ACLU defending criminals over victims

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has persistently challenged state and federal efforts to pass Jessica’s law, an essential piece of legislation that calls for more rigorous tracking of convicted sex offenders, believing that the law is too harsh on released sexual predators—and they’re at it again.

Most recently, in Vermont, the ACLU advocated for the removal of convicted child molester’s names from public record, a dangerous and ill-conceived position that would facilitate the open, undetectable movement of vicious criminals and leave everyone in their path—especially children—in grave danger. It seems that the ACLU is more concerned with the rights of convicted felons than the rights of innocent, law-abiding citizens.

The bottom line: the ACLU is a deplorable organization that believes sexual predators should be free to roam the streets without regulation. They knowingly put the wellbeing of innocent people after the wellbeing of the most heinous monsters in society. The ACLU supposedly stands for civil rights, but what about the rights of all the innocent people victimized because a convicted felon slipped under the radar and sexually assaulted, molested, raped or killed an innocent bystander? The ACLU is no better than the ruthless transgressors they vouch to protect, and their asinine position is jeopardizing the safety and security of every American citizen.

Posted by at May 11, 2006 3:52 PM
Comments
Comment #147315

Alex,

“The ACLU is no better than the ruthless transgressors they vouch to protect, and their asinine position is jeopardizing the safety and security of every American citizen.”

That seems a bit of a stretch.

At what point do we assume that these guys have paid their debt to society?

If the answer is never, then why are we releasing them back into society in the first place?

Posted by: Rocky at May 11, 2006 4:07 PM
Comment #147317
If the answer is never, then why are we releasing them back into society in the first place?
Good question. Seems like every time a child molester gets caught, it is after several previous offenses and convictions. Posted by: d.a.n at May 11, 2006 4:15 PM
Comment #147318
At what point do we assume that these guys have paid their debt to society?

Jessica’s Law was introduced partly in response to liberal judges handing down extremely light sentences on child predators, like when that one Vermont judge gave probation when he could’ve locked the guy away for 10 years.

I understand we shouldnt give life in prison for sexual assault, but probation for a sexual predator is only encouraging these wack-jobs to break the law.

I don’t honeslty see why anybody would advocate against this bi-partisan, logical piece of legislation, its beyond my comprehension.

Posted by: Alex Fitzsimmons at May 11, 2006 4:16 PM
Comment #147322

ACLU defending criminals over victims

So do defense attorneys. Should they be described as “deplorable” as well?

Posted by: bobo at May 11, 2006 4:27 PM
Comment #147323

Alex,

I have to assume that the ACLU is doing what is essentialy their stated mission.
Since the penalties for these crimes are enforced sporaticly at best, there should be a comprehensive set of laws that are the same nationwide.

I wouldn’t even have a problem with making these crimes a federal offence.

Posted by: Rocky at May 11, 2006 4:27 PM
Comment #147333

Wow. The only source for this rant is an article by Bill O’Reilly.

Let me know if you have anything worth responding to.

Posted by: LawnBoy at May 11, 2006 5:01 PM
Comment #147339

I guess the concept of civil liberty is a difficult one for you.

If you want to kill child molesters then pass a law killing them. If you want to lock them up for life without paroll, pass that law.

This “monitoring” stuff is bullshit, if you believe they are incurable.

Please read the Scarlet Letter and then get back to us when you understand the moral of that story.

While I think predators should be killed, if society is unwilling to view this as a mental health issue, I also think there is a witch hunt mentality in this country towards teenage sex. There are very confusing signals in this country about that.

Posted by: gergle at May 11, 2006 5:14 PM
Comment #147353

gergle,

Well said. I especially like the Scarlet Letter reference.

Let’s not forget that, in many states, a 19-year-old having sex with a 17-year-old would be considered child molestation, and would lead to a lifetime on a sex offender registry — even if the boy and girl in question had been dating (and sexually active) for the last two or three years.

As in most cases, the devil is in the details.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at May 11, 2006 6:05 PM
Comment #147354

I don’t see why life terms wouldn’t be appropriate.

Posted by: Zeek at May 11, 2006 6:05 PM
Comment #147358

Zeek,

I don’t see why life terms wouldn’t be appropriate.

For a 19-yr-old having sex with a 17-yr-old???!!!

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at May 11, 2006 6:29 PM
Comment #147360

Funny how the UCLA ignores infringement of the rights of normal people, you would almost think they were trying to destroy this country. Almost?

Posted by: pete at May 11, 2006 6:47 PM
Comment #147364

pete,

“Funny how the UCLA ignores infringement of the rights of normal people, you would almost think they were trying to destroy this country.”

Have you ever bothered to read the mission statement of the UCLA (sic)?

http://www.aclu.org/about/index.html

“The mission of the ACLU is to preserve all of these protections and guarantees:

Your First Amendment rights-freedom of speech, association and assembly. Freedom of the press, and freedom of religion supported by the strict separation of church and state.
Your right to equal protection under the law - equal treatment regardless of race, sex, religion or national origin.
Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake.
Your right to privacy - freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs.”

A great many people make assumptions backed by the bile put forth by AM talk radio pundits.
The pundit’s job is to stir you up and keep you stirred up.
They don’t want you to think, or they would lose their audience.

You apparently don’t get that.

Posted by: Rocky at May 11, 2006 7:01 PM
Comment #147365

UCLA is horrible on rights issues, but I’ve found the ACLU to be pretty straight-forward. Anyone know anything about USC? How about Stanford?

Kidding aside, the issue is that the recidivism rate for sex offenders is through the roof. Hardliners need to realize that prison is not the place for these people, and softies need to realize that seeing a therapist once a week for six months is pointless. Intensive in patient therapy follwed by halfway house followed by monitored freedom with strict monitoring of progress along the way is the method that has shown any promising results, and even that is 50/50.

Posted by: David S at May 11, 2006 7:03 PM
Comment #147368

Alex,

The ACLU is no better than the ruthless transgressors they vouch to protect, and their asinine position is jeopardizing the safety and security of every American citizen.

Everyone is entitled to the rights that they were born with, these rights, of which, are protected by our Bill of Rights, but sometimes even they are insufficient in doing that.
Sure, I don’t like sexual predators, who does; but saying the ACLU is just as “asinine” as them is absurd. Only thing the ACLU wishes to do is to look out for the liberities of all people.
This same thing can be said about flag burning and neo-nazism. Both are protected by the First Amendment and considered constitutional by the Federal Supreme Court. The ACLU isn’t jeopardizing the American public; they are trying to protect the civil liberties of all Americans, whether they are sexual predators, neo-nazis, or even suspected terrorists.

Posted by: greenstuff at May 11, 2006 7:28 PM
Comment #147369

David S,

As stated above the ACLU’s job is to fight for the accused, not for the victim, under the circumstances that Alex outlined at head of this thread.

Making the rules are the job of the legislature.

Have you called your representitives yet?

Posted by: Rocky at May 11, 2006 7:29 PM
Comment #147403

Its another wedge issue, guys. The poor paid consultants must have gotten their Talking Points Memo ordering them to field test this stuff. Like Gay Marriage, like Immigration… the only way the GOP can win is to inspire hate and division.

Go Team.

Posted by: Aldous at May 11, 2006 9:08 PM
Comment #147407

Rocky,

It’s great to see that the ACLU cares so much about our rights. In your post you cover most of the ammendments, except the second. The ACLU is only worried about liberal issues and will be the first to claim that someones rights are being violated as long as it is part of the leftist agenda. When are they going to start standing up for the second ammendment and then we may not have these issues. Because when someone attacks me or mine they will get the justice they deserve.

Posted by: Jeff at May 11, 2006 9:15 PM
Comment #147418

Jeff,

I agree that the ACLU tends to be a bit lax about 2nd Amendment violations. But that doesn’t mean that they’re not doing a good job of defending other Constitutional rights, and for that, I applaud them.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at May 11, 2006 9:44 PM
Comment #147421

Jeff,

I’m not aware of an effort by the Federal government to disarm any National Guard unit in any state. Until such time, there’s nothing for the ACLU to defend viz-a-viz the Second Amendment.

Posted by: Dr. Poshek at May 11, 2006 9:51 PM
Comment #147423
the first to claim that someones rights are being violated as long as it is part of the leftist agenda.

Yes, because when the ACLU helps Jerry Falwell make sure that churches can incorporate, it’s all just part of their leftist agenda.

And when the ACLU defends the rights of idiots to run anti-gay protests, it’s all just part of the agenda.

If only reality matched your opinion of the ACLU, the country would be very different.

Posted by: LawnBoy at May 11, 2006 9:56 PM
Comment #147444

Ok so Rocky would like us to go to the ACLU home page and read there mission statement.I have a better idea go to the Alliance Defense Fund home page at www.telladf.org and you can learn the real truth about the ACLU or better then that pick up a copy of the Book “The ACLU vs America” and what you read in it will make you sick, I passed my copy around and several people could not even finish reading it because it up-set them so much. The ACLU is rotten to the core!

Posted by: Rick G at May 11, 2006 11:28 PM
Comment #147456

If these baby raping pieces for shit were executed, like the should be, instead of being released, there wouldn’t be any need for Jessica’s Laws.
Instead of passing laws to protect our kids from these fart bags after they’re released from prison, we need to be passing laws requiring them to be killed upon conviction.

Posted by: Ron Brown at May 12, 2006 12:00 AM
Comment #147469

And - yet once again - we see the True Colors of Conservatism; they are Red, White, and Black.

Which is actually quite humourous, since the ACLU has even defended the Free Speech rights of Modern American Nazis and the Klan.


Just as they should do.

Posted by: Betty Burke at May 12, 2006 12:29 AM
Comment #147472

Betty,

Amen! I might point out the wise counsel of the late George Seldes, conservatism always evolves into fascism as it is fascist by its very nature.

Posted by: Dr. Poshek at May 12, 2006 12:42 AM
Comment #147480

Dr. Poshek,

So is that any different than saying liberalism always evolves into comunism. Putting all conservatives into one bag and labeling them faciest and equating them to Nazi’s is one of the dumbest things the left does. It is grade school debate tactics. I’m a conservative on most issues but am not in any way a fascist nor do I follow the far religious right. But what I have found is that most of the liberal left are a bunch of parotts and do nothing but spew propoganda that comes from the far left lunatics. Please try and have a thought of your own and actually study the facts.

Posted by: Jeff at May 12, 2006 1:12 AM
Comment #147483

You know what’s hilarious, everybody sits here and tries to justify this “glorious” “admirable” organization whose sole agenda is defending civil liberties…don’t you people see how the ACLU is creating a facade to hide their true intentions—forwarding their overlty liberal agenda.

If the ACLU wants to defend civil lierties they should WANT Jessica’s Law passed, to defend the rights of every potential victim and keep the general public informed about who has been convicted of sexual assult, rape, etc.

It seems the ACLU’s policies are more like “we’ll decide whose rights to defend,” because they obviously care less about good citizens and more about disgusting monsters.

And, yes, defense attorneys defend sexual predators…presumed predators who, under our legal system, are innocent until proven guilty.

My main objection is that this crooked organization cares less about the common citizen and more about vicious predators. It’s revolting.

Posted by: Alex Fitzsimmons at May 12, 2006 1:23 AM
Comment #147484
I’m not aware of an effort by the Federal government to disarm any National Guard unit in any state. Until such time, there’s nothing for the ACLU to defend viz-a-viz the Second Amendment.

Dr Poshek,

I can only assume that you are again not doing your research and parroting what the anti gun people are spewing. But if you take the time to read http://www.constitution.org/mil/rkba1982.htm
you will find that a bipartisan congressional sub commitee had determined way back in 1982 that they believe that the second ammendment is an individual right. Besides the National Guard does not qualify as the well regulated militia referd to in the constitution because we in the guard do come under the control of the federal government under title 10 and all the guards weapons are supplied by the government so it would be a very poor choice to use the guard as the protector of the people if the government went bad as they supply all our equipment. If you actually read more than propoganda from the left, it is clear that it was meant to be an individual right, not a collective right.

Posted by: jeff at May 12, 2006 1:24 AM
Comment #147486

Rick G.

Went to the web site.

If you want to defend the sanctity of marraige, you might want to do something about the divorce rate. I think that it may have a bit more to do with breaking up families and family values than homosexuals.

