YouTube Hate Speech
YouTube - USSR WAS FOUNDED AND RUN BY KILLER JEWS
Go over to Youtube and flag this moron’s stuff as Inappropriate. There’s even a category for: Hate Speech.
I flagged three of his videos.
h/t: Allahpundit.
Related Posts
Trackbacks & Pings
-
[…] and Roses has an excellent screed on Cowardice Commissar posts a video with some guy going nuts….and all the Commenters go nuts….me as well. Triticale mentions illegal…furniture? Lair of the Gecko apparently is in a […]
-
H&I* Fires, 5 APR 2007…
Open post for those with something to share, updated through the day. New, complete posts come in below this one. Note: If trackbacking, please acknowledge this post in your post. That’s only polite. You’re advertising here, we should get an……
-
[…] Welcome to refugees from the Armory! The “guy going nuts” is here. […]
-
ACLU to sacrifice children for Freedom…
Got your attention eh?
See I’ve been involved with a debate with a fellow called Rabit.
Rabit and I are on opposite sides of the political spectrum.
Even though I’m more of a centrist than anything, Rabit considers me a right wing hawk. Heh….
Comments
-
What a nutjob! This guy takes a grain of truth and tries to blow it up into some kind of weirdo elders of zion conspiracy theory. The grain of truth is that many of the early russian communists were of jewish origin. The rest of his rant is anti-semitic ****.
I will say, however, that the penchant for many of my jewish friends to espouse far-left Marxist ideologies has always puzzled me, particularly given the anti-semitic posture of the Soviets. I have raised this question many times during informal political discussions with them, but they would all just shrug their shoulders.
I have asked if there is something in jewish culture which would predispose them to support left-wing, Marxist views, but was told there was not. I have known several conservative jews, but the vast majority of my jewish friends are way, way on the Left side of the political spectrum. I don’t know the answer for this, but remain curious. Does the ACLU issues free membership cards at every Bar Mitzvah?:)
Most of the Left, Jewish or non-Jewish, seems to be very pro-Arab or pro-Muslim vis-a-vis the war on terror. If you are Jewish, why on earth would you ever support persons or entities who routinely deny the Holocaust, blame the jews for everything as Satan’s minions, and have vowed to exterminate all jews and annihilate the state of Israel? I would think simple self-interest and the will to live would make this a no-brainer.
Then again, look at all the feminists who are also pro-Muslim, even though Muslim culture would return women to a medieval “women as property” viewpoint, complete with burqas, chadors, and “honor” killings. Women would lose all rights to vote, drive cars, own property, abortion, and all related rights of privacy in their own bodies. Husbands will have the right to beat, or even kill, their wives for insolent or shameful behavior. Tell me again why feminists find this stuff worthy of support?
Okay, I guess I must rephrase my question. Why do feminists and jews on the Left support persons and entities that are anathema to their supposedly deeply held beliefs, and that want to kill them? Does anyone know? Is it just that their visceral hatred of America overwhelms all other political considerations? But that wouldn’t explain the appeal of Communism to the Russian Jews like Lenin in the early 1900s. I would love to hear possible explanations from those wiser than me.
-
Former European:
Why do feminists and jews on the Left support persons and entities that are anathema to their supposedly deeply held beliefs, and that want to kill them?
They don’t.
Next question?
-
I can’t make up my mind… does he look more like Crazy Santa, or like Crazy Uncle Jesse from that Dukes of Hazard show?
-
Wow…
Why do feminists and jews on the Left support persons and entities that are anathema to their supposedly deeply held beliefs, and that want to kill them? Does anyone know?
Ohhh, maybe it’s because it’s the hard-right who really, really DO have a history of hating jews and feminists? But I bet to you, anyone who doesn’t accept the notion that Isreal hasn’t been any less than saintly is anti-semitic, pro-palestine or pro-arab or simply a nazi.
You only see the stone-throwing or the suicide bombers as palestinian acts of terrorism, and those tanks and rockets that Isreal sends into Lebanon are just acts of self-defense? If so, I can understand why you’d think that way but you’re delusional.
Think about it.
Is it just that their visceral hatred of America overwhelms all other political considerations?
Is your visceral hatred of the left,which is approximately ~50% of all Americans, why you accuse them of hating themselves?
I would love to hear possible explanations from those wiser than me.
I’d suggest feeding your brain some truth rather than Fox News/Drudge/Freeper/Malkin junk food.
And by the way, hating the American Civil Liberties Union is, by definition, hating exactly what America stands for. Do you hate America?
-
the aclu was begun by the cpusa. it is the antithesis of “what america stands for”.
the left is more like 25% of america. 25% of america believes that 9-11 was a mossad/zionist plot executed by zog.
-
former european,
the answer is that within the current context the islamic radicals are the anti-hegemon the u.s. is fighting. on a post-liberal globe, progressives will be draining the marshes and filling the soccer-feilds with muslim corpses just as they would any other sort of reactionary.
-
And by the way, hating the American Civil Liberties Union is, by definition, hating exactly what America stands for. Do you hate America?
You have got to be kidding………..
-
Sorry, I can’t really support the ACLU or the Left. As an escapee from the former Soviet Bloc in the Iron Curtain era, the propaganda is too reminiscent of the Pravda-style party-approved Truth we were force-fed. Oppression of the proletariat, workers of the world unite in spontaneous opposition to the revanchist imperialist West, etc.
Only a pampered, indolent Westerner would fall for that garbage. Anyone who had experienced the loving compassion of the Politburo and the KGB knew better, and couldn’t wait to defect to the US. The USA is the beacon of freedom around the world, and this is why everyone wants to come here. Americans take the blessings of this nation for granted and know nothing about so-called “oppression” or the true misery that happened in the Soviet Bloc and still exists in many parts of the 3rd world. Why do you suppose so many emigrants from Communist countries take to the Right when they come here (eastern europeans, cubans, chinese, vietnamese, etc.)? It is because they have seen the sordid truth of how such totalitarian regimes abuse their citizenry, and they are thus immune to pretty rhetoric and propaganda of a “worker’s paradise”.
To your other point, I am not an apologist for Israel. I have not, however, seen or heard the widespread view of Israelis that Arabs are minions of Satan who must all be exterminated, that Yahweh demands that all Israelis go kill Arabs as much as possible, and that Israel use its nuclear arsenal to vaporize the Middle East. Compare and contrast to the positions of Iran, the jihadis, and Al-Jazeera. Other than left-wing whackos who believe the jews or the Mossad were responsible for 9/11 in order to frame the noble, peaceful Muslims for the atrocity, I am also not aware of any information re the many jewish terrorist organizations openly committed to the destruction of the USA and western civilization in general.
I also somehow missed all the big protest marches and rallies by NOW and other feminist organizations re the abuse and mistreatment of women in Muslim countries. Since many Muslims refuse to assimilate (witness the problems in Britain, Holland, France, etc.), and seek to instead force their host countries to adopt Muslim practices and sharia law, and the Left believes in cultural relativity so that Muslim cultural practices may not be criticized or “discriminated” against, then Muslim cultural demands will ultimately prevail even here. In Minnesota, Muslim cab drivers are already demanding that they be allowed to refuse to pick up jews, women, dogs (even seeing-eye dogs), and other persons or things considered “unclean” in Islam. I have not seen the huge protests about this by feminist groups or jewish organizations. That would not be PC, after all, and the thought police are watching you.
