28 April 2005

Stop The ACLU BlogBurst 4/28/05

The American Civil Liberties Union. Let's break down the name of that organization. The American, hmmm that seems like they should be looking out for Americans doesn't it. Civil Liberties Union, well, that I take to mean that it's an organization that seeks to guard the civil liberties of Americans. Then why is it that the ACLU is suing the Secretary of Defense for alleged abuses against foreign nationals on foreign soil? Uh.....I can't figure it out. The Secretary of Defense if I remember correctly, is an American. The laws of the United States that protect the civil rights of Americans do apply to any foreign nationals who happen to be in the United States. But not in Iraq. Not in Afghanistan. And not in Cuba. When an American citizen joins the military services, he/she surrenders his/her civil rights for the benefit of the people of the United States. It's part of the sacrifice that we ask them to make. So, one can say that the civil rights of American citizens on a military base, located on foreign soil, are sacrificed as well. The Uniform Code of Military Justice is the governing authority on military installations. That being said, the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay are not on United States soil. And, because they were not uniformed combatants on the battlefield, but took up arms against our troops, they are therefore considered spys or terrorists and not subject to the provisions of the Geneva Conventions. The Conventions dictate to us as a signatory that we must provide the protections to our enemies regardless if they are party to the Conventions themselves. But these Conventions were agreed upon without an understanding of the type of warfare being waged against us. Our enemies brought this war to us. They declared it. We didn't . We were content to stay out of the terrorism game all together. But since we have been dragged into this fight kicking and screaming, we should be determined to win it. That means stepping on a few toes might and have happened. The ACLU should be more concerned about protecting our own citizens than foreign terrorists who have been killing our troops. Why didn't the ACLU come to the aid of Raven Furbert when her civil rights were violated? That was a clear violation of her rights. Why? Because they don't have our best interests in mind. They are a left wing, liberal, radical organization who is out to put people like them into positions that will create a situation in this country reminiscent of Orwell's 1984. Keep in mind, Liberals=Big Government. Big Government=oppression. The very thing that they are supposed to guarding us against. I wish they would figure out who they are trying to protect.
Help Put A Stop To The Most Dangerous Organization In America. We are trying to organize a march on all of the ACLU state offices in all of the 50 states. To help in this matter, we are trying to raise money to pay for advertising in our nation's newspapers promoting the march. You can help. Visit Bulldoze The ACLU online store and buy a bumper sticker or t-shirt. All of the proceedes will be going into advertising for this march. Thank You.

2 Comments:

Blogger Adam Faanes said...

Gribbit said:

"The American Civil Liberties Union. Let's break down the name of that organization. The American, hmmm that seems like they should be looking out for Americans doesn't it. Civil Liberties Union, well, that I take to mean that it's an organization that seeks to guard the civil liberties of Americans."
The ACLU cites its prudential reasoning: "...ongoing torture scandal in Iraq and Afghanistan that has tarnished America's reputation."

from
ACLU and Human Rights First Sue Defense Secretary Rumsfeld Over U.S. Torture Policies The ACLU stated in its proceedings that the infraction of the civil liberties of foreigners can become tantamount to infractions of the rights of American citizens. This seems sensible in light of the Korematsu case.

Gribbit said:

"The Secretary of Defense if I remember correctly, is an American."
Yes, he is.

"The laws of the United States that protect the civil rights of Americans do apply to any foreign nationals who happen to be in the United States."Yes, they do. Ex Parte Quirin.

Gribbit said:

"When an American citizen joins the military services, he/she surrenders his/her civil rights for the benefit of the people of the United States. It's part of the sacrifice that we ask them to make."
True, and we dearly appreciate it.

Gribbit said:

"So, one can say that the civil rights of American citizens on a military base, located on foreign soil, are sacrificed as well."
Not exactly. For civilians entering a military base, the rights of those civilians resemble those of civilians entering property they do not own. They do not have protected first amendment rights, for instance. They do not lose their fourth, fifth, and sixth amendment rights - nor can they lose them simply because they have been taken to a military base. The government cannot simply say "Aha, you no longer have civil rights." Ex Parte MulliganGribbit said:

"The Uniform Code of Military Justice is the governing authority on military installations. That being said, the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay are not on United States soil."
Ex Parte Quirin extends basic constitutional rights to anyone tried from American soil. Ex Parte Quirin is extraordinarily relevant since the people tried in that case were German aliens who came to the United States to commit acts of terrorism and sabotage on American industry. This was conducted even in a time of war. The Court held that they still had a right to trial.