Alex,

“You know what’s hilarious, everybody sits here and tries to justify this “glorious” “admirable” organization whose sole agenda is defending civil liberties…don’t you people see how the ACLU is creating a facade to hide their true intentions—forwarding their overlty liberal agenda.”

And of course you have no agenda what so ever.

Does the ACLU do what it’s mission statement says or not?

Nobody condones the actions of a child predator, but they still have rights, and the ACLU still protects those rights.

You want the predators off the streets?

Blame your legislators for not doing their jobs, don’t blame the ACLU for doing theirs.

Posted by: Rocky at May 12, 2006 1:33 AM
Comment #147491

Instead of reiterating myself, I’ll let my quote do it for me:

My main objection is that this crooked organization cares less about the common citizen and more about vicious predators…they obviously care less about good citizens and more about disgusting monsters.

The ACLU recognizes the rights of convicted sexual predators but fails to acknowledge the rights of everyday citizens to live in peace without a terrorizing scoundrel hawking them.

You won’t see that in their mission statement.

Posted by: Alex Fitzsimmons at May 12, 2006 1:40 AM
Comment #147492

So I guess that you refuse to answer the question.

Who has the agenda now?

Posted by: Rocky at May 12, 2006 1:42 AM
Comment #147493

Oh, and BTW,

The direction Bush and his supporters are taking this country, the ACLU won’t have much left to defend anyway.

Posted by: Rocky at May 12, 2006 1:49 AM
Comment #147494

Alright, I’ll admit that the ACLU does attempt to fulfill its mission statement, and if that was all they were trying to do I’d be all for it.

However, I believe they have a hidden agenda, like most of us, but they’re concealing it behind a wall of supposed nobility and courage—defending civil liberties—and that is disingenuous.

If they want to truly represent civil liberties, they should care about the rights of all the people that can and will be harmed by not passing Jessica’s Law, instead of just representing one constituency.

Posted by: Alex Fitzsimmons at May 12, 2006 1:51 AM
Comment #147496

Alex,

Thanks for the concession, but, please, don’t try to bury it under hyperbole.

Like I said, these guys belong in jail, but let’s write laws that keep them there.

The right has done nothing but bitch about legislation by the “leftist” judges on the bench, but does nothing to write laws that will put the bad guys away forever.

Why is that?

The law says once they serve their sentence these guys have paid their debt to society, it may be abhorant, but that is what the law says.

Let’s get our elected officials to do their jobs and change the laws.

Posted by: Rocky at May 12, 2006 2:04 AM
Comment #147499

Fair enough, Rocky. But, in the meantime, we need to deal with the ACLU because they’re only making this world less safe.

Posted by: Alex Fitzsimmons at May 12, 2006 2:09 AM
Comment #147510

Can’t have it both ways, folks. Either one is a relativist, allowing principles to bend and break according to situation, or one retains integrity by sticking to the principles in all situations. The ACLU exists to protect ALL citizen’s rights enumerated and unenumerated by the Constitution of the United States and laws which emanate from it.

I am a proud card carrying member of the ACLU, and should the government trample my Constitutional rights, I am confident the ACLU will be there for me. America would not BE America without a champion of individual rights laid out in the Constitution, given the tsunamis of passion that seek to subvert the Constitution in every generation as a result of passion and empathy for a victim of heinous crime. But, all crimes are NOT perpetrated against an individual by an individual.

Too often, the crimes are committed against the people by our government, and the ACLU is last hope that such crimes will not stand unpunished, or worse, become canonized in law and made legal, like the warrantless spying on Americans, illegal search and seizures which open the door to government planting evidence they need to remove you from your life.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 12, 2006 2:38 AM
Comment #147514

David,

My understanding is that the ACLU’s problem with the law as it is written is the putting of the guys names in the public arena once they have served their time.

I agree with that statement.

If the law says these guys have paid their debt to society, no matter how abhorent we find it, they shouldn’t be subject to harrassment.

If we don’t like it, and if society belives these guys are predators that cannot be cured, we should re-write the laws so they don’t get out.

Posted by: Rocky at May 12, 2006 3:01 AM
Comment #147540

Dear Jeff:

First, there is no relationship between liberalism and communism. Read a history book and this you should see. In fact, liberalism and communism are polar opposites. The difference between conservatism and fascism is only a matter of degree.

As for the Second Amendment. I am an attorney and retired law professor. I am quite aware of what the 2nd Amendmen says and what Supreme Court caselaw says about it. Only the gun nuts like yourself find a right to individual ownership of guns in the 2nd Amendment. The Supreme Court stated quite clearly nearly 150 years ago that the 2nd Amendment does not protect individual gun ownership. This is the reason the NRA and related gun nuts have never brought a suit in the courts predicated on 2nd Amendment grounds. It would fall flat on its face being dismissed at the get-go.

Conservatives and gun nuts have always been the last bastion for the uneducated and the paranoid. So. until such time as you are willing to make the effort to go to school, to obtain an education, to actually know the law, please don’t speak about that which you do not know. NRA publications are not authoratative. They are propaganda. Spend some time with Supreme Court Reports… they are available at your local law library. Spend 3 years in a law school. Spend 45 years in the practice, study, research, and teaching of constitutional law. Then, you might be able to discuss these issues intelligently. Until then, you’ll just have to continue preaching your ignorance to your fellow Republican idiots.

Posted by: Dr. Poshek at May 12, 2006 4:19 AM
Comment #147557
If they want to truly represent civil liberties, they should care about the rights of all the people that can and will be harmed by not passing Jessica’s Law, instead of just representing one constituency.

Alex, I presented a couple examples at May 11, 2006 09:56 PM of the ACLU defending the rights of Jerry Falwell and homophobes. Do you consider Falwell and Phelps to be part of the liberal constituency, or do you think it’s more likely that the ACLU defends the First Amendement for the benefit of all Americans?

Posted by: LawnBoy at May 12, 2006 8:26 AM
Comment #147560

Dr. Poshek, your elitist presumption that only the scholars are worthy of discussing, debating and forming public opinions about the laws that govern a people, is just about as opposite to the concept of democracy as I have witnessed since reading Plato’s Republic.

Be very careful condescending here, such condescension often leads to critiquing the messengers and not the message. You did learn something about rules and compliance in university, did you not?

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 12, 2006 8:45 AM
Comment #147562

Rocky, yes, that is my line of thinking as well. My 15 year old daughter is soon to testify against her male molester who attempted to engage in sexual activity with her at a sleepover at a girl friend’s house almost 4 years ago. As a father, I absolutely do not want to see molesters free to harm again. But, your point is finely made. If recidivist molesters are still a danger to children, they should not be released from prison in the first place. And if they are no longer a danger, they should not continue to be punished after serving their time.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 12, 2006 8:50 AM
Comment #147563

Jeff, you may want to reconsider your tactic as well of assuming ignorance of those who disagree with your position. Unless wearing egg on one’s face is a new trend.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 12, 2006 8:52 AM
Comment #147564

Mr. Remer:

There is nothing elitist in the expectation that those who speak know of what they are speaking. No, I am not requiring the discussion be limited to scholars. Rather, I am suggesting that it is better for a fool to keep his mouth shut and to leave people guessing than, to open his mouth and demonstrate his foolishness to everyone. Public opinion is properly formed, as our Founders knew, in an educated electorate. Instead, we witness today GOPers praising ignorance and rejecting facts and rational thought. Dubya’s comments supporting the religious methology of creationism has and will do more damage to our national security than will terrorism. Why would any young person want to pursue a career in the sciences when, obviously, science is held in such low esteem — indeed, ridiculed — by the president and his party.

Posted by: Dr. Poshek at May 12, 2006 9:02 AM
Comment #147573

Rocky posted the Mission Statement of the ACLU. I suppose his intent was to show how they are only protecting the rights of child molesters. I couldn’t find anything in their statement that protected criminals such as these.

1. Your First Amendment rights-freedom of speech, association and assembly. Freedom of the press, and freedom of religion supported by the strict separation of church and state.

Not applicable, unless you want to say that all criminals should be allowed to forever assemble. They are not being restricted from assembly. We just want to know where they are assembling.

2. Your right to equal protection under the law - equal treatment regardless of race, sex, religion or national origin.

There is nothing here, either. We don’t care what their race, sex, religion or national origin happens to be.

3. Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake.

Ahh… Maybe here! But the intent here is to provide you with things like a jury of your peers, being read your Miranda articles, etc. Once you have been “fairly” convicted you lost your liberties. Any argument there? And once you have been convicted, and are released under probation, you are still obviously considered a threat, lest you wouldn’t be UNDER PROBATION.

4. Your right to privacy - freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs.

The key here is “unwarranted”. This is clearly warranted by the perpetrators previous convictions. This is not an issue for the ACLU, based on their own Mission Statement.

Besides all that “logic”, is there anyone in here that cares to say that the ACLU does not have an interest in attacking everything red?

Posted by: Bruce at May 12, 2006 9:29 AM
Comment #147575

Dr. Poshek,

Think like a scientist. President Bush’s belief in creationism does not “ridicule” science or scientific process. Your implication is that because of his religious belief all science is bad.

That is a very narrow interpretation, and certainly not one worthy of a scientific mind. It appears to me as though you have an agenda. Try not to let your personal beliefs cloud your scientific mind. Lest you be just like those you despise.

Posted by: Bruce at May 12, 2006 9:34 AM
Comment #147578

Dear Bruce:

My scientific, rational mind is not clouded. However, I sometimes wish it were such that I could ignore our country’s descent into theocratic third world-dom. In observing Dubya since his Texas governor days, his distain for facts and rational thought, i.e., science, has been extremely clear. Only one other Dubya characteristic is more obvious: an inability to tell the truth. Interestingly, as documented in the scientific research literature, these are both common characteristics of dry drunks.

Posted by: Dr. Poshek at May 12, 2006 9:55 AM
Comment #147580

Gee, Bruce.

Can’t see the forest for the trees?

Or is vigilante justice the only type these guys entitled to?

Posted by: Rocky at May 12, 2006 10:19 AM
Comment #147581
Besides all that “logic”, is there anyone in here that cares to say that the ACLU does not have an interest in attacking everything red?

Yes, particularly given the examples of the ACLU defending Jerry Falwell, Fred Phelps and the KKK.

Your opinion of the ACLU is not based in a full analysis of reality.

Posted by: LawnBoy at May 12, 2006 10:19 AM
Comment #147583

Alex,

If they want to truly represent civil liberties, they should care about the rights of all the people that can and will be harmed by not passing Jessica’s Law, instead of just representing one constituency.

The ACLU defends people’s rights from GOVERNMENT intrusion. When child molestation occurs, the GOVERNMENT has not interfered with the rights of the molested child — only the child molester has — so there is nothing for the ACLU to defend.

Our Constitution protects certain rights against government intrusion. The ACLU exists for the sole purpose of making sure the government respects those rights.

If you believe the ACLU should stand up for the rights of the molested children, then please indicate how you believe the GOVERNMENT is interfering with those children’s rights.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at May 12, 2006 10:21 AM
Comment #147588

Oh, and Bruce, from the tone of your post, do you assume that all child molestors are on the blue side?

Posted by: Rocky at May 12, 2006 10:38 AM
Comment #147589

Why anyone would promote a society that doesn’t do everything in its power to stop child molestation is absolutely unfathomable. Child molestation is the ultimate betrayal of innocence, and what crime is worse than betrayal? Didn’t anyone around here listen to James Woods in “The General’s Daughter”?

Ooh I hope Betty doesn’t post anymore jpg’s or the great law professor doesn’t flash his credentials again; such intimidating debate tactics used by the left.

Posted by: Craig at May 12, 2006 10:44 AM
Comment #147590

Rocky,

I don’t know what you mean about vigilante justice. Have we moved onto the Immigration Reform discussion already?

No, I certainly do not believe that all child molesters are blue. In fact, it only proves how fair and balanced the atttempt is to track the moletsters. It’s not prejudiced in any way, shape or form. Therefore the ACLU should quietly go away and find some other downtrodden citizen (or non-citizen) to assist. The thing that gets my ire up is that the ACLU is constantly protecting the rights of the law-breaker!

When will we read a story about them protecting the rights of the victim?

Posted by: Bruce at May 12, 2006 10:48 AM
Comment #147591

Craig,

“Why anyone would promote a society that doesnt do everything in its power to stop child molestation is absolutely unfathomable.”