I don’t hate the Left. I do think they are, by and large, misguided fools who have turned their political beliefs into a de facto religion. They ignore the last 100 years of Communist failure, and the shining examples of the Soviet Union and its client states in the Warsaw Pact, China, North Korea, Zimbabwe, Ethiopia, Somalia, Cuba, Vietnam, and Cambodia, and the millions of people slaughtered, tortured, and truly oppressed therein, to blindly continue believing in their Communist/Socialist ideology. Faith and belief in a utopian vision which surmounts experiential evidence and facts to the contrary is a hallmark of religion. As religious zealots, Leftists are difficult to reason with. When facts don’t conform to the ideology or orthodoxy of the faith, reality will be changed to accomodate the Canons of the faith, rather than vice versa, which is the hallmark of the Scientific Method. This is why there are so many weird conspiracy theories on the Left. Facts must be twisted so as to not challenge the ideology. Hence the claim that the jews were secretly responsible for 9/11.
If nothing else, I can’t join the Left because tin foil hats are sooo last years fashion must-have.
Other than name-calling or personal insults, I would still appreciate any genuine insights or discussion on the feminist/jewish topic I raised earlier. I am honestly curious about why this state of affairs appears to exist.
-
J, I didn’t see your post before I did mine just now. Could you please explain your point further? I am not sure I follow your point. Thank you for an honest response.
-
progressives view islamic radicals as “the reactionaries that we’ll eliminate later”. in the meantime they are useful in eliminating the big reactionary entity, the u.s. and western liberalism.
-
“j” and “afe,”
I try to keep things civil around here. Avoid personal attacks (esp. on other commenters). Try to stay more-or-less fact-based on all matters.
As for long, impassioned rants that don’t really go anywhere … I don’t know what purpose they serve.
Thanks.
-
don’t see where i was ‘personal” or anything but brief .
-
bloodspite:
I’m not kidding. The ACLU is consistent with the most core of American values: freedom. What exactly do you hate about the ACLU?
j:
25% of america believes that 9-11 was a mossad/zionist plot executed by zog.
Where was this poll? Bet it is Fox News, because they lie even about their own polls.
a former european:
Sorry, I can’t really support the ACLU or the Left. As an escapee from the former Soviet Bloc in the Iron Curtain era, the propaganda is too reminiscent of the Pravda-style party-approved Truth we were force-fed.
What propoganda? Could you point out a few examples?
The USA is the beacon of freedom around the world, and this is why everyone wants to come here. Americans take the blessings of this nation for granted and know nothing about so-called “oppression” or the true misery that happened in the Soviet Bloc and still exists in many parts of the 3rd world.
Which followed this:
Sorry, I can’t really support the ACLU or the Left.
So could an organization like the ACLU, who’s goal is purely and simply stated, to defend the right of all individuals to free speech, no matter how unpopular or even wrong, ever have existed under the old Soviet regime?
-
j:
the aclu was begun by the cpusa. it is the antithesis of “what america stands for”.
Okay, what is this “cpusa” that you claim started the ACLU.
-
is this the part where you pretend to be dense?
-
What exactly do you hate about the ACLU?
I could launch in to a huge diatribe that would take most of this blog and the web by storm on why I hate the ACLU. But instead of doing that I’ll refer you to my own website and you can check ACLU in the search option and see for yourself.
I don’t consider them by any stretch of the imagination “representing” freedom. They even take stances contrary to themselves (such as quoting Leviticus at the recent Hazleton Trials…how appropriate)
No I won’t get on this particular soap box in Commissar’s site. But I can tell you that trying to twist the presentation with “Do you hate America?” rather insulting…considering what the ACLU has done to degrade America and it’s founding principles.
-
Sorry Commie. I didn’t think I was getting too personal, but I did ramble a bit. This is just something that has always honestly intrigued me. As an immigrant, there are certain aspects of american culture I have never really understood like the american Left. Another big one for me was race relations in the US. Judging someone by the color of their skin seems so ridiculous to me that I never understood why so many americans are so fixated on this point.
I will try to keep my requests for enlightenment brief. Thanks for your patience.
-
j:
is this the part where you pretend to be dense?
Wow, you think I’m pretending.
I’m asking YOU. What is the cpusa? I have my suspicions but I’d rather let you say it.
Bloodspite:
But instead of doing that I’ll refer you to my own website and you can check ACLU in the search option and see for yourself.
Okay, I did - and picked the most obviously anti-ACLU title (and the only one I bothered to look at, check your logfile), ACSmellU, where you link to an article on the ACLU is suing Donald Rumsfeld and others over allegedly authorizing torture interrogation techniques.
If this is allowed to move forward then it sets a precedence that is not only damaging, but dangerous.
Our governments accountability is the people we elect,and our selves, not a *coughhack* non-profit *gagcough* non-biased group out of whereverGolly… Because, you know the ACLU are all communists and not a single American among them in their 500,000 membership role has any right to criticize the US government for anything, torturing arabs that are possibly terrorists least of all.
If this is allowed to move forward we might as well hand over the reigns of the government to the aclu and walk away, burn the constitution, burn the flag and be done with it.
Yes, because your saying that if the ACLU lawsuit is allowed to move forward, those government employees (and private contractors - can’t leave them out of the equation) will be actually held accountable for things like stomping on a prisoner and beating him on the face.
If the aclu is allowed to sue a government employee, or former government employee, for what they do in their job, there is no limit in sight on how far it will go…
Yes, wrapping a prisoner’s head with duct tape or sticking them in a 100 degree cell with no ventilation. How dare the ACLU question these American’s motives?!? That’s what you are saying.
But let me ask A Former European about his stance on torture, being from country where government-sponsored torture has a very, very, very long history.
The article Bloodspite is responding to:
Documents released Tuesday by the FBI offered new details about the harsh interrogation practices used by military officials and contractors when questioning so-called enemy combatants. The reports describe a female guard who detainees said handled their genitals and wiped menstrual blood on their face. Another interrogator reportedly bragged to an FBI agent about dressing as a Catholic priest and “baptizing” a prisoner.
So, A Former European, as a former citizen under the Soviet Union, what is your view on government mandated torture? Good, bad, indifferent?
-
cpusa = Communist Party, United States of America.
-
Of course I am opposed to torture. That having been said, the treatment of detainees at Gitmo is no comparison to what occurred in the Gulag or, prior to that, concentration camps like Auschwitz.
The leftist penchant for hyperbole (i.e. Bush is Hitler, Reagan is Hitler, etc.) now applied to the word “torture” does violence to the English language. Mistreatment in US prisons or at Gitmo is mistreatment, or perhaps can be called abusive in some cases. This is not, however, “torture”.
-
In the interests of keeping Commissar’s site on topic Rabit, debate the subject at my place.
Unless Commissar clears it I’m not going to engage in this debate here and now.
It’s his house. Not mine.
-
Blood,
Lemme see. We got ‘hate speech, commies, and anti-semitism’ in the post itself. I guess the ACLU is close enough.
-
Commissar, Touche` !
And with your permission I’ll procedeRabit.
Lets start with the very case you have mentioned and I addressed there. You know. The one that was Thrown out of court last month.
Allowing the case to go forward, Hogan said in December, might subject government officials to all sorts of political lawsuits. Even Osama bin Laden could sue, Hogan said, claiming two American presidents threatened to have him murdered…..“There is no getting around the fact that authorizing monetary damages remedies against military officials engaged in an active war would invite enemies to use our own federal courts to obstruct the Armed Forces’ ability to act decisively and without hesitation,” Hogan wrote Tuesday.
Thats directly from the Judges remarks in the case’s dismissal.
My remarks of the time that you didn’t quote: If the ACLU is allowed to sue a government employee, or former government employee, for what they do in their job, there is no limit in sight on how far it will go The deterioration of this countries ability to function on the most base levels will have been ripped asunder, not to mention the single most basic privilege of all will be come null and void!
That of the right to vote.
Bolded letter is emphasis mine. The Judge apparently agreed with my sentiment. Allowing the case to go forward would create a snowball of litigation. A slippery slope if you will. Our government is a system of checks and balance’s. Government officials are usually immune from such lawsuits, and foreigners held overseas are not usually afforded U.S. constitutional rights for just that reason.