Ex Parte Mulligan extends the right to a civilian court, trumping any code that demands a military court for people who are not classified otherwise. The Uniform Military Code, to the extent that it covers people in Guantanamo in the 12th classification, does not cover and does not exclude constitutional rights from, people taken there under duress in violation of their due process rights. You cannot be moved to another jurisdiction for favorable judgment, or this is a clear breach of due process as old as the Bill of Rights.

Gribbit said:

"And, because they were not uniformed combatants on the battlefield, but took up arms against our troops, they are therefore considered spys (sic) or terrorists and not subject to the provisions of the Geneva Conventions. The Conventions dictate to us as a signatory that we must provide the protections to our enemies regardless if they are party to the Conventions themselves."
The idea that a combatant must be uniformed in order to be classified under the Geneva Conventions is apocryphal. The Convention relating to prisoners of war mentions the word "uniform" only once, and in no capacity related to your meaning.

Third Geneva ConventionGribbit said:

"But these Conventions were agreed upon without an understanding of the type of warfare being waged against us. Our enemies brought this war to us. They declared it. We didn't . We were content to stay out of the terrorism game all together."
The fact that a war is defensive does not eliminate the defender's responsibility to the Geneva Conventions. There is no such caveat.

The fact that terrorism such as it is today is a horrific, inhumane, and bloodthirsty form of warfare does not eliminate our responsibility to the Geneva Conventions legally. Nor does it do so morally. The more inhumane the instruments of war become the more necessary it is to maintain our moral restraint. We would not imagine using chemical or biological agents against terrorists because we are humane in fighting war, no matter how inhumane our opponents are.

Gribbit said:

"But since we have been dragged into this fight kicking and screaming, we should be determined to win it. That means stepping on a few toes might and have happened."
I agree. It's the nature of war. That doesn't mean that, where we can, we shouldn't make every effort to obey the laws and promises of our country.

Gribbit said: "Why didn't the ACLU come to the aid of Raven Furbert when her civil rights were violated? That was a clear violation of her rights."The response from the schoolboard is convincing:

"We would never want to stop a student from expressing their patriotism, support for U.S. troops or their love for the American flag or America in our schools," said Jeff Janiszewski, Board of Education president, in a posting on the Schenectady schools' Web site. "This student simply decided to choose one of the very few forms of expressing patriotism that goes against our carefully considered rules."

Burning draft cards is illegal (and the law against burning them is constitutional) for the same reason - the law does not interfere with free speech because the same idea can be communicated in other ways that do not interfere with an instrumental aspect of the system.

Gribbit said:

"And how come we haven't heard of their coming to the aid of that young man, forgive me I've forgotten the name, in Orlando Florida who shot his Science teacher with a rubber band. He's facing expulsion from school under a provision that includes drug dealing and robbery."
Robert Gomez. He also threatened his teacher.

The case is also only two weeks old. The suspension hasn't even happened yet (there are a series of steps the student will have to go through to be suspended). It is ridiculous to expect that a case would be filed, that the family would have sought out a lawyer, and that the ACLU would have approved a defense.

Gribbit said:

"They are a left wing, liberal, radical organization who is out to put people like them into positions that will create a situation in this country reminiscent of Orwell's 1984. Keep in mind, Liberals=Big Government. Big Government=oppression."
The PATRIOT Act, which the ACLU is fighting, is closer to Orwell's nightmare than a student being suspended for threatening his teacher. I also don't see how the latter is big government while the former isn't. That seems laughably backwards.

Gribbit act:

"Wictory Wednesday asks that you help pass the Social Security Reform package. This week you can help by signing the online petition."
I support the President's Social Security reforms.

3/05/2005 03:02:00 AM  
Blogger Gribbit said...

This adam faanes character has a blog called Notes From The Underground that has been posted two 2 whole times 2 years ago. I put up with 2 days worth of postings from this idiot in February, then nothing. So please disreguard his comments because the Court cases that he cited were not relevent because they dealt with Nazi spies who were caught inside of the United States. And the Third Geneva Conventions of 1929 are superceeded by the Forth Geneva Convention of August 1949.

4/30/2005 08:23:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home