So, let’s throw the Constitution out the window, screw the trial, and just hang these guys on the spot.

Good one Craig.

Posted by: Rocky at May 12, 2006 10:49 AM
Comment #147592

Dr. Poshek,

I understand your position, and I believe you have every right in the world to espouse it. I do not support your position, that’s all.

I do believe that your thought process is less-than-scientific, but that in turn may be clouded by MY position.

I believe that GW believes everything he says (well… he IS a politicion so I’ll say MOST of what he says). But that is just my belief. Speaking of beliefs, I believe I’ll move on to the next topic now.

Posted by: Bruce at May 12, 2006 10:51 AM
Comment #147596

I believe that GW believes everything he says

I don’t know what’s scarier, the fact that people like you believe that Bush, who has said that you still require warrants for all wiretapping and then turned around and admitted there’s been a secret program of warrantless wiretaps going on, believes everything (or even most things) he says…

… or the possible implications if you’re *right*. What’s the technical term for someone who actually believes two directly contradictory things at the same time? It’s got to be some sort of dissociative disorder, right?

Posted by: Jarandhel at May 12, 2006 11:01 AM
Comment #147598

Bruce,

The thing that gets my ire up is that the ACLU is constantly protecting the rights of the law-breaker!

When will we read a story about them protecting the rights of the victim?

As soon as the GOVERNMENT intrudes upon the Constitutional rights of the victim, expect a statement from the ACLU within 24 hours.

Again, the ACLU exists to protect our Constitutional rights from GOVERNMENT intrusion. If the Government is not intruding upon the rights of the victim, then the ACLU has no grounds for interfering.

Is this concept really that hard to understand?

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at May 12, 2006 11:05 AM
Comment #147604

Right Rocky, that’s exactly what I said. Screw the constitution and don’t use a trial system. I guess everyone’s got to really spell things out for you, huh? You really do like to project don’t you.

Posted by: Craig at May 12, 2006 11:11 AM
Comment #147612

Craig,

“Why anyone would promote a society that doesnⴠdo everything in its power to stop child molestation is absolutely unfathomable.”

How else would you like me to interpet your statement?

What is your point?

Posted by: Rocky at May 12, 2006 11:44 AM
Comment #147622

Craig,

BTW,

“You really do like to project don’t you.”

Actually, I am a video projectionist. It’s one of the things I do for a living.

Posted by: Rocky at May 12, 2006 12:01 PM
Comment #147633

Betty
Just because someone is for the death penalty on certain crimes doesn’t make them a fascist. It makes them right.
The only thing on the face of this earth that’s lower than a politician is a child molester. And if you believe the shrinks they will ALWAYS do it again. I don’t know if that’s true or not but if they’re properly taken care of in the first place we wouldn’t ever have to worry about them molesting another child.
I reckon you’ve never had to deal with the trauma that a child goes through when one of these subhuman pieces of shit rapes them. Let me tell you it rips or heart out.
Then you have to sit in the court room and listen to some defence attorney make out like a 8 year-old is some kind of whore and claim she asked for it because she was wearing shorts.
Then the judge gives this piece of dog shit 5 years because of ‘mitigating circumstances’. The girl shouldn’t have been wearing shorts.
This fart bag got out in 2 1/2 years and raped another little girl. So much for justice.
So if wanting these subhuman garbage plies dead is being racist to you then so be it.

Posted by: Ron Brown at May 12, 2006 12:34 PM
Comment #147636

Of course the ACLU is liberally biased; the majority of the members are liberals. Yeah, yeah, they do on occasion defend the likes of Jerry Falwell or even the KKK as despicable as that seems. Those are high profile cases and few and far between. The ACLU is like a litmus test for me. If I don’t know the details of a particular case, I can just look to see which side the ACLU is on and then I’ll pick the other side and be right 90% of the time. Sometimes they get it right, but not too often.

Rocky

You’re right, the laws do need to be changed. The penalties should be much more severe. If they really have changed, then they would agree to being monitored once they are released and continue to seek treatment. It’s not a punishment; it’s just good common sense. The problem is, a lot of our legislators don’t have good common sense.

Posted by: Tyler at May 12, 2006 12:54 PM
Comment #147645

Tyler,

“If they really have changed, then they would agree to being monitored once they are released and continue to seek treatment.”

Being monitored and having your name plastered all over the public arena are two entirely different things.
The ACLU is correct in their fight against this practice.
Predators belong in jail, not out in the streets.
The laws should reflect that.

Posted by: Rocky at May 12, 2006 1:18 PM
Comment #147651

Ron Brown,

I reckon you’ve never had to deal with the trauma that a child goes through when one of these subhuman pieces of shit rapes them. Let me tell you it rips or heart out.

That’s an interesting assumption — that anyone who doesn’t believe in the death penalty for child molestation must not have any personal experience with it. I can assure you that such an assumption is incorrect.

I don’t know about you, Ron, but I DO have personal experience — I was a victim myself. And no, I wouldn’t support the death penalty for this sort of thing. The punishment wouldn’t fit the crime.

And, AGAIN, do you really think we should kill 19-year-olds for having sex with 17-year-olds? The issue may be very clear when you’re talking about grown men and toddlers, but the same laws apply to teenagers just a few years (or even just a few DAYS) apart, if they happen to fall on opposite sides of the magic “age of consent” line. Both are technically sex offenders.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at May 12, 2006 1:32 PM
Comment #147656

I think Conservatives confuse moral principals with constitutional rights. Example, Jerry Falwell was convinced the Supreme Court would rule against Larry Flint and Hustler simply because they are “immoral”. He was wrong.

The ACLU does not make moral judgments when defending constitutional rights. Defending the Nazi’s party right to free speech dose not mean you agree with them. Defending a criminal’s constitutional rights does not mean you support criminals.

If you really believe that constitutional rights apply equally to all, then it means all! People we disagree with, people we find immoral and yes, people who hurt us.

Is there any other way?

Posted by: Steve at May 12, 2006 1:45 PM
Comment #147662

Rob
That would depend on if the seventeen year old is my daughter or granddaughter or not.
Seriously, if the 19 year old raped the 17 year old then yes. But if it was consensual no. Now if the 19 year old is have sex with a 12 year old. Even if it is consensual, at least put the 19 year old in jail. But if it’s rape, why should we pay our tax money to support him/her for the rest of their miserable life?
Sorry to hear about your experience.
My middle daughter was raped at age 8. This is what I was talking about earlier. And I’m sure your experience tore your parents hearts out like my daughter’s did mine and my wife’s.

Posted by: Ron Brown at May 12, 2006 1:57 PM
Comment #147665
As for the Second Amendment. I am an attorney and retired law professor. I am quite aware of what the 2nd Amendmen says and what Supreme Court caselaw says about it. Only the gun nuts like yourself find a right to individual ownership of guns in the 2nd Amendment. The Supreme Court stated quite clearly nearly 150 years ago that the 2nd Amendment does not protect individual gun ownership. This is the reason the NRA and related gun nuts have never brought a suit in the courts predicated on 2nd Amendment grounds. It would fall flat on its face being dismissed at the get-go.

Dr. Posheck

I guess it’s very easy for an elitest such as yourself to assume you know more than everybody else does. But if you actually took the time to go to the link I provided you would see that this is not my own ramblings but is the finding of the following people.

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

STROM THURMOND, South Carolina, Chairman

CHARLES McC.MATHIAS, Jr., Maryland
JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware
PAUL LAXALT, Nevada
EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts
ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah
ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
ROBERT DOLE, Kansas
HOWARD M. METZENBAUM, Ohio
ALAN K. SIMPSON, Wyoming
DENNIS DeCONCINI, Arizona
JOHN P. EAST, North Carolina
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa
MAX BAUCUS, Montana
JEREMIAH DENTON, Alabama
HOWELL HEFLIN, Alabama
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania

And numerous other constitutional scholars.

It does not bother me that you think you are smarter than me. But it should bother anyone who try’s to take you seriously in a debate when you think you know more about the constitution and law than constitutional scolars and our countries lawmakers who took the time to study all the relevent information on the subject before coming to their conclusion. Maybee you can point me to some published works of yours on constitutional law or what our the framers of our constitution thought because it’s obvious that you know more than the above mentioned group of people. I myself, if you don’t mind will use what little intelect I have to belive the findings of people who have much more experience than you do in this area. But since I am always open to learning new things, especially from those like you who know everything, please try to cite actual law before making everyone here think that you are an expert just because you have some letters before your name.

Posted by: Jeff at May 12, 2006 2:09 PM
Comment #147666

Dr. Poshek
There is not need for me to tell everybody how many degrees I have or of my area of expertise to show that I know what I am talking about. Your approach is elitism, period. The statements you make about Second Amendment rights are just your opinion. There are learned scholars in the progession of law that hold to an exact opposite view of yours. For those who are not legal scholars that have heard both sides, who do they say is telling the facts? So you are an self proclaimed expert but not acknowledged by others. Ho Hum, heard this before.

Posted by: tomh at May 12, 2006 2:12 PM
Comment #147674

Ron Brown,

Child molestation has nothing to do with consent. Those below the “age of consent” — by definition — do not have the legal ability to consent to these acts.

My point is that this is NOT a black-and-white issue — there’s a whole lot of grey area. When people stand up against laws like Jessica’s Law, it’s not because they’re in support of evil rapists. It’s usually because they see a lot of grey area getting treated as black. Especially with emotionally-charged issues like this one, knee-jerk laws tend to cause a lot of collateral damage.

That would depend on if the seventeen year old is my daughter or granddaughter or not.

Assuming consentual sex, how would your opinion change if the nineteen year old was your daughter or granddaugther? Consider that, and you may better understand why the ACLU takes on such cases.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at May 12, 2006 2:29 PM
Comment #147676

THIS IS JUST ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF WHY THEY ARE NOW KNOWN AS THE AMERICAN CRIMINAL LIBERTIES UNION, A SUBSIDIARY OF THE LYING LEFT.

Posted by: BOB RAMOS at May 12, 2006 2:31 PM
Comment #147680

Facts about the ACLU and its Founder

1.Roger Baldwin founded the ACLU in 1920.
“I am for socialism, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the state itself as an instrument of violence and compulsion. I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and sole control by those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal” ACLU founder Roger Baldwin

2. In 1918 Baldwin was drafted he refused to report for his physical was arrested, for resisting the draft found guilty, and served one year.

3. Throughout the 1920’s and 30’s The ACLU had prominent Communist Party members like Harry F. Ward, Louis Budenz, Elizabeth G Flynn, William Z. Foster, Robert W Dunn, Anna Rochester, A.J. Isserman, and Mary Van Kleeck Among its leadership.

4. The ACLU supports NAMBLA (North American Man/ Boy Love Association) and has gone the court several times for them. NAMBLA published material that says it” OK to have sex with children and advocating changing the law. NAMBLA is actively training their members how to rape children and get away with it. They distribute child Pornography and trade live children among members for the purpose of having sex with them. NAMBAL proudly posts Material on its Website that advocate sexual relations with young boys. The ACLU believes that this material should be permitted and protected even though it openly promotes the sodomy with the rape of young boys.

As I stated in a early post The ACLU is rotten to the core, its founder was a card carrying Comme and a Draft Dodger and the fact that today it supports a group like NAMBLA show just how rotten it is.

Rick G


Posted by: Rick G at May 12, 2006 2:46 PM
Comment #147694

I do not know what their “Liberal Agenda” is or if they really have one. They do have a liberal view and interpretation of the constitution and at times can take an absolutist view of constitutional rights. But this does not necessarily translate into a “Liberal Agenda” or a malicious intent.

What is unfortunate is that only the cases that rile conservatives are the ones that get publicity. They become symbols of what is wrong with liberal America on the Sean Hanitity or Bill O’Reilly show. They have on numerous occasions defended conservatives, and individual religious liberties. They are consistent in their application and do not let partisan ship dictate cases. Here are some examples of cases, how is this part of a liberal agenda?