So tell me again…how is changing the constitution supporting America’s rights?
And while we’re at it how is attempting to remove crosses from graveyards supporting America’s freedom? Especially when that graveyard is a graveyard for soldiers who fought and died in World War 1?
Or wait! Lets not stop there!
Lets talk about the two illegal aliens who broke in to a man’s apartment in Springdale Arkansas, began cooking themselves dinner in his home, and when he came home from work and found them there they *beat him to death with a barbell.*How does the ACLU fit in to this?
Because they helped defend said illegal aliens. Even though they were caught, redhanded by the neighbors, and on video, the ACLU defended them on the grounds of profiling?
Or perhaps you consider protesting funerals a patriotic right that should be upheld at all costs?
Or suing the Boy Scouts a national past time right up there with Baseball?
Or filing suit against schools because they have uniforms?
Or perhaps you didn’t know that even their former attorney’s are slamming them lately?
If those are things that you consider America “stands for”, then yes.
I do hate your version of America.
If you really want me to I’ll be happy to Fisk this as well. Starting with “Title V (Child Pornography Amendments) has no compelling justification”
-
a former european writes:
Of course I am opposed to torture. That having been said, the treatment of detainees at Gitmo is no comparison to what occurred in the Gulag or, prior to that, concentration camps like Auschwitz.
No it isn’t, but explain that to the people who HAVE been victims of this treatment, or the families of those who died from their abuse. How about the family of Manadel al-Jamadi, who apparently died, according to Wikipedia, “fruitless half-hour interrogation, during which he was suspended from a barred window by his wrists, which were bound behind his back. News reports introduced the term “Palestinian hanging,” a coinage attributed to the alleged frequent use of this technique by Israeli troops on Palestinian prisoners.”
Explain that to Maher Arar, a Canadian computer programmer who was on his way home from a trip, arrested and accused by the US and Canada of being al Qaeda, sent off to Syria where he was “held in solitary confinement in a Syrian prison where he was regularly tortured for almost a year, until his eventual release and return to Canada in October 2003.” Canada has since concluded that Arar was not a terrorist, and has apologized for their involvement.
The leftist penchant for hyperbole (i.e. Bush is Hitler, Reagan is Hitler, etc.) now applied to the word “torture” does violence to the English language.
So having electricified wires attached to your genitals, and told to stand on a small box, and then told you’ll get electrocuted if you fall of. How is that not torture?
Or how about prisoners being forced to commit sexual acts with each other while American and British soldiers watched and took photos. Is that not torture? I mean, holy ****, did that even happen at Auschwitz or at the Gulag?!?
I will cut to the chase here. Torture is un-American. Period! I don’t care if it’s even effective in some cases. America is a country that must be defined by a set of principles that are open to everyone to read and understand, and __trust__. I don’t care whether you are on the left or right, or whether you believe “9/11 changed everything” rhetoric - you can not pick and choose which principles you likes. If you try to subvert these principles, you are subverting America. They are absolute, either follow them all or **** them all. Bush is not Adolph by any stretch, but his administration is un-American by our own constitution. Torture, spying and wire-tapping of it’s own citizenry, throwing people in prison for years without any trial. These are Stalinist Russia values, not American.
Now then, what is a more American value than Civil Liberties?
-
but his administration is un-American by our own constitution. Torture, spying and wire-tapping of it’s own citizenry, throwing people in prison for years without any trial. These are Stalinist Russia values, not American.
Utter nonsense. This is typical left-wing America-bashing, based on wild exaggerations and BDS. Name some U.S. citizens that have been “tortured.”?
Wire-tapping, wow, that’s scary. It’s only been in used for decades as a law-enforcement tactic. Throwing people in prison for years without trial. Other than Padilla, how many U.S. citizens does this description apply to?Respect for civil liberties is indeed an American value. Demonizing the government and comparing it to Stalinist Russia - not exactly pro-American.
-
rabit,
“Manadel al-Jamadi”
According to the wikipedia article you cited, he was suspected in blowing up a Red Cross office and killing 12 people. My heart doesn’t bleed for him and family.
“Maher Arar”
A mistake. Mistakes happen.
“Or how about prisoners being forced to commit sexual acts with each other while American and British soldiers watched and took photos. Is that not torture?”
Depends on your definition of torture. Everyone’s is different. Reading left-wing rants is torture to me. At any rate, pretty much everyone agrees that abuses occured Abu Ghraib and condemns that type of treatment.
Believe it or not, abusive treatment and incidents do tend to happen in wars — even ones fought by Americans.“I will cut to the chase here. Torture is un-American. Period!”
Says who, you? People can’t even agree on what constitutes torture. I agree that the U.S. military shouldn’t be in the business of torturing suspects for information, and that certain interrogation techniques may have crossed the line. But there are certain extraordinary situations where torture (and I mean real torture, not borderline methods) might be called for. It’s an interrogation technique — a vicious dehumanizing one to be sure - but still a tool that may be applicable in some circumstances, such as in the case of the capture of a known Al Qaeda leader who is believed to possess information critical to U.S. security. It shouldn’t be ruled completely out in all circumstances.
” If you try to subvert these principles, you are subverting America. They are absolute,”
Since when do left-wingers believe in absolute principles? I guess only if you get to define those principles, otherwise it’s all relative, right?
-
Rabit, if I understood your post correctly, you stated America should not utilize torture, but then cited non-American govts who have allegedly tortured prisoners. I don’t see the connection.
Much of the Middle East is notorious for abusing prisoners. The Turks have long had a reputation for this. Saddam was well-know for his sadistic treatment of prisoners. The fact that Syria, Egypt, and Iran have done the same is hardly surprising. These practices are rarely, if ever, denounced, particularly by the Left. After all we are not supposed to make moral judgments, or hold to moral absolutes. All peoples and cultures are equal, and the belief in the superiority of certain aspects of Western Civilization, like human rights, is just a form of cultural imperialism at its worst, isn’t it? We are not allowed to criticize Muslim cultural practices because we are no better than the Crusaders from medieval times. That bastion of enlightened thought, the UN, has tacitly approved these types of abuses by appointing countries like Libya to oversee its Human Rights committees. Nevertheless, this is all somehow the fault of the US, like everything else.
I say let’s offer all the poor, suffering Gitmo detainees a choice: They can stay in Gitmo, or be transferred to a Turkish prison. Despite the fact that the first is run by infidel dogs while the latter is run by fellow Muslims, I don’t believe you would have too many takers. At least the jihadis have no illusions about the “tender mercies” they would receive in a Middle Eastern prison.
-
Rabit, if I understood your post correctly, you stated America should not utilize torture, but then cited non-American govts who have allegedly tortured prisoners. I don’t see the connection.
You don’t see the connection because you really don’t want to. You claim to have lived under a regime where the government has the right to arrest anyone for any reason or no reason, and put them in prison indefinitey without a trial. I’m asking a simple question. Is this good or bad? Do you trust any government enough that you would throw away ALL your rights for the ‘illusion’ of safety.
“Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” - Benjamin Franklin, a Founding Father of the United States
Obviously you don’t understand what America stands for. America is not the Soviet Union. The government is OWNED and ACCOUNTABLE to the citizens. The citizens AREN’T OWNED by the government. Got it? Good.
These practices are rarely, if ever, denounced, particularly by the Left.
Wow, this statement smacks totally in the face of reality. Are you saying that the left rarely denounces torture?!? I think even a wingnut might laugh at that statement. In my post to Bloodspite, the “leftist” ACLU is suing Donald Rumsfeld for approving torture. It’s the “left” who have ALWAYS been the loudest voice against torture.
