Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
alanmithee, I included an article origninally published about the two ALCU board members who face discipline by the entire
83 member ACLU board for allegedly criticizing the ACLU for
it's alleged violation of it's own donor privacy policy and undermining it's own "mission to preserve free speech rights."
One item not covered in your post was that no national ACLU board member "threatened to expel" Kaminer or Meyers. The ACLU Oregon state chapter accused them of "acting inappropriately. You provided no report that ACLU national president Nadine Strossen has predicted that any proposal to discipline the Kaminer and Meyers will be rejected. I believe that the information that you posted is unduly sensational and more negative than the details reported so far actually indicate..........
In fact, the ACLU national board took no action against national ACLU board Kaminer and Meyers.......
|
I didn't say that they were expelled, I said that they were threatened with expulsion. Where did I get that information? Why, from one of the principles involved, in an interview.
Quote:
|
I ask you again, please cite examples where the ACLU has done more harm than good.......and who do you propose to replace the ACLU as a national watchdog and legal defender of the constituional rights of all Americans, and with oversight of government compliance of FOIA and of full disclosure ?
|
The ACLU does not defend the constitutional rights of all Americans, it only defends the rights of those who fit it's ideological agenda. They aren't a "national watchdog", they are a propaganda organization. I don't see a purpose. And examples of where they have done more harm than good:
http://www.operationlookout.org/look...end_nambla.htm
http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeS...?ID=17134&c=42
http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty...ID=17318&c=139
http://www.aclu.org/StudentsRights/S...?ID=16785&c=31
http://www.aclu.org/StudentsRights/S...?ID=15931&c=31
http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeS...?ID=17183&c=42
http://www.aclu.org/DrugPolicy/DrugP...?ID=14606&c=79
I could go on, but you should get the point. They have advocated/advocate many positions that I feel are damaging to the well being of society.
Quote:
You stated that, "It is my opinion that the ACLU foia suits are helping undermine US activities in Iraq. It is my opinion that they are doing this knowing that they are undermining the military, and actually have that as a goal. I believe that if Falwell does organize a law school that his organization will better serve the intrests of the country and it's citizens."
Do you believe that the government should be exposed, or even challenged when it commits illegal acts, or covers them up ? My "sig" is intended to be a tribute to SCOTUS Justice Robert H. Jackson, the chief U.S. prosecutor at Nuremberg. Can you defend what I quoted from you above about the ACLU intentionally undermining "U.S. activities in Iraq" after reading the following quotes of Justice Jackson ? Do you take into account that the pentagon has the discretion and authority to prevent disclosure of FOIA requested documents on the grounds of national security, if it deems the material to be sensitive ? The ACLU has disclosed new incidents of mistreatment of prisoners in Iraq and the complicity of military commanders in the destruction of evidence of prisoner abuse in Afghanistan. Do you believe that this is information should be concealed from the people of the U.S. ? The U.S. military released this information but you would not have done so ? You are shooting the messenger if you continue to believe that the ACLU's FOIA requests are the problem here.
|
I think that it's extremely hard for the government to do anything really "illegal". I have always believed that if the government feels something is in the countries best interest, it overrides what some people might feel is illegal. The actions of Lincoln and FDR I think are prime examples of this. As for current "prisoner abuse" I think while the conflict is ongoing, it should be concealed. All releasing it does is feed anti-US propaganda in an area where there is enough of that. Let the criminals be taken care of after we are out of active conflict, where there might be some time for giving the so-called abuse perspective, and see if it's still worth all the fuss when it can't be immediately used as political capital.
I really didn't see the relevance of the above. If it's to see who can write the best short-fiction piece, ill concede that.
Quote:
If nothing else, and until you find an effective replacement for the ACLU and it's FOIA suits, the Bush government cannot claim that "it knew nothing", because the American people and the world know.
I put much effort into backing what I post with information and cited sources that I do not believe to be easily impeached. I rarely post links to http://commondreams.org or to http://americanprogress.org. If I attribute something to Michael Moore, I anticipate that I will have to defend the accuracy of the details. I consider Bill Moyer to be a journalist of the highest reputation for ethics in the U.S. today.
alansmithee, if I post something that you can argue is misleading or untrue, please post an objection with linked souces to back up yourself up to the same degree that I have referenced whatever you are objecting to. I seem unreasonable and rabidly partisan mostly because we disagree on many issues and are of different philosophies.
|
My main problem with many of the so-called support given to arguements on the board in general is that they will often contain some facts, then the opinion of an "expert" which is cited as if it is also fact. This opinion is usually highly biased. I usually don't bother citing "counter-evidence" because that usually breaks down to battling experts. I personally prefer that someone states THEIR opinion, and uses facts to back that up. Opinion pieces have their place, but I rarely place any more weight on the "experts" opinions than I would on a poster on the board. Also, it's hard to state with certainty that an opinion is untrue or misleading, they are hard to attack without resorting to duelling experts. I don't mind the rabid partisanship, but when backed with more partisanship and stated as certainty I think it's disingenuous.