**Agreed with Republicans that Campaign finance reform is an infringement of free speech.
**Defended a Baptist Church’s right to conduct Baptisms in a public lake (State Park)
**Is currently representing a Babtist church in GA to fight a zoning law that prohibits building a house of worship.
**Defended a Catholic Inmate’s right in Michigan not to be forced to convert to Pentecostal to complete a drug rehab program.
**Protected the right of school children to wear religious jewelry in school as free expression.
**Defended a school child in NJ to voluntarily sing a religious song at a school talent show.
**Defended Rush Limbaugh’s right to privacy.

There is plenty more if you go to their web site. Objectively you will find cases you agree and disagree with.

Posted by: Steve at May 12, 2006 3:32 PM
Comment #147698

There is a lot of emotional feelings here. But you need to separate your emotion from constitutional law. NAMBLA is immoral. Criminals raping and hurting our children is immoral. We feel anger, hatred and vengence towards these people.

But the difficult question is, do they have constitutional rights? If society through its anger decides to pre-judge them and deny them constitutional protection, then in comes the ACLU.

Again, defending NAMBLA’s constitutional rights does not mean you endorse or support NAMBLA. Defending or supporting criminals constitutional rights does not mean you support criminals.

Posted by: Steve at May 12, 2006 3:55 PM
Comment #147699

Oh, and BTW, being an American communist or a draft dodger doesn’t mean you don’t support the Constitution.

Posted by: Rocky at May 12, 2006 3:58 PM
Comment #147704

we have set up a judicial system that trys, convicts and punishes criminals for crime, varying punishmenst for varying crime. this same system says that once this man is released it is not for us to punish him any longer, it is for him to be a better man. we cannot watch these people all day an all night, we have to live with the judicial system that was created to allow all citizens the most freedom possible. the court of public of opinion will see to it that a criminal never forgets his crime, it is out of our hands, and that is something you are going to have to accept, once you start following released felons, what stops you from following people you think will commit a crome…its called restraint plus you sound like the kind of cat who fiercely believes you have the right to own a gun, so go get one and protect your family with that.

Posted by: lucas at May 12, 2006 4:18 PM
Comment #147706

The ACLU does not defend your Constitutional Rights! They defend whatever they believe to be worthy of their agenda. When was the last time they stood up for law abiding citizen’s Second Amendment rights? They have no problem defending anyone who they think can eventually harm this country and destroy the Constitution because they only use it to undermine freedom not support it. They hate this country and everything it stands for. Actions speak louder than words.

Posted by: Dan at May 12, 2006 4:31 PM
Comment #147713
The ACLU does not defend your Constitutional Rights! … When was the last time they stood up for law abiding citizen’s Second Amendment rights?

Wait. You’re saying that their clear and consistent support of the 1st Amendment doesn’t count as defending constitutional rights because they don’t enforce your preferred interpretation of the 2nd Amendment?

What type of logical system is that? They defend constitutional rights. Perhaps you think they should do more, but that doesn’t mean they do nothing.

They hate this country and everything it stands for. Actions speak louder than words.

How absolutely incredibly ridiculous. I can’t see a more ineffective way to show hatred for our country and everything it stands for than to consistently defend its Constitution, even when that defense is unpopular.

On the 2nd Amendment issue: The 2nd Amendment is a very poorly written statement. It’s gramatically ambiguous, and an additional comma got inserted somewhere which might (or might not) have changed the meaning.

The upshot of this is that there are two defensible but completely different ways of interpreting the 2nd Amendment. The NRA and others prefer one interpretation. The ACLU and others prefer the other. Courts have sided with both sides.

The ACLU is officially neutral on the issue of the 2nd Amendment because there are no current governmental intrusions into the rights as understood from the commonly accepted, legally defensible interpretation of the text that they follow.

They don’t hate the 2nd Amendment. They don’t ignore it. They just don’t agree with your interpretation.

Posted by: LawnBoy at May 12, 2006 4:52 PM
Comment #147715

Rick G,

Yes, some of the ACLU founders were Communist, in the days before Communism was shown to be as bad as it turned out to be. How does this apply now, 80 years later, to an organization that defends Americans from governmental overreach?

It doesn’t.

If you think it does, that’s like saying that my wife must be a Fascist because she bought a Volkswagen (an organiation founded by the Nazis).

Posted by: LawnBoy at May 12, 2006 4:54 PM
Comment #147741

Well, it appears that the Official Policy of Photobucket is that we should all Forget the Third Reich and what happened under the Neo-Conservatism of the mid-20th Century.

Kudos to Photobucket: they are well on the way towards “Protecting” us into Forgetting History.

I will be looking for new Image Hosting now before getting back to the Good Fight here on WatchBlog - see ya soon!

Posted by: Betty Burke at May 12, 2006 6:22 PM
Comment #147776

Lawnboy
Your history is in need of a tune-up in 1924 Baldwin traveled to the Soviet Union as he reguared the Russian Revolution as the greatest and most daring exeriment yet undertaken to recreate society in terms of human values…during this period of history so admired by Baldwin as many as two million people were relocated, had their property seized, or were killed as a result of Marxism and Communism.

Also a Good Friend of Baldwins was a lady named Margaret Sanger a eugenicist. eugenicits, individuals who study and promote proposed way of improving the human species through selective breeding. eugenics was practiced by the Nazis in Germany in pursuit of their goal of a “master race” by suppressing the brithrate of “inferiors” such as the poor, the handicapped, and racial minorities.In fact Adolf Hitler Said He Admired Sanger.

If your Wife drives a Volkswagen I say she is one smart Lady…the way gas prices keep going up I may have to buy a bicycle

Posted by: Rick G at May 12, 2006 8:31 PM
Comment #147779
Your history is in need of a tune-up in 1924 Baldwin traveled to the Soviet Union

Yeah, I said 80 years and it’s actually 82. You’re right, my whole point is blown.

Yes, the regime was doing horrible things at the time, but those horrible things were not well known (and not as bad as they were in the 30s and 40s), so it’s quite possible that the crimes were hidden from him. Even if they weren’t, neither Baldwin’s 82-year old beliefs or Sanger’s 80-year old beliefs matter when discussing the actual practices of the ACLU today.

Just like my wife is not a Nazi just because she drives a VW.

Posted by: LawnBoy at May 12, 2006 8:42 PM
Comment #147792

Some of you seem to think the ACLU is the great defender of the Constitution, well I think your wrong. In 2003 the ACLU sponsored a conference at the Carter Center in Atlanta Georgia to promote the use of international law in U.S. courts. The conference was titled “Human Rights at Home: International Laws in U.S. Courts” the ACLU publicity statements for the event stated ” the emphasis throughout the conference will be on using international law and human rights norms to advance justice in the U.S. courts or on behalf of U.S. Clients” and ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero said “Our goal is no less then to forge a new era of social justice where the principles of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights are recognized and enforced in the United States”

To me this sound like the ACLU is more then willing to forget the U.S. Constitution and our Laws and let International Law be the Law of the Land. Sounds to we like the ACLU would love to dump the ” Bill of Rights” in favor of the “United Nations Declaration of Human Rights” sounds Un-American to Me!

Posted by: Rick G at May 12, 2006 9:37 PM
Comment #147807

Rick,

“To me this sound like the ACLU is more then willing to forget the U.S. Constitution and our Laws and let International Law be the Law of the Land.”

And… has this happened yet?

You have no problem with the ACLU defending Fred Phelps do you?

Posted by: Rocky at May 12, 2006 11:08 PM
Comment #147818

Rob

Assuming consentual sex, how would your opinion change if the nineteen year old was your daughter or granddaugther? Consider that, and you may better understand why the ACLU takes on such cases.

If you’ll notice I got serious in the next sentance. I was just being a smart ass in the first one.
As much as I love my kids and grandkids if they broke the law I would expect them to face the consequences for their actions. Regardless of what they are.

Posted by: Ron Brown at May 12, 2006 11:59 PM
Comment #147821

Jeff:
Unfortunately, you don’t mention what the votes of each member of the Senate Judiciary committee was on the gun report…. Hence, you miss the fact that it was a political document rammed through by the new Republican majority. The report was passed on an essentially party-line vote. If you had read the report and followed its legal case citations and THEN, pursued independent research you would have found: (1) factual errors as to Supreme Court precedent on the 2nd Amendment; (2) the failure to cite cases which do not support the gun nut argument — go to WESTLAW and you’ll find that the citations in the report are outnumbered by about a factor of 10 of cases that find otherwise; (3) that the citations to state cases is of no relevance to the Federal constitutional question.

But, now let us return to the ACLU bashing… it all raises the question why modern-day conservatives (read, GOPers) so hate constitutional rights. It raises the question how conservatives can claim to love America and yet, hate what it stands for as expounded in its constitution. I raises the question why conservatives hate Americans so much. Perhaps the very foundation of fascism explains much: corporatism

Posted by: Dr. Poshek at May 13, 2006 12:12 AM
Comment #147837

CHILD RAPIST SLAP ON THE WRIST! PROTESTING AT FUNERALS WITH HATE FILLED SIGHNS WITH NO REGARDS TO THE PAIN THERE FAMILYS ARE IN BECAUSE THE ACLU SAYS ITS THERE 1ST AMENDMENT RIGHTS! AND WE MUST CHANGE 100S OF YEARS OF CHRISTMAS BECAUSE ITS OFFENSIVE TO THE ACLU!THEY EVEN WANT TO CHANGE OUR MONEY!HELL THEY WOULD HOLY DEFEND THE RIGHTS OF LEAKERS WHEN OUR NATION IS AT WAR AND MILLIONS COULD DIE FROM THE GREAT MUSHROOM CLOUD IN THE SKY! WITH ALL OUR LIVES AT STAKE 1 JACKASS WANTING POLITICAL BROWNIE POINTS COULD SIGHN OUR DEATH WARRANT BY TELLING THE TERRORIST EVERY MOVE WE MAKE THEN MAKING POINTS IN POLITICAL CIRCLES! THERE IS MUCH MORE THAN REPUBLICANS AND DEMS ITS SHEER TRECHERY OF THE WORST KIND ITS WORSE THAN BLACK AND WHITE AND THE WRONGS ARE OUT NUMBERING THE RIGHTS 10 TO 1 AND STILL GROWIN! SAD TRULY SAD

Posted by: allen stephens at May 13, 2006 3:49 AM
Comment #147839

Mr. Allen Stephens:

Since you apparently do not like constitutional rights, perhaps you’d be happier living somewhere without rights. Theocratic Iran, perhaps?

Posted by: Dr. Poshek at May 13, 2006 4:03 AM
Comment #147858

Rocky

“Oh, and BTW, being an American communist or a draft dodger doesn’t mean you don’t support the Constitution”.

Yes - You are correct

Being a communist or having communist views is not unconstitutional. It is called free speech. Being a draft dodger is clearly illegal, but can also be considered a form of free speech or protest such as burning draft cards during the Vietnam war.

Just becasue you do not agree with someones views does not amke them un-american.

Posted by: Steve at May 13, 2006 9:50 AM
Comment #147860

Mr. Allen Stephens

The ACLU has a liberal view interpreting the Constitution of the US. You do not agree becasue you have a conservative view. You are of course free to disagree and to have your views, but just because you do not agree with the ACLU, it does not mean they are un-American.

This is the problem conservatives take with liberals. “If you do not agree with our conservative views then you are either aiding the enemy or you are un-American”

This is an un-American and un-constitutional view on the behalf of conservative thinking.

Posted by: jerseyboy at May 13, 2006 9:59 AM
Comment #147866
Since you apparently do not like constitutional rights, perhaps you’d be happier living somewhere without rights. Theocratic Iran, perhaps?

I think he’d be happier in CAPSLOCKIA…


(hey jack: are’mt yoo prowd ub yur felo comsmurvatavs poasting hear?sum feel THA NEAD TOO SHOWT!!!!!yoo bett.)

Posted by: Betty Burke at May 13, 2006 10:51 AM
Comment #147918

Rick G.

To me this sound like the ACLU is more then willing to forget the U.S. Constitution and our Laws and let International Law be the Law of the Land.

You seem to be forgetting a very important part of the Constitution. Article VI, paragraph 2 states:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Note the bolded text. This means that we are Constitutionally bound to uphold any treaty that we enter into. If an “international law” exists due to a treaty that the U.S. has signed (for example, the U.N. Charter), the Constitution demands, via Article VI, that “Judges in every State shall be bound thereby”.

In other words, the Constitution requires that international law, when signed onto by the U.S., be considered in U.S. courts.

