ACLU
ACLU, one of many groups whose survival depends on convincing folks they're needed, "released" abuse information : ACLU: Military knew of Iraq abuse claims. No kidding, the brass knew. Basically the same "story" they were circulating 2 years ago.
Will Lt. General Sanchez's head roll, or is it simply PR for ACLU - illuminating and adding a few lines to last year's news, to remind us they are liberty watchdogs, arf arf. Protecting our civil liberties for the past 80 years.
What has the ACLU done for me lately, or remotely? Hmmm. They're always suing, filing, releasing. And I'm always curious how NGOs, fighting for me, are doing their job.
For all the recent ACLU poking around in "voter irregularities" I'm still sure hold-ur-nose voting in the one-party system is rigged whether I make it to the polls or not.
Upon Rush Limbaugh's arrest the ACLU immediately filed an "amicus brief." I tried not to be overly concerned about Limbaugh and had ACLU not befriended him I was pretty sure Rush would keep his liberty. I had bets on Rush getting a great pee bargain and not sharing a bunk with Tyrone Black and Bubba Poor. But an ACLU victory for the pillhead's medical privacy would be a victory for us all. I bet Rush wished his info about anal cysts had remained private too, making him the butt of fewer jokes.
Lately the ACLU has "spearheaded" and prevented various States from passing laws such as abortion for minors needing parental consent and stopped some abstinence programs from using federal funds. But, still I haven't rushed to tell my 13 y/o granddaughter that federally funded fudduddies won't be telling her to keep her panties on or that abortion is available without mom and dad knowing about it. American kids may not know what a map is but by golly their thongs and boxers are free of nanny government. Must be frustrating though when a kid can't legally buy cigarettes along with those Cheetos and condoms.
ACLU also hasn't done much about our liberty to protest pols outside a designated area. We do get to keep our right to say anything – as long as we say it inside the cage. The "zones" were instituted by Clinton but under Clinton they were "free speech zones," mainly for a handful of freepers; under BushCo they are "protest zones" or caged gulags. Of course, the "right" never protested Clinton the way the "left" says it's going to protest Bush.
Today the ACLU defends Rev. Phelps of the Westboro Baptist church. The hate cult that stages "protests" at the funerals of fallen soldiers. Does it ever occur to ACLU they're not defending civil liberty - but defending shitheads who disrespect, disrupt, and disturb others who want only to mourn and bury their dead? (Phelps and friends are the ones carrying the God Hates Fags sign.)
But what really made the ACLU stink was their backing of NAMBLA, North American Men/Boy Love Association.
Nambla states sex between men and boys is simply supporting "the liberation of persons of all ages from sexual prejudice and oppression." They of course "break no laws." They sell Boys Speak Out on Man/Boy Love which includes a section on Love & Loyalty offerings :
The Best Thing That Ever Happened to MeGreg, age 16
I Love Him, and I Know That He Loves Me Darrel, age 16
It Shouldn't Be a Crime to Make Love Bryan, age 12 1/2
I'm Not Going To Be Kept Away from Him (An Interview) Thijs, age 11
ACLU defends its defense of NAMBLA as merely advocating : "robust freedom of speech for everyone." Seems two Nambla fans kidnaped, raped, and murdered a 10 y/o boy, using the Association's self-help book, The Survival Manual: The Man's Guide to Staying Alive in Man-Boy Sexual Relationships (or How to Rape and Escape as some call it).
The two men are in prison and Nambla free to continue its "robust" tips to perps such as how to build relationships with children, how to gain the confidence of children's parents, where to go to have sex with children so as not to get caught. Advice on when to leave America and how to rip off credit card companies to get cash to finance escape if you are caught.
The ACLU has the tired old line of "the defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive." "Most critical" when "most people" are repulsed by it? Is that meant to be a profound statement that folks can't argue with? Real liberty lovers must defend Chester Molester and Hate Crusader because a meme sounds fair?
Americans don't know when or where to draw the line anymore; cannot recognize the "watchdogs" aren't guarding our liberty, just barking to distract us.
2 comments:
I have to disagree with you on this one, Kate, but respectfully. If we start making compromises with free speech, we're going to lose it.
We should draw the line at legality. If NAMBLA wants to talk about sex with boys, and fantasize about it with each other, good luck to the sick bastards. But when they start giving practical advice on how to get away with it, that may cross the line. I'm not a lawyer, but doesn't that fall in the category of being complicit in a crime, or inducing others to commit a crime?
I think you're assuming that all Americans would draw the line between free speech and unlawful speech in the same place. But that's not true. Wouldn't the Bush administration love to get away with claiming that speaking against the war demoralizes the troops and hurts the war effort, and therefore is illegal? And the sad thing is, lots of Americans would agree.
Let's not give them the chance.
abi,
I really don't believe lots of Americans would agree to outlawing dissent. We all dissent on something.
Nambla crosses the line, but a good attorney can absolve even OJ or Michael Jackson.
I fail to see where allowing nazis to "protest" in a Black Cleveland neighborhood is freedom of expression. Let the thugs protest in Beverly Hills or Martha's Vineyard and see how free they are.
The idea of BushCo outlawing dissent against the war is a fear used to frighten the left, used by pundits like Rush, Savage, etc. Too many like myself with sons in Iraq protest the war. The government is not going to do anything that would bring pissed off people to D.C. The government does not want a confrontation with we the people.
We have the right to assemble, redress, petition, etc. our government.
Nazis in the 'hood, fanatics at funerals, Nambla encouraging kiddie porn has nothing to do with petitioning greivances to the government. But I guess as long as we have the "right" to get in our neighbor's face we're not looking at the government.
Post a Comment