America is a country government by the RULE OF LAW not EMOTIONS. Our laws are absolute and far stronger than any of our enemies. They may not be as expedient as we’d like sometimes when we are attacked by an enemy, but the MOMENT we start twisting these laws for some ‘temporary safety’ - the entire system begins to collapse. Giving in to emotion and fear is leading to this collapse, and that is what the terrorist’s want.
People like you and Bloodspite, and the rest of the right-wing wingnuttery who are defending the torture in Abu Ghraib fail to realize something that is blatantly obvious to me, and I think becoming obvious to the rest of the country. Abu Ghraib is a total violation of our own principles. It shows that we are not a nation that honors human rights universally, even to our enemies.
Let me summarize this for you. Abu Ghraib has HELPED terrorism, not hurt terrorism. People who advocate torture are doing Osama Bin Laden’s work for him. Every Muslim child who has seen those pictures has probably been deeply effected. Mix in a childhood of propoganda and what you got? A terrorist. What do you think are the root causes of terrorism? Evil forces? Satan? Barbara Streisand?
This is __EXACTLY__ what you are seeing right now. This is __EXACTLY__ what Osama Bin Laden was attacking, our principles. Not our freedom. America’s strength lies with sticking to our principles.
Granted, the Republican Party has always held a certain distain for the founding father’s principles, from the Nixon Administrations “enemies lists” and numerous illegal actions against it’s citizens, to Reagan’s covert terrorist programs. The current Republican administration has edged the US government far closer to Soviet-style rule than any administration in our history, and you can’t seem to see anything wrong with that.
Why?
-
According to the wikipedia article you cited, he was suspected in blowing up a Red Cross office and killing 12 people. My heart doesn’t bleed for him and family.
Does the word “suspect” mean anything to you? I think not. You have utter disdain for America’s principles. Next question?
A mistake. Mistakes happen.
Yeah, big ooops! An innocent man, tortured for nearly a year. And you’re just discounting that with “A mistake. Mistakes happen.” That’s repulsive and anti-American.
Depends on your definition of torture. Everyone’s is different.
Really now? What about in the mind of the person being tortured?
Believe it or not, abusive treatment and incidents do tend to happen in wars — even ones fought by Americans.
Oh yeah, so it’s okay when it happens over and over and over again, and you just accept it?
Says who, you? People can’t even agree on what constitutes torture.
You’d know torture if it happened to you.
But there are certain extraordinary situations where torture (and I mean real torture, not borderline methods) might be called for.
Really? I don’t think torture is appropriate for ANY means. The jury’s out about whether torture works, and I’ve read that it rarely results in anything but false information, but I don’t think it should be used EVER, regardless. Well, okay, there are some forms of coercion that might be appropriate for the worst people. Showing “700 Club” continuously in the prison cell would be fine with me. Stripping prisioners naked and stacking them on top of each other is just sick, perverted fantasy.
-
Since when do left-wingers believe in absolute principles? I guess only if you get to define those principles, otherwise it’s all relative, right?
Pardon me if I rant a bit.
My principles are absolute. The ACLU’s principles are absolute. As far as I can tell, the left has always had extremely solid principles.
You torture supporters are the ones with no principles at all. The right’s principles seem to change all the time. Oh, you talk about having principles, what are they? Talk is cheap, actions are gold.
Under a democrat administration, you people were all talking about the evils of the federal government, eavesdropping, needing to be armed to protect your civil liberties. It was all about Waco, Ruby Ridge, Echelon, V-Chip, blahblahblah. Now, you people have changed your tune entirely, defending wiretapping and spying of it’s citizens because it’s a Republican. All those accusations you leveled at Clinton, that are now happening under Bush, you are now defending.
When Clinton tried to kill Osama, republicans accused him of trying to take attention away from the fact that he got a ********. It was republicans who rallyed against Clinton in trying to take military action to go and kill Osama after the Cole incident.
And now, you talk about using any means necessary, including torture, to go after terrorists?!?!?! And you even support a president who has broken his promise to capture Osama? Who’s policy has led to far more destruction of America than 9/11.
Your side has no principles at all. You don’t even know what principles are!
Torture is wrong and un-American. Anyone who disagrees with me can go **** themselves. Got it?
-
Utter nonsense. This is typical left-wing America-bashing, based on wild exaggerations and BDS. Name some U.S. citizens that have been “tortured.”?
-
For all your screeding Rabit you have not offered a single iota of proof countering what I presented you regarding the ACLU.
If the ideals I presented are what you consider “absolute” then yes, I do hate America, I hate the ACLU and I hate your “absolute”’s
Sorry man.
-
José Padilla (born October 18, 1970), also known as Abdullah al-Muhajir or Muhajir Abdullah, is an United States citizen of white-Hispanic origin, a one-time juvenile delinquent with a hip-hop attitude and a record of street crim accused of being a terrorist by the United States government. He was arrested in Chicago on May 8, 2002, and was detained as a material witness until June 9, 2002, when President Bush designated him an illegal enemy combatant and transferred him to a military prison, arguing that he was thereby not entitled to the protection of United States law. On January 3, 2006, he was transferred to a Miami, Florida jail to face criminal conspiracy charges.
Returning to the Rumsfield lawsuit and using this as an example, if we afford everyone in the world, terrorists and foreign criminals included the rights of US law to people who are not citizens or openly acting against our government then we should jail them
Then shoot them. /sarcasm
Prosecutors subkitted an over 30 page document asserted was trying to infiltrate the United States covertly for the al Qaeda terrorist network for the purpose of setting of a “dirty bomb”, which remains a “serious threat” to the United States. As such, he qualifies as an enemy combatant who is being held consistent with the laws of war.
“The authority of the United States to seize and detain enemy combatants is well settled — and vital to our core military objectives,” the document said. Unlawful combatants, it said, are “those who, during time of war, pass surreptitiously from enemy territory into our own for the commission of hostile acts involving destruction of life or property,” according to case law.
On September 9, 2005, a three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that President Bush does indeed have the authority to detain Padilla without charges, in an opinion written by judge J. Michael Luttig. In the ruling, Luttig cited the joint resolution by Congress authorizing military action following the September 11, 2001 attacks, as well as the June 2004 ruling concerning Yaser Hamdi.
So the case you are alluding to…is legal.
Next example of someone actually being tortured? Because in not single court document
-
BloodSpite wrote:
Thats directly from the Judges remarks in the case’s dismissal.
Wow, this same Judge Hogan? What a dipshit. Dismissing a case based on _prejudice_ that it “might subject government officials to all sorts of political lawsuits” is the same as saying that wife beaters can’t be sued because it might flood the courts with battered wives.
Even Osama bin Laden could sue, Hogan said, claiming two American presidents threatened to have him murdered…..
Oh my, that is hilarious. Judge Hogan is stupid. Let Osama sue, then maybe we can capture and kill him.
I will respond to your assertions that the ACLU is stealing headstones from cemetaries, holding Phelps-style protests at funerals of dead soldiers, promoting gay sex in Boy Scouts, and all those other links from right-wing news media outlets like WorldNetDaily and NewsMax.
Because, as you know, they are concerned with truth. Things like Valerie Plame NOT being a covert agent and it was Russia that moved all of Saddam’s extensive WMD arsenal.
I mean, it’s gotta be true, ’cause they said it, and stuff.
-
Bloodspite wrote:
He was arrested in Chicago on May 8, 2002, and was detained as a material witness until June 9, 2002, when President Bush designated him an illegal enemy combatant and transferred him to a military prison, arguing that he was thereby not entitled to the protection of United States law. On January 3, 2006, he was transferred to a Miami, Florida jail to face criminal conspiracy charges.
The keyword here is “President Bush designated him an illegal enemy combatant and transferred him to a military prison.”