Are you suggesting that our courts should violate the Constitution by ignoring our treaties?

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at May 13, 2006 1:29 PM
Comment #147921

Mr. Allen Stephens:

You could not be more right (as in correct). The ACLU uses their seemingly good intentions (protecting the constitution, protecting individual rights) as a cover up for their sinister hidden agenda.

They hide behind the constitution and use the 1st amendment to spite conservatives (ex, protesting at military funerals).

Now, yes, they have supported conservative-leaning interest groups, but I believe their allegiance is disingenuous. If they didn’t support all free speech, regardless of political affiliation, they would have been driven out a long time ago…it’s a smart move on their part, appearing sympathetic to everybody, Republican or Democrat, but the bottom line is that this group only cares about Republicans because they have to.

I truly believe that the ACLU is made up of genuinely evil people.

Posted by: Alex Fitzsimmons at May 13, 2006 1:33 PM
Comment #147930

Jeff,

It doesn’t matter what the Senate says about the Constitution.

It is not the job of the Legislative branch of our government to interpret or enforce the Constitution. That is the job of the Judicial branch. Last time I checked, the Senate was in the Legislative branch.

Posted by: ElliottBay at May 13, 2006 1:52 PM
Comment #147931

Alex,

“You could not be more right (as in correct). The ACLU uses their seemingly good intentions (protecting the constitution, protecting individual rights) as a cover up for their sinister hidden agenda.”

Our previous conversation aside, that’s the biggest load of crap I have ever read on these pages.

Sinister hidden agenda?

So what you’re saying is that the ACLU is in control of those black helicopters?

When is the big takeover going to take place?

Can we assume that the ACLU will be constructing a re-grooving camp for all conservitives?

Posted by: Rocky at May 13, 2006 1:54 PM
Comment #147965
I truly believe that the ACLU is made up of genuinely evil people.

I’m sorry that you hold on to this opinion in spite of the repeated counter-examples to your claims. I guess you prefer to hate people than accept that you’re wrong.

How sad.

Posted by: LawnBoy at May 13, 2006 4:57 PM
Comment #147992

Lawnboy, did you completely ignore my last post with the exception of the last line? The ACLU has to support the rights of everybody, because they wouldn’t be around anymore if they didn’t.

So, they covertly challenge the GOP every chance they get, and they play the civil rights card every time.

Then misguided people fall right into the ACLU’s trap and start believing their propaganda is true and honest devotion to the constitution.

That’s the sad part.

Posted by: Alex Fitzsimmons at May 13, 2006 8:15 PM
Comment #148002

Alex,

“The ACLU has to support the rights of everybody, because they wouldn’t be around anymore if they didn’t.”

What exactly would be the point if they didn’t support the rights of everybody?

You’re not making any sense at all.

“I truly believe that the ACLU is made up of genuinely evil people.”

So do you include David Remer as a part of your “evil plot”?

You guys make the ACLU sound as if they were the Anti-Christ come down to fool us all into submission.

Does everyone that trys to do good need to have an ulterior motive?

I guess the question should be, do you support the Constitution or not?

The ACLU does support the Constitution, and apparently you have a problem with that.

Posted by: Rocky at May 13, 2006 8:57 PM
Comment #148025
The ACLU does support the Constitution, and apparently you have a problem with that.

Rocky,

No, I don’t have a problem with the constitution, you know that, I have a problem with people who use the constitution to create a facade to cover up their ugly face. I also have a problem with people who care more about the rights of vile predators than the rights of innocent civilians. I also have a problem with people so blinded by the black and white world leftist interest groups like the ACLU concoct that they can’t even look past a layer of truth to uncover what is really going on here.

And no, I never said anything about an “Anti-Christ” or that a “big takeover” is going to take place, you imagined that on your own. So, please, before this gets real ugly, I’ll agree to disagree with you, partly because I have better things to do than sit around debating an issue that will never be resolved, but mostly becasue I can see where this post is heading and I’d rather not go down that road with you, sir.

So, if you’ll excuse me, I’ve got things to do, people to see, and readers to enlighten.

Sincerely,
Alex Fitzsimmons

Posted by: Alex Fitzsimmons at May 13, 2006 11:44 PM
Comment #148028

Alex,

Why bother to put up a post full of speculation and baloney against an organization that you don’t have one scintilla of proof against.

Sorry, but your rebuttal wouldn’t stand up in court, no matter how passionate your presentation.

We will agree to disagree simply because you haven’t proved your point.

Posted by: Rocky at May 13, 2006 11:59 PM
Comment #148034
Lawnboy, did you completely ignore my last post with the exception of the last line? The ACLU has to support the rights of everybody, because they wouldn’t be around anymore if they didn’t.

No, I didn’t ignore it. I read it, and it’s part of what makes it all so sad.

There’s a real situation with a real, legitimate explanation. Instead of accepting it, you choose to invent an elaborate explanation that involves people acting against their own interest and accusing people of being inherently evil.

You choose to go against the guidance of Occam’s razor and invent a convoluted argument when the facts and truth are starting you in the face.

That’s what’s sad.

Posted by: LawnBoy at May 14, 2006 12:15 AM
Comment #148076

Alex,

If you are going to continue to post articles like this you will need to do better.

To make a blanket accusation against an organization with only hyperbole as your talking points is the worst sort of “Yellow Journalism”.

In case you don’t understand the meaning;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism#Meaning

The ACLU is fighting this case because the law says these guys have served their time, the debt to society has been paid, and under the law you cannot brand these guys, no matter how abhorent we all find them, with a “Scarlet Letter” and call it a day.

You also will have to do better than Bill O’Reilly as a source for your retoric.

“I truly believe that the ACLU is made up of genuinely evil people.”

That is your quote.

Do you truely belive that the entire 300,000 people that are card carrying members are evil, or do you feel they are just dupes supporting an evil cause?

It doesn’t make any sense to say that the ACLU “HAS” to do good, in order to hide the bad things they want to do.
That kind of logic requires a huge leap of faith that I, for one, am not willing to make, and frankly you’re not going to convince anybody without some solid proof, which BTW you haven’t provided.

Posted by: Rocky at May 14, 2006 11:46 AM
Comment #148088

Rocky,

This is the last time I will comment on this post, I thought we could respect our agree to disagree pact, but apparently not.

So, the following is a long list of newspaper articles supporting my claim that the ACLU is a frivolous, demeaning organization.

http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/7267386p-7179200c.html

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/boggess/051112

http://www.todaysthv.com/news/news.aspx?storyid=21123

http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/430651.html

http://www.katc.com/Global/story.asp?S=4806516

http://www.nysun.com/article/30159

http://badgerherald.com/news/2006/02/06/aclu_sues_over_sexc.php

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060107/NEWS01/601070439/1006

I can scrounge up some more if you’d like, but this is probably enough. And maybe this was my fault, but I assumed that most people were already aware of most of the ACLU’s happenings, so I omitted a lot of what they’ve previously done and stuck with their most recent travesties.

At least I know for next time.

And by the way, I don’t appreciate you subliminally insulting my intelligence by conveniently supplying me with the definition of yellow journalism, I am well aware of the concept.

Yours truly
Alex Fitzsimmons

Posted by: Alex Fitzsimmons at May 14, 2006 1:09 PM
Comment #148092

Alex,

“And by the way, I don’t appreciate you subliminally insulting my intelligence by conveniently supplying me with the definition of yellow journalism, I am well aware of the concept.”

There was no attempt to be subliminal at all.

By reading the links you provide I now understand.

Your problem isn’t with the ACLU. Your problem is with Buhdists, Hindus, Muslums, gays, or anyone that would sully your impression that America should be a white, Fundamentalist Christian, nation.

Yep, we disagree allright.

Posted by: Rocky at May 14, 2006 1:34 PM
Comment #148099

Rocky,

You want to talk about unsubstantiated hype and misinformation, just look in the mirror. Just because I have a problem with groups who prance around demeaning the Boy Scouts, forbidding people to use the word God any chance they get, defending the rights of convicted criminals over the rights of innocent people, advocating for state funding of inmate sex changes, deeming it a “necessary” medical procedure, rallying against legislation to keep child predators out of family parks, thus jeopardizing the rights of all the innocent kids, and showing disgust every time someone wants to say the word God at a public meeting, does not mean I’m a white supremacist.

And if you interpret the afore mentioned as being Fundamenist-Christian, then you have some serious issues to work out.

I didn’t want this post to reach this point, but I will not have someone call me a Fundamentalist-Christian, based on half-baked hype, and just stand here and take it.

Posted by: Alex Fitzsimmons at May 14, 2006 2:00 PM
Comment #148115

Alex,

What do you aim to prove with those links? Rocky and David and I and others have said that the ACLU is a group that honestly tries to protect Americans from governmental overreach in our personal lives. In other words, to make sure the constitution is followed in issues of Religion, Privacy, and Due Process.

The examples you gave were cases where religion was being illegally and unconstitutionally invoked, or where privacy was being infringed, or cases where due process was hampered. And in those cases, the ACLU stepped in to defend Americans.

In essence, you provided no evidence whatsoever that the ACLU doesn’t do what they claim to do for the reasons they claim to do it.

Further, when added to the other examples given of the ACLU protecting citizens from illegal government acts even when those citizens are not what you would consider darlings of the left (homophobes, the KKK, Christians trying to baptize in parks, child molesters, Jerry Falwell), there’s a significant evidence that the ACLU does exactly what they claim to do, even when it’s unpopular.

Since you don’t want the rights of non-Christians protected (apparently), you’re mad enough at the ACLU for doing so that you’re willing to twist yourself into knots to ignore the times that the ACLU defends Christians against unconstitutional governmental overreach.

There’s a very simple way to understand all the evidence provided, whether provided by the supporters or detractors of the ACLU - the ACLU tries to defend the Constitution (particularly the 1st Amendment) even when not popular. In contrast, you insist on pushing an interpretation that makes sense with only some of the evidence, and then stretches into conspiracy theory wackiness to ignore the rest.

Maybe we’ll have to agree to disagree, but I usually prefer to leave that as a last resort for situtations where my opposition has actually defended their position with any evidence or rational interpretation.

Posted by: LawnBoy at May 14, 2006 4:25 PM
Comment #148122

Lawnboy,

You’ve presented rational arguments and haven’t accused me of being a KKK member, so we can still debate. Here is my quote:

I have a problem with groups who prance around demeaning the Boy Scouts, forbidding people to use the word God any chance they get, defending the rights of convicted criminals over the rights of innocent people, advocating for state funding of inmate sex changes, deeming it a ⮥cessary⠭edical procedure, rallying against legislation to keep child predators out of family parks, thus jeopardizing the rights of all the innocent kids, and showing disgust every time someone wants to say the word God at a public meeting.

These are my main objections to the ACLU. In theory, this group is great…who wouldn’t want a national organization protecting their most cherished rights?

However, in my opinion, and you can disagree, the ACLU has repeatedly attempted to spite religion, whether that be in schools, public meetings, etc. They tend to make something out of nothing often times…in regard to prayer, if you don’t want to say the word God in school, then don’t, nobody is making you. You can choose to if you want but if you don’t people will respect that choice.

And yet, the ACLU creates this fallacy that kids are being oppressed, that Christian views are being forced upon them, and this “travesty” needs to be stopped. That notion is simply irrational, conjured up by the ACLU.

And no, I’m not ignoring all the times the ACLU has protected Christians, because they have. I just see past the surface.

The ACLU is two faced: they stand up for the rights of Christians when they must but they undermine Christianity when it’s convenient (ie, a 1st amendment issue can be tied in, or they make it seem like it ties in).

Just think about it, if they didn’t stand up for Christians when their rights were in question, a score of flak from the right would resonate so boldly that people would question whether or not the ACLU truly represents the rights of everybody, or just the rights of left-wingers.

But, by supporting the Christians in these circumstances, they appear non-partisan, and that is something they are not. So, when an issue arises that they believe can be used to bolster their reputation while undermining Christianity, they grab it by the horns, evident in the God in public meetings exaggeration, God in schools amplification, and the Boy Scouts not hiring a gay scout leader (however loosely the last one ties in).

Posted by: Alex Fitzsimmons at May 14, 2006 5:08 PM
Comment #148127
And yet, the ACLU creates this fallacy that kids are being oppressed, that Christian views are being forced upon them, and this “travesty” needs to be stopped. That notion is simply irrational, conjured up by the ACLU.

