A Question for the ACLU...
...what the hell is wrong with you people?Jay at Stop the ACLU has the story: ACLU Wants Suspected Terrorists Allowed Back Into U.S..
Do you really want to give the government the power to keep citizens out of the country without the intervention of a court?
Posted by: Jeff Medcalf at August 30, 2006 12:51 AM
Posted by: MP at August 30, 2006 07:37 AM
Posted by: greyrooster at August 30, 2006 08:16 AM
Anyone with a good brain and who cares about American Ideals has known for 60 years that the ACLU hates America and in partricular the Constitution. The ACLU has been wagaing war on the Bill of Rights at least since 1946; maybe longer but I was to young before then to understand. I used to think it was because they were a pro Communist group. But after Ronnie crushed Communism they turned their support to NAZImuslims. What has been consistent with the ACLU the last 60 years is their attacks on the American Constitution; regardless of who they are supporting to do it.
Posted by: Rod Stanton at August 30, 2006 08:17 AM
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 30, 2006 09:13 AM
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 30, 2006 09:19 AM
Posted by: Last gasp Larry at August 30, 2006 09:45 AM
Posted by: Jeff Medcalf at August 30, 2006 12:32 PM
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 30, 2006 01:53 PM
That said, are you actually saying that since these things happened, we should get ours while we can, ensuring that tyranny happens, and only railing against it when "the other side" does it? Because that is what it sounds like you are doing from where I sit.
Posted by: Jeff Medcalf at August 30, 2006 02:49 PM
All we have to do, is enforce the treason law. If you supported terrorists today please line up against the wall so you can be shot dead.
Thank you, and please tell allah to go F##k himself.
Posted by: Leatherneck at August 30, 2006 06:24 PM
Posted by: jesusland joe at August 30, 2006 07:44 PM
And that has what, exactly, to do with this case? If there is evidence to charge them, charge them, arrest them, and try them. If there is not evidence, but the government suspects, watch them. But I'm not willing to give up my 5th amendment rights against self-incrimination or my 4th amendment rights against due process. It scares me that several of you seem to be ready to do just that. What was the line about "essential liberty" and "security" and the tradeoffs between them?
Posted by: Jeff Medcalf at August 30, 2006 08:03 PM
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 30, 2006 08:08 PM
Posted by: greyrooster at August 31, 2006 07:49 AM
Small clarification: Due process and self-incrimination are both in the 5th. The 14th ammendment elaborates on due process. The 4th is about searches & seizures which I don't believe are in play (yet).
What was the line about "essential liberty" and "security" and the tradeoffs between them?
It varies depending on who you ask and it's usually attributed to Ben Franklin:
'They that can give up essential freedom to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Posted by: Jeff Molby at September 01, 2006 10:22 PM
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at September 02, 2006 04:37 PM
Posted by: sandpiper at September 04, 2006 09:05 AM
Processing 0.01, elapsed 0.0051 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0028 seconds, 26 records returned.
Page size 15 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.