights of all Americans if we do not stand up for those same rights ourselves," he said. [/b]

Now true, this is probably being taken out of context by the author of the article, but let's just look at this for the moment.  The Ford Foundation does not want the recipient to use these funds to promotve violence, terrorism, bigotry, or destruction of state.  Which of these 4 items (if not all) does the ACLU feel is being infringed upon as a "civil liberty?" 

Or how about the Rockefeller Foundations language?  All they say is they are against people using their funds to support and/or engage in terroristic activities.  Does that mean the ACLU supports terrorism?

Makes you think twice about what has happened to this once GOOD group over the last 20 years.

[elcorazon]

"ACLU Turns Down $1.15 Million in Funding"

According to the article above, the ACLU has turned down donations from the Ford Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation due to language included with the grants by these two firms were too strict.

The Ford Foundation now bars recipients of its funds from engaging in any activity that "promotes violence, terrorism, bigotry, or the destruction of any state." [/b]

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]

Romero said such vague grant language "could have a chilling effect" on civil liberties. "The ACLU cannot effectively defend the rights of all Americans if we do not stand up for those same rights ourselves," he said. [/b]

Now true, this is probably being taken out of context by the author of the article, but let's just look at this for the moment.  The Ford Foundation does not want the recipient to use these funds to promotve violence, terrorism, bigotry, or destruction of state.  Which of these 4 items (if not all) does the ACLU feel is being infringed upon as a "civil liberty?" 

Or how about the Rockefeller Foundations language?  All they say is they are against people using their funds to support and/or engage in terroristic activities.  Does that mean the ACLU supports terrorism?

Makes you think twice about what has happened to this once GOOD group over the last 20 years.

I agree with them.  None of the listed items is a "civil liberty". The problem is they will defend a terrorist's civil rights (i.e. free speech, 4th amendment, self-incrimination, cruel & unusual punishment, etc.) even if they are a terrorist. They defended nazi's right to free speech.  This is wholly consistent.  They don't want to have the money they receive tied to some outside entity's view of what is appropriate.

I say kudos to the ACLU for taking the proper stand rather than just taking the money.  Now there's an organization with true moral clarity and scruples.

[opebo]

Good for the ACLU - one of the few groups unwilling to lay down for the new thought police.

[shankbear]

The ACLU is a joke.  The ABA is a joke also.  They have long outlived their usefulness.

[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?

[elcorazon]

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.

[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.

[elcorazon]

you're mistaken.

[elcorazon]

"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.

[MODU]

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

The "Bill of Rights"[/ur]

What is your question?  Which right do you feel is being infringed upon?

[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?

[elcorazon]

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

The "Bill of Rights"[/ur]

What is your question?  Which right do you feel is being infringed upon?

Depends on the case.

[elcorazon]

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.

[MODU]

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

The "Bill of Rights"[/ur]

What is your question?  Which right do you feel is being infringed upon?

Depends on the case.

In this case, naturally.  You implied that there were basic rights being violated here. 

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

Please explain.

[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.

[MODU]

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.

[elcorazon]

there is no case involved currently.

This is an issue where one organization (the Ford Foundation) offered to donate money to another (the ACLU).  The Ford Foundation has limits on how the money may be used.

The ACLU's job is to defend the civil rights of ALL people when they feel they are being infringed.

At some point the ACLU may choose (if they aren't already) to defend someone who, it turns out, to their knowledge or not, is a terrorist or a supporter of terrorism.

The ACLU does not choose it's clients based on their innocence or guilt or any reason other than whether their rights are being infringed.

They defend Nazis' right to march, they defend Rush Limbaugh's right not to give medical information to the government.  They don't want the Ford Foundation's rules to limit who they can choose to defend.  It's actually quite simple, when you actually READ my posts, rather than ignore the substance and only get your hackles up because of what seems to be supporting terrorism.

[Light Touch]

Old news, btw.

The ACLU is a largely positive organization that serves an important role -- I applaud them for their efforts.

They're not always right, but I can't hate on liberty advocacy.

[josh_24]

"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?

[Erc]

Defending someone in a court of law who happens to be a suspected terrorist is not "supporting terrorism," and I would hope that the ACLU agrees with that statement.

John Adams was not a supporter of killing American protestors because he defended the soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre...

[○∙◄☻¥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.

[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.