I’m curious how you came to these conclusions. Did the ACLU conjure these notions? Not hardly. They’re commonly understood and demonstrated phenomena among those who are part of many different minorites.

And no, I’m not ignoring all the times the ACLU has protected Christians, because they have. I just see past the surface.

Just think about it, if they didn’t stand up for Christians when their rights were in question, a score of flak from the right would resonate so boldly that people would question whether or not the ACLU truly represents the rights of everybody, or just the rights of left-wingers.

And this is where you go against Occam’s Razor and delve into conspiracy theory. Really, once you’ve gone to a point where you believe that a group’s uncontested behavior is just a cover for actual sinister unprovable motives, then we’re in the realm where anything can be claimed an nothing can be proven.

Does the NRA at its core purpose want to replace 2% Milk with Rum in lunch menus? I think they do. Can I prove it? Nope. Can you disprove it? Nope. Will any rational analysis of their words and deeds matter once I’ve invented a motivation that doesn’t fit the data (but the other data is just subterfuge)? Nope.

That’s where we are with the ACLU. You’ve created a fantasy interpretation of the situation that is impervious to new facts because you will claim that anything that goes against your belief is deceitful subterfuge.

It’s classic conspiracy theory.

Posted by: LawnBoy at May 14, 2006 5:42 PM
Comment #148132

Lawnboy,

I’m not pulling this stuff out of thin air, I’ve watched the news enough times to sense a pattern: the ACLU defends the rights of Christians when they must, for fear of being labeled as partisan, but when Christmas rolls around the ACLU is out bashing Christmas and ridding its happy, loving rhetoric from public schools.

Furthermore, as afore mentioned, the ACLU has exaggerated stories, such as the God in schools. Last time I checked, kids could abstain from saying the word God in school, so where is the issue?

There shouldn’t be one. But, thanks partly to the ACLU, there is one.

Posted by: Alex Fitzsimmons at May 14, 2006 6:07 PM
Comment #148135

Alex,
Sure we can abstain from saying “G-d” (I’m Jewish) if we wanted to, but why not let it be where it’s we can say “G-d” if we want to.
What I’m trying to say is, why must it be so that we CAN NOT SAY G-D IF WE DON’T WANT TO, and NOT WE CAN SAY G-D IF WE WANT TO.

Posted by: greenstuff at May 14, 2006 6:24 PM
Comment #148152

Alex,

“Just because I have a problem with groups who prance around demeaning the Boy Scouts, forbidding people to use the word God any chance they get, defending the rights of convicted criminals over the rights of innocent people, advocating for state funding of inmate sex changes, deeming it a “necessary” medical procedure, rallying against legislation to keep child predators out of family parks, thus jeopardizing the rights of all the innocent kids, and showing disgust every time someone wants to say the word God at a public meeting, does not mean I?m a white supremacist.”

Just because you have a problem with their actions doesn’t mean that the ACLU is evil.

Just where do you get “white supremacist”, from “White Fundamentalist Christian”?

Showing disgust “everytime” someone mentions the word God?

Are the Boy Scouts a private organization?
Do they recieve public money?

The gays I know don’t prance.
The guy wasn’t demeaning the Boy Scouts, he wanted to be a Troop Leader.

Oh, and BTW, who’s creating the stereotypes now?

While I don’t agree with everything that the ACLU does, they do serve a vital function in our society.

Posted by: Rocky at May 14, 2006 8:16 PM
Comment #148164
the ACLU defends the rights of Christians when they must

You have no evidence that’s true, even if you watch the TV news.

Congrats on the resiliance of your theory in the face of logic.

Posted by: LawnBoy at May 14, 2006 8:59 PM
Comment #148168

Lawnboy,

You know, this guy sounds a lot like he who won’t be mentioned.

Posted by: Rocky at May 14, 2006 9:03 PM
Comment #148171

The ACLU defends the rights of people you think they hate far too often for your theory to make sense.

ACLU supports baptisms in parks.

ACLU fights to keep a church from being closed.

ACLU worked with JERRY FALWELL to make sure churches can incorporate.

September 20, 2005: ACLU of New Jersey joins lawsuit supporting second-grader’s right to sing “Awesome God” at a talent show.

August 4, 2005: ACLU helps free a New Mexico street preacher from prison.

February 2005: ACLU of Pennsylvania successfully defends the right of an African American Evangelical church to occupy a church building purchased in a predominantly white parish.

December 22, 2004: ACLU of New Jersey successfully defends right of religious expression by jurors.

November 20, 2004: ACLU of Nevada supports free speech rights of evangelists to preach on the sidewalks of the strip in Las Vegas.

November 9, 2004: ACLU of Nevada defends a Mormon student who was suspended after wearing a T-shirt with a religious message to school.

August 11, 2004: ACLU of Nebraska defends church facing eviction by the city of Lincoln.

July 10, 2004: Indiana Civil Liberties Union defends the rights of a Baptist minister to preach his message on public streets.

June 3, 2004: Under pressure from the ACLU of Virginia, officials agree not to prohibit baptisms on public property in Falmouth Waterside Park in Stafford County.

May 11, 2004: After ACLU of Michigan intervened on behalf of a Christian Valedictorian, a public high school agrees to stop censoring religious yearbook entries.

March 25, 2004: ACLU of Washington defends an Evangelical minister’s right to preach on sidewalks.

February 21, 2003: ACLU of Massachusetts defends students punished for distributing candy canes with religious messages.

October 28, 2002: ACLU of Pennsylvania files discrimination lawsuit over denial of zoning permit for African American Baptist church.

July 11, 2002: ACLU supports right of Iowa students to distribute Christian literature at school.

April 17, 2002: In a victory for the Rev. Jerry Falwell and the ACLU of Virginia, a federal judge strikes down a provision of the Virginia Constitution that bans religious organizations from incorporating.

January 18, 2002: ACLU defends Christian church’s right to run “anti-Santa” ads in Boston subways.

How many examples do you need? Could any get through to you?

Posted by: LawnBoy at May 14, 2006 9:06 PM
Comment #148188

The ACLU defends the rights of people you think they hate far too often for your theory to make sense.

September 20, 2005: ACLU of New Jersey joins lawsuit supporting second-grader’s right to sing “Awesome God” at a talent show.

August 4, 2005: ACLU helps free a New Mexico street preacher from prison.

February 2005: ACLU of Pennsylvania successfully defends the right of an African American Evangelical church to occupy a church building purchased in a predominantly white parish.

December 22, 2004: ACLU of New Jersey successfully defends right of religious expression by jurors.

November 20, 2004: ACLU of Nevada supports free speech rights of evangelists to preach on the sidewalks of the strip in Las Vegas.

November 9, 2004: ACLU of Nevada defends a Mormon student who was suspended after wearing a T-shirt with a religious message to school.

August 11, 2004: ACLU of Nebraska defends church facing eviction by the city of Lincoln.

July 10, 2004: Indiana Civil Liberties Union defends the rights of a Baptist minister to preach his message on public streets.

June 3, 2004: Under pressure from the ACLU of Virginia, officials agree not to prohibit baptisms on public property in Falmouth Waterside Park in Stafford County.

May 11, 2004: After ACLU of Michigan intervened on behalf of a Christian Valedictorian, a public high school agrees to stop censoring religious yearbook entries.

March 25, 2004: ACLU of Washington defends an Evangelical minister’s right to preach on sidewalks.

February 21, 2003: ACLU of Massachusetts defends students punished for distributing candy canes with religious messages.

October 28, 2002: ACLU of Pennsylvania files discrimination lawsuit over denial of zoning permit for African American Baptist church.

July 11, 2002: ACLU supports right of Iowa students to distribute Christian literature at school.

April 17, 2002: In a victory for the Rev. Jerry Falwell and the ACLU of Virginia, a federal judge strikes down a provision of the Virginia Constitution that bans religious organizations from incorporating.

January 18, 2002: ACLU defends Christian church’s right to run “anti-Santa” ads in Boston subways.

How many examples do you need? Could any get through to you?

They are entirely consistent in protecting citizens from unconstitutional government intrusion, whether enforcing religion or prohibiting it.

Posted by: LawnBoy at May 14, 2006 9:56 PM
Comment #148190

Rocly,

Do you mean Voldemort?

Posted by: LawnBoy at May 14, 2006 10:09 PM
Comment #148205

Close enough.

Posted by: Rocky at May 14, 2006 11:28 PM
Comment #148207

BTW,

Well said.

Posted by: Rocky at May 14, 2006 11:30 PM
Comment #148234

Rocky inferred, ominously:

You know, this guy sounds a lot like he who won’t be mentioned.

[Which caused Betty, fresh from a GodAwfullyHorrific Electrical Disturbance in her household to rush to reply, before she saw LawnBoy beat her to it by asking: ]

Do you mean Voldemort?

:o|


And here was me thinking: “Cthulhu?

Posted by: Betty Burke at May 15, 2006 4:37 AM
Comment #148271
And here was me thinking: “Cthulhu?”

Funny… I was thinking Cheney. :-)

As far as the ACLU goes, I must give them credit in one area — consistency. They’re more consistent in their platform than either political party is. While you could argue (and I have) that they don’t respect the 2nd Amendment as much as some of the others, they are consistent in applying their interpretation.

That’s more than either the Democrats or Republicans can say.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at May 15, 2006 9:18 AM
Comment #148278

I’d of thought that rahdigly would have been all over this subject.

I wonder where he went?

Posted by: Rocky at May 15, 2006 10:24 AM
Comment #148290

Perhaps the ACLU isn’t one of Rahdigly’s windmills. He certainly has enough without this one.

Posted by: LawnBoy at May 15, 2006 11:04 AM
Comment #148317

Mr. Fitzsimmons conveniently ignored my post and at the same time posted and accused someone else of ignoring his post.

This is not a journalism site. Nothing but more propaganda unable to withstand a few facts that destroys their propaganda theories.

Posted by: logciallaws at May 15, 2006 12:47 PM
Comment #148362

This is probably my fault, but I believe my opinions were misconstrued. I didn’t elucidate my message effectively and thus was pounced on by my adversaries, and I can only blame myself for that.

So, as unequivocally as I can put it, I believe that although the ACLU, as supported by many examples, has defended the rights of numerous people—and I don’t want to discredit that, they do good deeds—I have a problem when the ACLU advocates for criminal’s rights beyond reasonable boundaries, thus jeopardizing the rights of innocent people. I understand that sexual predators have rights too, but not putting their names in public record is an injustice to the American people. The ACLU needs to recognize that although they stand for the rights of everybody, sometimes it is in society’s best interest to defend the rights of one group over another to ensure that the world will be a safer place. And personally, I believe that the ACLU, on the issue of sexual predator rights, is hampering our criminal justice system and leaving many innocent people exposed and unprotected.

And that’s something I am not willing to stand idly by and ignore.

Posted by: Alex Fitzsimmons at May 15, 2006 4:36 PM
Comment #148363

***And thats not something I’m willing to stand idly by and ignore.****

Posted by: Alex Fitzsimmons at May 15, 2006 4:37 PM
Comment #148368

Alex,

Let’s start over and I’ll play nice this time.

“I understand that sexual predators have rights too, but not putting their names in public record is an injustice to the American people.”

IMHO, putting the names and address of people that have, at least theoreticly served their time, places a burden on them that cannot be justified by saying that they “might” do it again.

This practice leaves the door open for all sorts of abuses, up to and including all manner of vigilante justice. Thus the ACLU’s stance.

There needs to be a means of sorting out those that are most susceptible to being repeat offenders and act accordingly.
If that means changing the laws so that those most likely to re-offend never again see the light of day, I don’t belive the ACLU would have any problem with that.

Posted by: Rocky at May 15, 2006 5:03 PM
Comment #148380

I agree with Rocky (probably not a shock). I think that the ACLU isn’t out to protect sexual predators. Its interest in the case is to make sure that governments are not creating extra-legal punishments, that citizens are not being punished under terms that didn’t exist when they were sentenced (there’s a legal term for this that’s escaping me).

Would it be more convenient for the ACLU if the defendants in this case were lovable people that the whole country would support? Absolutely. Should sacrifice of constitutional guarantees of due be justified because we really don’t like the defendants? I don’t think so - the ACLU is protecting us all from a dangerous precendent when they protect the worst elements of society from unconstitutional government overreach.