Replace “President Bush” with “Josef Stalin” and reread that to yourself.
I will deal with this in more detail later today when I have time.
-
“The authority of the United States to seize and detain enemy combatants is well settled — and vital to our core military objectives,” the document said. Unlawful combatants, it said, are “those who, during time of war, pass surreptitiously from enemy territory into our own for the commission of hostile acts involving destruction of life or property,” according to case law.
Bold is emphasis mine.
Would now be a good time to point out he was arrested in Chicago O’Hare airport whilst returning from the Middle East?
Sure seems to fit that definition listed above to me.
Since we’re doing substitution lets do one more.
Your boy Jose climbs in to a 747 at O’Hare bound for Cincinnati.
But he deviates the flight plan, maintains radio silence and slams it in to The Sears Tower.
Is he any less a terrorist now than he was an hour before hand while standing in the airport?
-
Rabit, you accuse me of close-mindedness, but still failed to address my argument re torture. You continue to blame the USA for acts of torture committed by other sovereign states, but fail to draw any causal link re why America should be accountable for what Syria, Egypt, Israel, or some other nation does to their prisoners.
Instead, you went on a tirade about how America is a land of laws. How exactly do you propose we impose our laws on Syria? Should we invade and impose our legal system on them by force? I though Lefties were opposed to this type of thing, if Iraq provides any guidance. Wouldn’t big crowds of people like you be in the streets chanting “No blood for laws!”?
You did not address my argument that the UN tacitly approves of torture and other human rights abuses by appointing some of the worst such abusers to the relevant oversight committees. Isn’t the UN the sum of all things good in liberal foreign policy?
When I stated that the Left is conspicuously silent in denouncing torture in Muslim countries, just as the Left was extremely reluctant to criticize its Soviet fellow-travellers for the Gulag, you respond by pointing out the leftist lawsuit against Rumsfeld. How is the lawsuit against Rumsfeld in any way connected to the use of torture in Iran, Syria, Egypt, or Turkey?
Of course, the Left is willing to sue US officials (unless a Democrat administration is in charge), because the US is the source of all evil in the world when under a Republican administration. The Left has no hesitancy in constantly blaming the US for all manner of purported wrongdoing while giving everyone else a free pass for similar conduct. You responded by, naturally, attacking the US and giving everyone else a free pass.
As to Abu Ghraib, that was not torture. It was clearly wrong, and the perpetrators were tried and punished for their misconduct. This is what a system of laws is intended to do. Compare and contrast this against the jihadis who specifically target civilians, use children to shield their atrocities, behead persons for the crime of being jewish, and are now using chlorine gas to attack civilians. No, let me guess, the US is responsible for that too somehow.
-
Rabit, you accuse me of close-mindedness, but still failed to address my argument re torture. You continue to blame the USA for acts of torture committed by other sovereign states, but fail to draw any causal link re why America should be accountable for what Syria, Egypt, Israel, or some other nation does to their prisoners.
I’m talking about Abu Ghraib. Seems like you’re trying to change the subject to avoid the obvious inconsistency in your logic. Let me rephrase this in the most crystal-clear terms I can.
Do you believe that the state should have a legal option to employ torture methods or should torture be illegal under ALL conditions?
Instead, you went on a tirade about how America is a land of laws. How exactly do you propose we impose our laws on Syria?
I’m afraid we can’t do much about Syria, but we can do something the system that the US sent an innocent man to Syria to be tortured for a year.
You did not address my argument that the UN tacitly approves of torture and other human rights abuses by appointing some of the worst such abusers to the relevant oversight committees. Isn’t the UN the sum of all things good in liberal foreign policy?
Yes, there are representatives from countries that are known sponsors of terror who are represented at the UN. Since you obviously don’t understand that kicking these people out of the UN, removing them from dialogue, is basically self-defeating to the whole purpose of the UN - and you gotta admit, if the UN were to boot out all countries who have a record of human rights violations, there’d be nobody left!
Again, let me explain this in crystal clear terms. The UN is the communication, the lubricant if you will, that eases the tensions that otherwise leads to war.
It’s like a neighbor you’ve always detested or a family member who hates your guts and you haven’t seen in 20 years. You don’t communicate, these problems never resolve and can get worse.
And that is why pro-war jerk-offs hate the UN so much. The UN works to prevent war.
-
When I stated that the Left is conspicuously silent in denouncing torture in Muslim countries, just as the Left was extremely reluctant to criticize its Soviet fellow-travellers for the Gulag
Where is your evidence that the left has been silent about Muslim or Soviet human rights abuses? Please site me where you are getting your statistics because I’m telling you right now you have none.
Of course, the Left is willing to sue US officials (unless a Democrat administration is in charge), because the US is the source of all evil in the world when under a Republican administration.
You’re so backwards and politicized in your thought, you are incapable of understanding what I’m about to say, but I’ll say it anyway.
It’s because no democratic administration (or preceeding republican) has EVER attempted to make a legal justification for torture. This is unprecedented and anyone who is a real patriot (not a fake one, like most on your right-wing friends) should outraged that the Bush Administration is attempting to turn the United States of America into a criminal regime no better than your Soviet Union. The US has always fought against such oppressive criminal regimes.
-
bloodspite:
Your boy Jose climbs in to a 747 at O’Hare bound for Cincinnati.
But he deviates the flight plan, maintains radio silence and slams it in to The Sears Tower.
Wow! You’re saying a dumb former-gang member is going to single-handedly take charge of a 747 away from pilots and a cabin full of passengers, and fly it into another building?
But wait, wasn’t he accused with planning to set off a dirty bomb in the middle of Los Angeles?
What exactly _IS_ the case against Jose Padilla?
Here’s your problem and the rest of the right wing destroying America. Fear of terrorists has displaced your faith in the American legal system. You feel they aren’t tough enough that terrorists will be able to circumvent them like they aren’t even there, and kill us all. It’s probably those same incidents that give me outrage that give you comfort.
The truth is, America is only as strong as it adheres to the same rules that has made it into a global superpower in it’s relatively short life. In reacting to the fear of terrorism, by legalizing torture, eliminating habeus corpus, to changing our rights as private citizens, as a response to ONE SINGLE terrorist act, we are all acting as a bunch of cowards. Well, the right are acting as a bunch of cowards. Big ******* cowards.
But then that shouldn’t be any surprise, seeing how many on the right cheerlead this war. Much better than their killing Americans there than on our own soil, isn’t it?
-
a former european incomprehensibly writes:
As to Abu Ghraib, that was not torture.
Abu Ghraib was not torture? Did I read that right? I’m sorry, but I must stop here and relate this little story.
Four days before, on the eve of the Muslim holiday of Id al-Fitr, Dilawar set out from his tiny village of Yakubi in a prized new possession, a used Toyota sedan that his family bought for him a few weeks earlier to drive as a taxi.
After picking up three passengers, he passed a base used by American troops, Camp Salerno, which had been the target of a rocket attack that morning. Militiamen loyal to the guerrilla commander guarding the base, Jan Baz Khan, stopped the Toyota at a checkpoint.
Dilawar and his passengers were detained and turned over to American soldiers at the base as suspects in the attack. The three passengers were eventually flown to Guantánamo.
Dilawar was sent to Bagram and soon labeled “noncompliant.” One of the guards, Specialist Corey Jones, said the prisoner spat in his face and started kicking him. Jones responded, he said, with a couple of knee strikes to the leg of the shackled man.
“He screamed out, ‘Allah! Allah! Allah!’ and my first reaction was that he was crying out to his god,” Jones said to investigators. “Everybody heard him cry out and thought it was funny.”
“It became a kind of running joke, and people kept showing up to give this detainee a common peroneal strike just to hear him scream out ‘Allah,”‘ he said. “It went on over a 24-hour period, and I would think that it was over 100 strikes.”
By the time Dilawar was brought in for his final interrogation in the first hours of Dec. 10, he appeared exhausted and was babbling that his wife had died. He also told the interrogators that he had been beaten by the guards.
When Dilawar was unable to kneel, said the interpreter, Ali Baryalai, the interrogators pulled him to his feet and pushed him against the wall.
“It looked to me like Dilawar was trying to cooperate, but he couldn’t physically perform the tasks,” Baryalai said.
Soon afterward he was dead.
The findings of Dilawar’s autopsy were succinct. He had had some coronary artery disease, the medical examiner reported, but what killed him was the same sort of “blunt force trauma to the lower extremities” that had led to Habibullah’s death.
One of the coroners later translated the assessment at a pre-trial hearing for Brand, saying the tissue in the young man’s legs “had basically been pulpified.”
“I’ve seen similar injuries in an individual run over by a bus,” the coroner, Lieutenant Colonel Elizabeth Rouse, added.
So, you were saying something about this not being torture?
It was clearly wrong, and the perpetrators were tried and punished for their misconduct. This is what a system of laws is intended to do.
The only purpetrators who were punished were military. The private companies who supplied the interrogators continued receiving millions in contracts, the interrogators were fire and were not charged with any crimes.
Compare and contrast this against the jihadis who specifically target civilians, use children to shield their atrocities, behead persons for the crime of being jewish, and are now using chlorine gas to attack civilians. No, let me guess, the US is responsible for that too somehow.
Obviously, this man wasn’t responsible for any beheadings or using children as human shields, or chlorine attacks? But since he’s muslim, it’s not of YOUR concern. You probably believe all of them are potential terrorists.
But how do you think YOU come across to muslims who were equally outraged by the beheadings of Daniel Pearl, Nicholas Berg, Ken Bigley, and Margaret Hassan as you were, yet see your indifference to the death of the man Dilawar.
But I understand it is a necessary protection for you people on the right to treat all muslims with the same islamofascist contempt so that you can avoid feeling any guilt when those horrific images of Baghdad, of small children being obliterated, and death tolls of *INNOCENT* civilians possibly reaching the hundreds of thousands. I don’t envy you people at all.
-
Rabit,
Your argument would make sense, in regards to the ACLU….if I had not linked an official ACLU as one of my points. Unless now your saying the ACLU is a right wing news outlet?Or the American Legion is a Right Wing News Outlet?
You never did answer the hypothetical question regarding Jose, I quoted you the charges directly from prosecution papers above. Furthermore you won’t address the hypothetical because you can’t. It doesn’t make him any less of a terrorist, because Intent is a lesser charge but a charge thus the same.
Him taking control of a plane is not unbelievable. It happened not that long ago if you recall.
You call Judge Hogan a dipshit, but you offer nothing that would legally counter his dissertations
The President of the United States was briefly granted the power to line item veto, by the Line Item Veto Act of 1996, passed by Congress in order to control “pork barrel spending” that favors a particular region rather than the nation as a whole. The line-item veto was used 11 times to strike 82 items from the federal budget by President Bill Clinton. However, U.S. District Court Judge Thomas F. Hogan decided on February 12, 1998 that unilateral amendment or repeal of only parts of statutes violated the U.S. Constitution. This ruling was subsequently affirmed on June 25, 1998 by a 6-3 decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case Clinton v. City of New York.
You say we are a nation of laws, yet you belittle and attack a long standing Judge who made a legal decision and who is known as a constitutional Judge.
You can’t have it both ways Rabit.
-
And while we�re at it how is attempting to remove crosses from graveyards supporting America�s freedom? Especially when that graveyard is a graveyard for soldiers who fought and died in World War 1?
Okay, your first link:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43799
Where does it state ANYWHERE that this is a graveyard? Or here?
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/rightsandfreedoms/a/mojavecross.htm
Now, your second link -
says nothing about crosses or graveyards, so I’m not sure what you’re talking about here.
As I understand it, this cross was placed there when the land was privately owned, as someone’s private tribute to WW1’s fallen heroes. It doesn’t appear to be a graveyard of any sort. I’m not sure where you get your facts, but I would love to know.
Or wait! Lets not stop there!
Indeed.
Lets talk about the two illegal aliens who broke in to a man�s apartment in Springdale Arkansas, began cooking themselves dinner in his home, and when he came home from work and found them there they *beat him to death with a barbell.*
How does the ACLU fit in to this?
Because they helped defend said illegal aliens. Even though they were caught, redhanded by the neighbors, and on video, the ACLU defended them on the grounds of profiling?
What about it? All I get when I TEH GOOGLE for “Fernando Navarro” + ACLU is your blog, and one other blog from a former ACLU board member who mentions the case briefly.
So, I return the question back to you. How does the ACLU fit in to this? Where is your evidence that they are defending these criminal illegals? Where is it!?
-
Or perhaps you consider protesting funerals a patriotic right that should be upheld at all costs?
The right to stand and protest on any public land is a patriotic right. Just because there is a funeral nearby doesn’t change that law. Sorry. Personally, if Phelps and his Westboro gang were protesting at the funeral of someone in my family, I would have a seriously difficult time beating the living **** out of them.
But there is a reason why you cannot give into emotion by changing laws. Laws are dispassionate for a reason. Changing laws because of terrorists like Al Qaeda or Fred Phelps is the same as allowing them to dictate the laws. See what I’m getting at? Didja read that Benjamin Franklin quote I posted earlier?
-
Or suing the Boy Scouts a national past time right up there with Baseball?
I’ll tell ya a little story. I was in Boy Scouts and one of our scoutleaders was a very religious man and sermonizing was not uncommon. On campouts, we were required to say prayers before each meal and so on. I didn’t think too much about it since I was brought up Catholic and was used to it, but I know for a fact that if I were non-Catholic, I would have been made very uncomfortable.
And as an aside point, I disliked him because he once confiscated my entire collection of Mad Magazines because one made fun of Jimmy Swaggart, and that his two sons seemed to earn badges without anyone seeing them do the activities.
Or filing suit against schools because they have uniforms?
Okay, you’ve got me. That is absolutely indefensible.
Or perhaps you didn’t know that even their former attorney’s are slamming them lately?
*yawn* You should rephrase that “one former ACLU attorney has come out in opposition to an ACLU-backed law.”
Got fact?
-
You still have not refuted the Child Pornography Link, which is straight from the ACLU web page. Heh. Thats good. I’d hate to think you support them in supporting that.
The American Legion link I provided you regarding the Mojave cross is in regards to it being a War World 1. Please scroll down and you will see it is written in Paragraph 3
H.R. 2679, and its companion bill in the U.S. Senate, S.3696, would eliminate the authority of judges to award attorney fees in litigation against religious symbols at veterans’ memorials
Memorials, and Graveyards, such as this one in Florida or this one at a famous West Coast Memorial/Graveyard Mt Soledad Try Their own website which directly relates to the American legion link I quoted and provided you previously.
For more links regarding the Springdale murder, feel free to check the links via my Website. They are all to local news agencies in the area.
Perhaps you want your kids to find pr0n via their public Library/ Your ACLU does by removing Internet Filters from public libraries.
NCRL has configured its SmartFilter software to block Web sites in the following categories, or in categories equivalent to the following categories: Alcohol, Anonymizers, Chat, Criminal Skills, Dating/Social, Drugs, Extreme, Gambling, Game/Cartoon Violence, Gruesome Content, Hacking, Hate Speech, Malicious Sites, Nudity, P2P/File Sharing, Personal Pages, Phishing, Pornography, Profanity, School Cheating Information, Sexual Materials, Spyware, Tobacco, Violence, Visual Search Engine and Weapons.
On the protesting funerals…graveyards are not “public land”. They are private property.