Posted by: LawnBoy at May 15, 2006 5:48 PM
Comment #148404

“of due be” should be “of due process be”

Posted by: LawnBoy at May 15, 2006 6:55 PM
Comment #148551

Alex,
What you’re failing to see here are the bigger issues.

You’reenemy isn’t the ACLU. They aren’t defending child molestors. They are defending constitutional principals. It’s easy to want a lynch mob mentality to prevail in the case of child molestors. The Constitution was written precisely to avert this kind of thinking. A tyrrany can control crime much more easily. That doesn’t mean you are for tyranny does it?

Sadly, some commentators use this kind of hype to promote themselves as defenders of the people.

Lawnboy and Rocky have shown great restraint in responding to your comments and attempted to lift your argument out of the gutter. Kudos to them for that effort.

Posted by: gergle at May 16, 2006 4:23 AM
Comment #148643

I am reminded of a scene in the book, “The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy”, where the President, Zaphod Beeblebrox wears sun glasses that, when there is danger around, turn totally black.
If you can’t see it, there is no danger.

Posted by: Rocky at May 16, 2006 1:20 PM
Comment #148984

We all now that the ACLU defends Rush Limprod and his oxycodone fiasco…..and we all KNOW he is definately a criminal, huh! There is your proof that the ACLU will even defend a GOP spinner over the real victims!

Posted by: qatwoman at May 17, 2006 3:01 PM
Comment #149040

Dear Dr. Potlick,
Your arrogance and superior attitude ooze from your response. You can read all you want and take all the tests you want and it won’t ever change what you are. A typical Socialist who thinks he is so superior he needs to dominate large segments of the population who are too ignorant to run their own lives. We own guns to protect us against people like you. By the way, how is your chiropractic business?

Posted by: dan at May 17, 2006 6:39 PM
Comment #149048

The ACLU defends the rights of people you think they hate far too often for your theory to make sense.

Lawnboy, Wake Up! The only reason the ACLU defends these causes is to further their agenda and if these causes aren’t defended neither are theirs. They don’t care about God, religion, or anything except their agenda. If you happen to on the same train they are, you get to go wherever they do.

Posted by: dan at May 17, 2006 7:14 PM
Comment #151074

Thanks, dan, for restating the common thesis of one side of the argument without actually contributing anything new.

Please let me know if you have anything concrete to say against the many counter-examples presented here.

Admonitions that those who disagree with you need to “wake” up will not be considered adequate.

Posted by: LawnBoy at May 24, 2006 9:36 PM
Comment #177531

As a family member of a registered sex offender, I have absolutely no criminal record. Yet under California’s Proposition 83, I will be penalized and told where I can and cannot live if it passes. It’s expected to.

The provision in the law calls for all registered sex offenders (the worst of the worst down to the people who pee behind trees) to live at least 2,000 feet from schools and parks. The initiative also gives cities and other jurisdictions the right to impose additional locations. God only knows what they will propose. I have already seen the cities of Loomis and South Lake Tahoe consider such ordinances.

The politicians who propose these initiatives seem to write these with a stereotypical “child molester” in mind, rather than the huge variety of sex offenders who actually exist in society.

I will give you some real life examples: a father molests his daughter, he goes to prison, gets heavy duty counseling and is reunited with his family. Yet under Megan’s Law and now with Jessica’s Law, his victim and his wife will be re-victimized.

A Georgia woman was forced to register as a sex offender because she “allowed” her daughter to become pregnant. Then she was forced to move when Georgia’s draconian sexual offender law went into effect recently.

Two twenty something brothers were messing around near a river while skinny dipping. The one stole the clothing of the other and when that other went looking for his clothing, a police car cruised by, arrested him, and he was forced to register as a sex offender.

In Oregon, married couples who have consenxual sex in parked cars at parks and who are detected by the police are charged with indecent exposure and the males are forced to register as sex offenders.

Nineteen year old college guys have sex with their 17 year old girlfriends get caught, parents want to complain, the young man gets branded as a sex offender.

There are many, many more ridiculous examples of what passes for public safety laws.

Then there’s Jessica’s Law: the fine print about the banishment is buried deeply in the initiative. People have to wade through much legalese before they find this provision. And then the public may not even realize how utterly ridiculous this provision is, because they, like many others, have the stereotypical funny old man as the sexual offender stuck in their brains.

However, I am here to tell you that this law will have detrimental effects on thousands of tax paying, law abiding people like myself - a middle aged high school teacher and former political reporter.

I know the ACLU is fighting the Georgia law; however, I have not heard if it’s fighting the California law. I do know there are class action lawsuits.

My problem with this whole issue: how can you provide protection to a group of people (children) while hurting another group of people (registered sex offenders, their spouses and children.)? If you say you care about children, what about the children of sex offenders? (That may sound odd, because society isn’t used to thinking of sex offenders as normal people with wives and children and people who love them, but they’re all over the place!) Do the children and spouses of registered sex offenders deserve to be ostracized, harassed, banned and discriminated against, because they choose to love a registered sex offender?

Posted by: Shelley at August 26, 2006 12:44 AM
Comment #192366

One of the more reasoned responses against the ACLU noted how in its defense of civil liberties the ACLU seems to go against what is in the common interest. Its understandable to blame a group for not seeking morale/good outcomes, but if one is going to hate to the ACLU for not conforming to the common good, then one must certainly hate the American legal system more. After all, its restrictive rules ensure that crimes are only punished when a group of people all perceive a defendent to be guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt, and whole cases can be thrown out on technicalities. Since the judge, lawyers, and cops are all bound to uphold the letter of the law, are they not deserving of as much wrath for not protecting the “common good”? The obvious answer is no; the American legal system and the ACLU are both absolute mechanisms that do not (in theory) bend to moral judgments about what the right or wrong answer is, only to what the legal answer is. Both can make society worse, both exist to make society better.

As a whole, the ACLU is often one the left side of issues because, in my opinion, the right often seeks to preserve Christianity as a sort of norm. Many Christians certainly believe in the rights of people to believe what they want while at the same time feeling (for a variety of reasons) their religion should remain at the center of American society.

Most Christians do not realize how oppressive it is to be a non-Christian surrounded by Christian faith. It marks you as an outsider, abnormal, and when it comes to talking to Christians, it makes you wrong. In public school I was perturbed to have the Pledge of Allegiance forced upon me, both because of the notion of swearing myself to a country I did not yet fully understand and because of its declaration of American being under God (I’m bothered by even more now that I realize for a long time the Pledge of Allegiance never made any mention of God). What do you think it is like for a child to be singled out by a teacher for not standing and taking the pledge, to have to argue before everyone else that they are different and do not believe in reciting the pledge for religious reasons? Remembering a former peer that had to do just that, I am deeply sorry for that. That’s but a light example; if you need proof of how dangerous Christian influence in schools can be, you need only look so far as a community in Delaware:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/29/us/29delaware.html?ei=5090&en=deca2060f0d3c3fc&ex=1311825600&partner=rssu&pagewanted=print

Posted by: Mog at November 1, 2006 4:17 PM
Comment #300435

“The ACLU isn’t jeopardizing the American public; they are trying to protect the civil liberties of all Americans, whether they are sexual predators, neo-nazis, or even suspected terrorists.”

There it is. That’s the American public in a nutshell—perhaps according to the ACLU, eh?

Why does the ACLU defend people who would view pornography in a public library rather than to be concerned about the protection of children who may walk by one of these computers and be scarred for life by it? That’s not a civil liberties issue. That’s a child protection issue. The ACLU defends the attempted abuse of freedoms, not freedom itself. And the ACLU is FULL of these cases. The ACLU absolutely does NOT defend anybody and everybody.

Posted by: buffalo bill at May 11, 2010 9:38 PM
Comment #305432

This is a perfect capture from a ACLU web site. What a line of crap they put out. Wish the government would crawl up theirs collective butts and investigate them. Love their stance on the criminals that cross the border illegally. Don’t check them out when you see them…just wait until they commit some crime before you check them out. Lets just hope its not murder they have commited and if it has to be murder then hopefully it’s some ACLU member.

5. Why does the ACLU support the rights of criminals but not victims of crime?

The ACLU supports everyone’s rights. Citizens are outraged by crime and understandably want criminals caught and prosecuted. The ACLU simply believes that the rights to fair treatment and due process must be respected for people accused of crimes. Respecting these rights does not cause crime, nor does it hinder police from pursuing criminals. It should, and does in fact, cause police to avoid sloppy procedures.