If I went with your definition that because they stand on a sidewalk and protest a funeral across the street, then technically Lee Harvey Oswald could only be tried for Criminal Trespass.
Because while what he did affected those folks in the car…he wasn’t on the same Property boundary.
Makes perfect sense. Not.
Further regarding Freddy and his band of Merry Idiots something to consider.
The ACLU does not take every case that has free-speech implications, let alone Constitutional issues. Fred Phelps could get a lawyer on his own; the ACLU and its donors have no obligation to assist him in mocking the loss of family members at funerals. The ACLU has put itself on par with these soulless freaks, and their donors should take note that their money now supports the Phelps traveling hate show.
More Fact regarding the “1 attorney”
Try more like 30
More than 30 longtime supporters of the American Civil Liberties Union are calling for the ouster of the organization�s leadership, saying it has failed to adhere to the principles it demands of others and thus jeopardized the organization�s effectiveness.
The new group is made up of donors, former board and staff members, and the lawyer who won what was perhaps the A.C.L.U.�s most famous legal battle, its defense of the right of Nazis to march through a predominantly Jewish suburb of Chicago.
ACLU sponsors Free Speech? For who?
Apparently not their own board members
Where an individual director disagrees with a board position on matters of civil liberties policy, the director should refrain from publicly highlighting the fact of such disagreement,” the committee that compiled the standards wrote in its proposals.
“Directors should remember that there is always a material prospect that public airing of the disagreement will affect the A.C.L.U. adversely in terms of public support and fund-raising,” the proposals state.
Given the organization’s longtime commitment to defending free speech, some former board members were shocked by the proposals.
Oh and that would be the New York Times I’m quoting, as linked above. Hardly a “right wing rag”.
Oh wait!! Lets not forget them being against 2 Strikes and Your out Child Sex Offenders….
Oh hey! And what about Bernadine Dohrn?
Name doesn’t sound familiar? Not old enough to remember?
How about the name of the group she was part of? The Weathermen. thirty six years ago three of their members killed themselves in attempt to blow up a dance at Fort Dix. The Weathermen’s hatred of the United States manifested itself in the bombings of the U.S. Capitol building, New York City Police Headquarters, the Pentagon, and the National Guard offices in Washington, D.C.
Whats that got to do with Dohrn and the ACLU?
Easy heh.
The unrepentant Dohrn is currently a law professor at Northwestern University. She also serves on the Board of the American Civil Liberties Union and committees of the American Bar Association. Her husband, and co-leader of the Weathermen Bill Ayers, is now Professor of Education at the University of Illinois.Dohrn, Ayers and other members of the Weather Underground are currently under investigation in connection with a police officer killed by a bomb in 1970.
Shall I go on or do you really want more fact straight from the horse’s mouth?
-
You still have not refuted the Child Pornography Link, which is straight from the ACLU web page. Heh. Thats good. I’d hate to think you support them in supporting that.
Debating in political blogs is a hobby, not a full-time job.
So what do we have here? Oh, the ACLU is defending child molesters? Not quite. Let’s look at what they’re saying here.
* Expanding the Death Penalty
Well, they’re against the death penalty under all circumstances. Big deal. ACLU opposes death penalties because the criminal system is not perfect. Innocent people are accused of crimes all the time, many end up in death row.
The ACLU position is that it’s better to create a system that allows a guilty man to go free than to allow an innocent man to be executed. You may not like it but your view would change in a flash if you ended up as one of these wrongly accused.
* Increasing Mandatory Sentences
They says “ACLU opposes mandatory sentencing because it eliminates judicial discretion and can lead to unfair punishments” - Nope, not supporting child molesters here.
* Criminalizing Traveling With a Criminal Intent
Yep, traveling “with the intent” to commit a crime, when no crime has been committed yet. Very ambiguous.
* Two Strikes and You’re Out
“removal of judicial discretion” again
* Expanded Wiretap Authority
They’re stating here that they are not opposed to the government using wiretapping when they follow the current procedures, they are just opposed to giving them the right to wiretap because a neighbor said you looked at their kid funny.
* Eliminating the Statute of Limitations
I don’t agree with this. Once a pedophile, always a pedophile, always a potential child abductor.
* Eliminating Pre-Trial Release
Again, “removing judicial discretion.” If the judge wants to keep someone locked up, set an outrageously high bail.
* The Misleading Domain Names Section
This is just stupid. But then, Orrin Hatch (and most republican in general) are pretty dumb whenever they attempt to regulate anything on the internet. You’re apparently a computer geek of some sort. What does this mean to you?
“The result is that in order to avoid liability for a misleading domain name for a domain containing sexually explicit material, the domain owner will be forced to incorporate either “porn” or “sex” in the domain name.”
Yep, any website that hosts “pornographic” material will need to get a new hostname. And just what consitutes “pornographic” material. The level of stupid simply astounds.
* Guidelines Departures, essentially creates a system of mandatory minimum sentences
Again, judicial discretion removed. *yawn*
* Title V (Child Pornography Amendments) has no compelling justification and re-institutes the errors condemned by the Supreme Court
They talk about ‘virtual child porn’ - which is a bit ambiguous. Japanese manga depicts a lot of sexualized or at least very erotic imagery of apparently very young girls in silly schoolgirl outfits. This stuff is available in fairly mainstream bookstores in the US, and I wouldn’t be surprised if Cartoon Network started showing some of it.
So, what are you gonna do? Contact the artists and ask them the age of their cartoon characters that they are depicting?
Of course, there’s the problem of proving intent, which makes me /think of this cartoon from the thoroughly twisted Perry Bible Fellowship.
Well, I’m bored. If that’s your way of saying ACLU supports child molesters, you’ve thoroughly disproven your case.
-
Perhaps you want your kids to find pr0n via their public Library/ Your ACLU does by removing Internet Filters from public libraries.
Internet filters are just stupid and unreliable. I spent about 6 years as a volunteer setting up libraries with internet and teaching librarians and patrons how to use it. I don’t think kids younger than 12 should be allowed on the internet at all. After that, I doubt they’ll be warped for life for anything they see on the net. But that’s my personal opinion.
In all those years of volunteering, there was only ONE case of someone who used library terminals to look at pornographic material, and he was a so-called anti-pedophile advocate who’d written a book about the Stayner abduction case. Total nutcase.
-
Oh hey! And what about Bernadine Dohrn?
Name doesn�t sound familiar? Not old enough to remember?
How about not old enough to give a care?
You know, are you trying to convince me that ACLU is an evil organization, or an organization with a lot of members who have differences of opinion.
Of course, that’s not a problem for your organizations on the right, like the Heritage Foundation. The first moment one of their members have an original thought, suddenly they’re a liberal.
Kinda like when Jim Zumbo said that he was against using “terrorist rifles” like an AK-47 for hunting, he caused a huge boycott, was fired from Outdoor Life magazine and his TV program was cancelled. You’re side hates calm, rational debate within it’s own ranks. Groupthink is seen by your side as a strength but it’s a weakness. Look at what it has done for the Bush administration.
-
How about not old enough to give a care?
And with that single statement you have proven to me that it’s you who does not care for America or it’s ideals based not only on the remark twisting defense you have given without any real substance what so ever (I guess you want Child Molesters released after the second offense. Or the Third..or the fourth…or maybe you just don’t have kids. I have 2) Not caring about the death of a police officer, not caring about the basic fundamentals of the right to live in peace
So, what are you gonna do? Contact the artists and ask them the age of their cartoon characters that they are depicting?
How about make it illegal to own and posses…kind of like Cocaine. What are you going to do…ask the folks in Columbia to stop making the stuff?
Yup. I’d say you and the ACLU make a great match.
Those who do not read history are doomed to repeat it
Sorry for breaking the rule Commissar.
I’m forced to take my wrist slapping or what ever action you feel necessary as an adult for this one.
-
And with that single statement you have proven to me that it’s you who does not care for America or it’s ideals based not only on the remark twisting defense you have given without any real substance what so ever
hahaha! All because I said I couldn’t give a **** about Bernadine Dohrn and her pack of crazy commie Weathermen. I seriously don’t see how their crazy stupid naive antics have any relevance to politics today.
How about make it illegal to own and posses…kind of like Cocaine. What are you going to do…ask the folks in Columbia to stop making the stuff?
Okay, let’s just say this law goes into effect. How will you enforce it? Ban Japanese manga from import to the US entirely, across the board? Or leave it up to a censor board that reviews every bit of cartoon art to determine the age-appropriateness of the characters to how they are depicted?
And why not ban South Park, because it depicts underage children in adult situations?
You know you are trying to claim the ACLU supports pedophiles but you haven’t dug up a single link that backs up your statement. You are trying to implicate the ACLU on the most flimsiest of circumstantial evidence, which is dangerous and un-American.
Those who do not read history are doomed to repeat it
Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Well then, here’s a little history for you. A certain fellow from your political side of the aisle named Joseph McCarthy, a true hater of American civil liberties, who’s paranoia posed a danger far beyond any real danger that communists within the US government posed.
Joseph McCarthy was a true anti-American. A true HATER of what America stands for, of civil liberties, and of your freedom to have individual thought. It didn’t matter if you were a communist, had a friend who was a communist, may have once met a communist, or happened to be photographed accidentally walking by a communist, you were, by implication, a communist.
This is EVIL! This is Joe McCarthy, in his own words. The whole 30 minute hearing of William Mandel. Listen to the whole thing. This is YOUR politics, taken to the nth degree. Guilt by implication.
A 10 minute documentary on McCarthy tells you all you need to know.
That is why the ACLU exists. To defend your freedom, whether it’s under attack from the left or the right.
-
You know you are trying to claim the ACLU supports pedophiles but you haven’t dug up a single link that backs up your statement. You are trying to implicate the ACLU on the most flimsiest of circumstantial evidence, which is dangerous and un-American.
On the contrary you proved it for me.
* Two Strikes and You’re Out
“removal of judicial discretion” again
In other words, the ACLU is willing to sacrifice the lives and innocence of children nation wide, for the cause of juris prudence.
How noble. /sarcasm.
As I pointed out early the ACLU chooses what cases to involve themselves with. By choosing to involve themselves and hinder the American legal system they are in fact supporting pedophiles and CHild Pornography.
Show me a link that counters that. Until then their actions regarding both of those subjects sealed their fate in mind and there will never be anything you will *ever* say, or link to convince me otherwise.
The ACLU is not defending my freedom (I noticed again you chose to stop arguing the whole cross information after I showed you the links and information) they are attacking it and the freedom of my kids.
Also regarding the Weathermen…I would hardly call blowing a Police Officer to bits with High Explosives, or attempting to blow up a military installation a “difference of opinion”.
Most folks label that terrorism. Or Murder.
So what your saying is “when the ACLU members kill a Police Officer it’s in the interests of freedom and is American. When US soldiers kill terrorists it’s a crime and Bush should be impeached”
I’m sorry rabit. I’ve lost several respect points for you in this debate.
-
McCarthy is dead. And never killed anyone
Dohrn is a alive. And was convicted of one murder and suspected of at least 12 more.
And your sole defense for the ACLU on no less than 3 occasions has been Joseph McCarthy?
Now *THATS* Paranoia.
-
I certainly hope you guys are going to get into the case of Sacco and Vanzetti!
-
Surely your not saying I’m playing Thayer to Rabit’s Moore?
-
Nah, not at all.
How about a complete “old radicals” thread? The Wobblies! Joe Hill! Patty Hearst!
And my all-time favorite, the wholly nefarious sounding “Baader-Meinhof Gang!” It doesn’t get any more evil than a “gang” of German commies.
-
Oooh! I’m with ya now….
Det Radikale Venstre!
Hungary’s Arrow Cross Party!
Romania’s Iron Guard!
Adelaide Institute!
Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion!
Blut Und Ehre!Gabriele D’Annunzio, Curzio Malaparte, Filippo Tommaso Marinetti, Carl Schmitt and Martin Heidegger!
Shesh now you have me drifting back to my old domestic terrorism briefing days!
I feel young again!
-
Gabriele D’Annunzio!!!!
What a coincidence. Just this morning I have been reading about him.
Can anyone translate Italian? I want to translate the text of his pamphlet that he dropped on Vienna for this page.
-
And my all-time favorite, the wholly nefarious sounding “Baader-Meinhof Gang!” It doesn’t get any more evil than a “gang” of German commies.
It gets worse when you combine it with the Red Army Faction. Then you’re talking about people who can’t even get along with the rest of the evil Red Army.
-
In other words, the ACLU is willing to sacrifice the lives and innocence of children nation wide, for the cause of juris prudence.
Hey, I’d love to see legislation that puts first-time pedophiles to death. Talk about saving lives? I’d love to see first-time drunk driving offenders have their driving license taken away PERMANENTLY (including their ability to run for president or vice-president, see DUI-felons G. W. Bush and D. Cheney). I’d really love it if it were my right as self-defense to punch ANY smoker in the face for situating themselves where I simply cannot avoid breathing in their bilious, disgusting, cancerous fumes.
Of course, unlike you, I accept that reality is complex and imperfect. Such legislation would most likely deprive someone else of their basic rights. Children can make up stories of abuse to get back at teachers they hate. Breathalyzers are mechanical devices, therefore can malfunction or be manipulated to give the false readings. And while the pain a smoker feels as your fist hits their face is barely significant to the months of pain of terminal lung cancer, with only death to look forward to, such a knee-jerk reaction to my dislike of cigarette smoke would most certainly step on the rights of smokers. As much as it SHOULD be my right to breath air that will not potentially kill me, I accept that smokers have rights as well, and that they should be allowed to smoke where I can avoid them. Simply being a smoker means that they carry a stench about them and on everything they own. Everyone has rights as citizens and any law needs to be evaluated for it’s fairness on both sides.
As I pointed out early the ACLU chooses what cases to involve themselves with. By choosing to involve themselves and hinder the American legal system they are in fact supporting pedophiles and CHild Pornography.
No, ACLU deals with many cases. Go to the ACLU website and look at their ‘Issues’ pop-up menu, click on any of the 20 or so wide-ranging categories and read about all the cases they deal with. Not just the ones your right-wing propoganda masters tell you about. Some of them deal with issues you probably would be supportive of, for instance;
http://www.aclu.org/privacy/spying/15701res20050308.html
Show me a link that counters that. Until then their actions regarding both of those subjects sealed their fate in mind and there will never be anything you will *ever* say, or link to convince me otherwise.
Just did. Just friggan go to the ACLU page and read their own mission statement, or the wide number of cases they’ve been involved in, including cases that are important to right-wingers.
So what your saying is �when the ACLU members kill a Police Officer it�s in the interests of freedom and is American. When US soldiers kill terrorists it�s a crime and Bush should be impeached�
Who said “when the ACLU members kill a Police Officer it�s in the interests of freedom and is American?” Your the first one who’s said that in this entire thread. You think I’m going to defend a pack of crazy nutball terrorists, just because one of their former members joined the ACLU decades later? Why do I have to defend them any more than you have to defend Timothy McVeigh? They were crazy, the killed people, but their politics is irrelevant today.
I�m sorry rabit. I�ve lost several respect points for you in this debate.
No, no need to apologize.
Move over, Gary Brolsma
Always look on the bright side
Barnett Unplugged
My Cubicle
“Hey, over here!”