Posted by: mike at August 8, 2010 12:22 PM
Comment #380165

http://www.oakleysunglasses.us.comoakley sunglasses womens
http://www.cheap-jordanshoes.netjordan cp3
http://www.coach-outlet-factoryonline.comcoach.com handbags
http://www.officialcoachoutletsfactory.comfactory coach online
http://www.louisvuitton-outlet.us.comlouis vuitton las vegas outlet
http://www.christianlouboutin-outletsale.netlouboutin red bottom shoes for men
http://www.coachoutletstoreonlinetinc.comauthentic coach handbags
http://www.ray-bansunglasses.orgray bans jackie ohh
http://www.toryburchoutletonline.ussale tory burch flats
http://www.louis—vuitton.uslouis vuitton hand bags
http://www.coachoutletstoreonlinetinc.comcoach factory online outlet
http://www.truereligion-outlet.infobaby true religion jeans
http://www.coachfactoryoutletinc.uscoach outlet coupon
http://www.ray-ban.us.comcheap ray bans outlet
http://www.louisvuittonoutlets-inc.comlouis vuitton trevi pm
http://www.christianlouboutin-outletsale.netwww.christianlouboutin.com
http://www.louisvuitton.namelouis vuitton canada
http://www.michaelkors-outlethandbags.commichael kors outlets locations
http://www.coachoutletstoreonlinemall.comcoach store outlet online
http://www.ray-ban.us.comcheap ray ban clubmaster
http://www.michael-korsoutlet.netmichael kors cheap outlet online
http://www.rayban-sunglasses.usray ban sunglass outlet
http://www.cheap-oakleysunglasses.usoakley outlet 365
http://www.ray-ban.us.combuy ray bans
http://www.louis—vuitton.uslouis vuitton men wallet
http://www.michaelkorshandbags.usmichael kors store outlet
http://www.michaelkors-outlethandbags.commichael kors handbag sale
http://www.coachoutletstoreonlinetinc.comcoach discount bags
http://www.jordan-shoes.us.comqueen of jordan
http://www.tory-burch-outlet.orgtory burch ballet flats sale
http://www.ray-ban.us.comray ban sunglasses wayfarer
http://www.michaelkorshandbags.ussilver michael kors watch
http://www.oakley—sunglasses.us.comoakley thump 2
http://www.officialcoachoutletsfactory.comcoach wallet sale
http://www.louboutin.us.comchristian louboutin shoes price
http://www.michaelkorsfactoryoutlet.usmichael kors watch on sale
http://www.tory-burch-outlet.biztory burch 2011
http://www.michael—kors.commichael kors outlet bags
http://www.toryburch-outlet.orgtory burch gladiator sandals
http://www.oakley—sunglasses.us.comoakley sunglasses for kids
http://www.true—religion.ustrue religion cheap jeans
http://www.toryburch-outlet.orgtory burch reviews
http://www.rayban-sunglasses.usray ban rb4151
http://www.coachfactoryoutletinc.uscoach outlets
http://www.truereligion-jeans.cctrue religion store outlet
http://www.ray-bansunglasses.usray ban 8306
http://www.louisvuitton.us.comauthentic louis vuitton handbags cheap
http://www.louisvuitton.nameblack louis vuitton
http://www.michaelkorsfactoryoutlet.usmichael kors watches
http://www.coachoutletstoreonlinetinc.comcoach coupons
http://www.cheap-jordans.us.comjordan xii
http://www.jordanshoes.us.comjordan sweat suits
http://www.oakleysunglasses.namemonster dog oakley
http://www.rayban-sunglasses.usray ban sunglasses outlet online
http://www.ray-bansunglasses.orgray ban aviators cheap
http://www.rayban-sunglasses.uscheap ray ban sunglasses wayfarer
http://www.michaelkorshandbags.usmichael kors python bag
http://www.true-religion-outlet.ustrue religion cargo shorts
http://www.michaelkorshandbags.usmichael kors authentic outlet
http://www.true-religion-outlet.ustrue religion shorts for men
http://www.coachfactoryoutletinc.uscoach online
http://www.ray-ban.us.comkids ray ban glasses
http://www.true-religion-outlet.ustrue religion jeans outlet
http://www.cheap-jordanshoes.netjordan sweat suit
http://www.louisvuittonoutlets-inc.comlouis vuitton umbrella
http://www.michael—kors.commichael kors astor handbag
http://www.michael-kors-outlet.ccmichael kors handbag sale
http://www.ray-ban.us.comray ban 4118
http://www.cheap-jordans.us.comjordan cool greys
http://www.louis—vuitton.usauthentic louis vuitton website
http://www.officialcoachoutletsfactory.comdiscontinued coach bags
http://www.coach-outlet-factoryonline.comcoach shoes on sale
http://www.oakley—sunglasses.us.comoakley frames
http://www.michael—kors.comoutlet michael kors handbags
http://www.truereligion-outlet.infowhere to get true religion jeans
http://www.oakleysunglasses.namecheap sunglasses oakley
http://www.michaelkors-outlethandbags.commichael kors factory outlet online store
http://www.christianlouboutin-outletsale.netchristian louboutin ballet flats
http://www.oakleysunglasses.nameoakley sunglasses outlets
http://www.michaelkorshandbags.usmichael kors watches discount
http://www.jordanshoes.us.comauthentic jordan shoes
http://www.toryburch-outlet.orgdiscounted tory burch flats
http://www.truereligion-jeans.ccjoey super t true religion
http://www.coachoutletstoreonlinetinc.comcheap coach wallets
http://www.ray-bansunglasses.orgray band sunglasses
http://www.jordan-shoes.us.comjordan.com shoes
http://www.louboutin.us.comdesigner shoes with red bottoms
http://www.louboutin.us.comchristian louboutin career
http://www.ray-bansunglasses.uscheap ray bans sunglasses
http://www.christianlouboutin-outletsale.netred bottom heels for cheap
http://www.coach-outlets.comcoach leatherware
http://www.rayban-sunglasses.usshop ray ban sunglasses
http://www.tory-burch-outlet.biztory burch wallet sale
http://www.michael-korsoutlet.netmichael kors clothing for women
http://www.cheap-oakleysunglasses.usoakley store coupons
http://www.michaelkors-outlethandbags.commichael kors clothing outlet
http://www.rayban-sunglasses.usray ban round wayfarer
http://www.true-religion-outlet.usboys true religion
http://www.coachoutletstoreonlinetinc.comcoach pocketbooks
http://www.officialcoachoutletsfactory.comcoach madison
http://www.michaelkorsfactoryoutlet.usmichael kors clearance handbags
http://www.michael-kors-outlet.ccmichael kors satchel
http://www.michael-korsoutlet.netwatch michael kors
http://www.airjordans.us.combuy cheap jordans
http://www.christianlouboutin-outletsale.netblack heels red bottom
http://www.ray-bansunglasses.orgshop ray ban
http://www.coach-outlet-factoryonline.comtulare coach outlet
http://www.ray-bansunglasses.orgray ban aviator
http://www.louboutin.us.comwhat brand are red bottom shoes
http://www.michael-kors-outlet.cc2013 michael kors outlet
http://www.ray-ban.us.comray ban best price
http://www.rayban-sunglasses.usray ban retailers
http://www.oakley—sunglasses.us.comoakley sun glasses
http://www.michaelkorswatches.usmichael kors skorpios
http://www.oakley—sunglasses.us.comoakley photochromic
http://www.michael-kors-outlet.ccmichael kors handbags outlet store
http://www.michael-kors-outlet.ccmichael kors watches on sale
http://www.jordanshoes.us.comold jordan shoes
http://www.ray-bansunglasses.usray ban cheap sunglasses
http://www.ray-ban.us.comray ban official site
http://www.toryburchoutletonline.ustory burch frames
http://www.oakleysunglasses.us.comoakley necessity
http://www.coachoutletstoreonlinetinc.comcoach online factory
http://www.louis—vuitton.uslouis vuitton factory store online
http://www.jordan-shoes.us.comjordan casual shoes
http://www.ray-bansunglasses.ussunglasses ray ban
http://www.michaelkorswatches.usmichael kors watch on sale
http://www.michael—kors.commichael kors online outlet
http://www.cheap-jordanshoes.netcheap real jordans
http://www.louboutin.us.comchristian louboutin stores
http://www.cheap-oakleysunglasses.usoakley transitions
http://www.tory-burch-outlet.orgtory burch designer
http://www.louboutin.us.comred bottom womens shoes
http://www.coach-outlets.comcoach baby bag
http://www.oakleysunglasses.us.comoakley jawbone sunglasses
http://www.oakleysunglasses.us.comoakley minute 1.0
http://www.coach-outlet-factoryonline.comcoach handbags factory outlet
http://www.true-religion-outlet.ustrue religion jeans wholesale
http://www.airjordans.us.comjordans furniture
http://www.coachfactoryoutletinc.uscoach outlet grove city
http://www.michaelkors-outlethandbags.commichael kors outlet online legit
http://www.tory-burch-outlet.orgtory burch baby bag
http://www.louisvuitton.namelouis vuitton outlet website

Posted by: xiangjiaomeimei at June 26, 2014 5:24 AM
Comment #381228

louis vuitton handbags
louis vuitton
coach factory
coach outlet
coach factory
michael kors handbags
coach factory outlet
coach outlet store online
michael kors
coach outlet
louis vuitton
michael kors handbags
louis vuitton black Friday sale 2014
louis vuitton outlet
coach factory online
coach factory outlet
louis vuitton stores
michael kors factory outlet
coach factory outlet
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton online store
louis vuitton outlet online
kate spade
coach factory outlet
oakley sunglasses
authentic louis vuitton handbags
christian louboutin sale
cheap christian louboutin
michael kors outlet online
coach factory outlet
coach factory store
coach handbags
coach outlet store online
louis vuitton
coach factory outlet
michael kors handbags
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors handbags
michael kors outlet
michael kors outlet
cheap red bottom shoes
www.coachfactory.com
coach factory
coach factory outlet online
christian louboutin shoes
louis vuitton
louis vuitton outlet
coach outlet store online
lululemon warehouse
red bottom shoes
louis vuitton handbags
true religion outlet
coach factory outlet
coach factory
coach factory outlet
coach factory
louis vuitton handbags outlet
montblanc pens
louis vuitton handbags 2014
coach factory outlet online
louis vuitton sale
michael kors
louis vuitton handbags
louis vuitton
red bottom heels
michael kors
michael kors sale
michael kors handbags
coach factory outlet
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors handbags
louisvuitton.com
michael kors handbags
michael kors handbags
louis vuitton black Friday
cheap michael kors handbags
michael kors outlet
christian louboutin shoes
louis vuitton outlet stores
red bottom shoes
coach factory outlet
oakley sunglasses
cheap red bottoms
www.louisvuitton.com
coach factory
montblanc pen
coach black Friday deals
michael kors
coach factory outlet
louis vuitton usa
coach outlet stores
red bottom shoes
coach outlet
christian louboutin shoes
coach factory outlet
michael kors outlet
christian louboutin outlet
louis vuitton outlet store online
coach black Friday
coach factory outlet online
louis vuitton outlet stores
louis vuitton outlet online
louis vuitton cheap
coach handbags new 2014
michael kors sale
coach handbags
coach handbags
cheap ray ban sunglasses
coach factory outlet
red bottom shoes
louis vuitton
cheap lululemon
michael kors black Friday
coach outlet
oakley outlet
michael kors factory online
coach factory outlet online
coach handbags
louis vuitton
michael kors factory outlet
louis vuitton online shop
coach factory outlet
louis vuitton 2014
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton outlet
coach factory
lululemon pants
coach outlet
michael kors outlet online
coachfactory.com
michael kors handbags 2014
louis vuitton handbags
christian louboutin discount
michael kors outlet online
michael kors outlet
coach outlet
coach factory
michael kors outlet online
cheap michael kors handbags
michael kors factory
louis vuitton outlet stores
louis vuitton outlet
ray ban sunglasses
coach outlet
oakley sunglaase cheap
michael kors handbags outlet
michael kors handbags
louis vuitton
coach handbags
michael kors outlet
michael kors outlet online
michael kors outlet
louisvuitton.com
coachfactory.com
michael kors factory outlet
louis vuitton
louis vuitton
michael kors
louis vuitton handbags
true religion
louis vuitton outlet
louis vuitton
michael kors outlet
coach factory outlet
tory burch outlet online
kate spade handbags
michael kors handbags outlet
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton handbags
louis vuitton
oakley sunglasses outlet
louis vuitton handbags sale
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors
coach factory
coach handbags new 2014
michael kors outlet
michael kors handbags outlet
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors handbags
cheap christian louboutin
coach outlet store online
christian louboutin outlet
michael kors purses
michael kors factory outlet
michael kors handbags 2014
michael kors outlet
michael kors outlet online
coach factory outlet online
christian louboutin outlet
michael kors factory outlet
coach factory
louis vuitton outlet stores
louis vuitton outlet online
coach factory outlet store
louis vuitton
coach outlet online
michael kors outlet
coach factory
michael kors handbags
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors handbags
coach outlet
chrsitian louboutin outlet online
coach factory outlet
www.coachfactory.com
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors outlet online
louis vuitton
cheap coach purses
louis vuitton outlet stores
coach factory
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors outlet
michael kors outlet
christian louboutin outlet
louis vuitton handbags
christian louboutin shoes sale
coach outlet store
louis vuitton handbags
coach outlet online
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton handbags
louis vuitton outlet
cheap oakleys
cheap coach purses
michaelkors.com
coach factory online
michael kors outlet online
tory burch handbags
coach factory outlet
christian louboutin discount
louis vuitton outlet
www.michaelkors.com
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors factory outlet
coach black Friday sale 2014
coach factory
tory burch shoes
michael kors handbags
coach factory outlet online
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton outlet
coach factory store
coach factory online
michael kors handbags
coach outlet
louis vuitton handbags
louis vuitton handbags
coach outlet store online
louis vuitton handbags
coach outlet store online
louis vuitton outlet
christian louboutin heels
lululemon clothing
louis vuitton sale
louis vuitton outlet
coach outlet
michael kors outlet
christian louboutin outlet store
coachfactory.com
mont blanc pens
christian louboutin
louis vuitton handbags
louis vuitton outlet
coach outlet online
louis vuitton purses
louis vuitton
louis vuitton outlet
christian louboutin sale
michael kors handbags
coach outlet
michael kors purses
michael kors handbags
coach outlet store online
coach factory
michael kors black Friday sale 2014
coach factory outlet
michael kors outlet
www.coachfactory.com
coach factory outlet online
louis vuitton handbags
tory burch outlet
red bottom shoes
mont blanc pens
coach factory outlet
coach outlet
christian louboutin
lululemon outlet
coach handbags
michael kors outlet online
michael kors outlet
michael kors
coach factory outlet online
louis vuitton outlet online
christian louboutin sale
michael kors factory online
christian louboutin
louis vuitton
louis vuitton handbags outlet
michael kors handbags online
coach factory online
coach factory outlet
louis vuitton handbags
michael kors handbags
coach factory outlet
louis vuitton
coach factory outlet online
christian louboutin
louis vuitton
michael kors handbags
michael kors
coach.com
christian louboutin sale
cheap christian louboutin
coach factory online
michael kors handbags
louis vuitton
coach handbags new 2014
coach factory online
christian louboutin shoes
coach handbags
michael kors handbags
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton online sale
michael kors outlet
red bottom shoes outlet
michael kors handbags
louis vuitton handbags
true religion jeans
louis vuitton outlet online
coach factory outlet
oakley sunglasses
michael kors factory
louis vuitton handbags
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton shop online
michael kors bags
louis vuitton
michael kors handbags
coach factory outlet online
michael kors handbags
oakley sunglasses
coach handbags new 2014
louis vuitton handbags outlet
michael kors
cheap raybans
kate spade outlet
coach factory outlet
coach outlet store online

Posted by: haokeai at July 21, 2014 4:42 AM
Post a comment