Ohio ROPers Indicted For Terrorism - will ACLU defend them?

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Ohio ROPers Indicted For Terrorism - will ACLU defend them? (Page 1 of 2)

Posted: 2/21/2006 9:05:16 AM EDT

Toledo-Area Men Arrested for Terrorist Activity

TOLEDO -- A federal grand jury has indicted three Toledo-area men for terrorist activities. Prosecutors say the three conspired to wage a "holy war" against the United States and coalition forces in the Middle East. The indictment was unsealed Monday.

The U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez is expected to release more details at a news conference this afternoon in Washington D.C.

According to the indictment from the US Attorney's office, the suspects are Mohammad (MoslemMaggot) Zaki Amawi, Marwan (MoslemMaggot) Othman El-Hindi, and Wassim (MoslemMaggot) Mazloum.

The indictment says all three were living in the Toledo area. Amawi is a citizen of the US and also a citizen of Jordan. El-Hindi is a naturalized American citizen who was born in Jordan. Mazloum is a legal permanent resident of the US, who came here from Lebanon. Mazloum also operated a car business in Toledo with his brother.

The indictment also names an unindicted co-conspiratory called "The Trainer," who has U.S. military backround in security, and bodyguard training.

In count 1 of the indictment, prosecutors say the three met together many times, going back as far as November 2004. The three reportedly conspired to recruit and train others for a violent jihad against United States forces and US allies in Iraq. They also reportedly put together the funding needed for the operation, and collected the equipment needed, and even travelled together to a local indoor shooting range for target practice.
{Any Arfcommers see them? Any Arfcommers BE them?}

Prosecutors also say the three communicated by computer with an individual in the Middle East, passing information about potential attacks and terrorist training materials back and forth, as well as communication about potential weapons and targets.

The indictment did not say if any attacks were imminent.

In count 2, the grand jury found that the three had similar plans to kill US citizens abroad in addition to service members.

The last two counts in the indictment dealt specifically with Mohammad Zaki Amawi. One count said Amawi distributed information on bomb-making, which in itself is a federal crime. Prosecutors also said he verbally threatened President George W. Bush. Those crimes are separate from the conspiracy.

The indictment was filed with Judge James Carr in Federal Court in Toledo. The Justice Department says Amawi is being held at a jail in Cleveland, and will be arraigned in Cleveland some time this afternoon. El-Hindi and Mazloum are being held in a jail in Toledo. They are expected in Toledo's Federal Court this afternoon.

I wonder if the ACLU is pouring over this case to see if the NSA collected any evidence without a warrant.

MoslemMaggot terrorists - they're in YOUR neighborhood too.

Posted: 2/21/2006 9:06:24 AM EDT

[#1]

Nah, the ACLU has a SCOTUS hearing over abortion to attend to first.

Posted: 2/21/2006 9:07:51 AM EDT

[#2]

It's not like the ACLU has any credibility anyway, so they don't have much to lose.
Were these guys citizens or aliens?

Posted: 2/21/2006 9:08:49 AM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
I wonder if the ACLU is pouring over this case to see if the NSA collected any evidence without a warrant.

Judging from many past threads, many members here would defend them if the evidence were gathered through "warrentless wiretaps."

Posted: 2/21/2006 9:09:02 AM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:

I wonder if the ACLU is pouring over this case to see if the NSA collected any evidence without a warrant.

Probably, since several of these guys appear to be U.S. citizens, and the ACLU would probably be interested in making sure the they get equal protection under the law.

I doubt it would be an NSA or warrant issue, but probably more like the Padilla issue - to try to keep these guys in the civilian court system, with their (supposed) rights to due process intact.

Posted: 2/21/2006 9:09:36 AM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
It's not like the ACLU has any credibility anyway, so they don't have much to lose.

You must have been asleep when one of the ACLU's former general counsels was appointed to the Supreme Court. You also must be unaware that lots of people regard the ACLU as champions of freedom rather than the communist subversives that they are....

Posted: 2/21/2006 9:10:01 AM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
It's not like the ACLU has any credibility anyway

I disagree - I think they've got plenty of credibility in general, even though they are obviously not much liked on arfcom.

Posted: 2/21/2006 9:10:55 AM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I wonder if the ACLU is pouring over this case to see if the NSA collected any evidence without a warrant.
Judging from many past threads, many members here would defend them if the evidence were gathered through "warrentless wiretaps."

Damn fucking straight. Pathetic really. That's why I asked if these MoslemMaggots may BE Arfcom members too.

Posted: 2/21/2006 9:11:22 AM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
Quoted:
It's not like the ACLU has any credibility anyway, so they don't have much to lose.

You must have been asleep when one of the ACLU's former general counsels was appointed to the Supreme Court. You also must be unaware that lots of people regard the ACLU as champions of freedom rather than the communist subversives that they are....

When people say this, they have yet to explain to me why communist subversives have any interest in defending the rights of Christians, and they've done on many occasions.

(Maybe I'm just touchy, because I've been accused of being a communist subversive myself on arfcom

)

Posted: 2/21/2006 9:13:52 AM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
When people say this, they have yet to explain to me why communist subversives have any interest in defending the rights of Christians, and they've done on many occasions.

(Maybe I'm just touchy, because I've been accused of being a communist subversive myself on arfcom )

Examine the founding principles of the communist party and of the ACLU sometime. Also take note that the ACLU was founded by active members of the communist party.

Posted: 2/21/2006 9:15:25 AM EDT

[#10]

I wonder if they are from the Mosque that Quietshootr posted the pics of?

Posted: 2/21/2006 9:16:53 AM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It's not like the ACLU has any credibility anyway, so they don't have much to lose.
You must have been asleep when one of the ACLU's former general counsels was appointed to the Supreme Court. You also must be unaware that lots of people regard the ACLU as champions of freedom rather than the communist subversives that they are....
When people say this, they have yet to explain to me why communist subversives have any interest in defending the rights of Christians, and they've done on many occasions.

ACLU was founded BY Communists FOR Communists.

It hasn't changed.

The idea that they OCCASIONALLY defend "Christians" is like saying an Army will occasionally retreat and give ground to the enemy in order to gain a better vantage point for itself later.

Communists only defend those cases who they percieve may end up setting precedent that they themselves want to exploit later on.

Bottomline is the ACLU is a Communist organization, always has been, always will be.

Posted: 2/21/2006 9:17:02 AM EDT

[#12]

I suppose like Scooter they are innocent till.......
I suppose the aclu would think the same.

Posted: 2/21/2006 9:21:45 AM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
Quoted:
When people say this, they have yet to explain to me why communist subversives have any interest in defending the rights of Christians, and they've done on many occasions.

(Maybe I'm just touchy, because I've been accused of being a communist subversive myself on arfcom )

Examine the founding principles of the communist party and of the ACLU sometime. Also take note that the ACLU was founded by active members of the communist party.

So you're not going to explain it to me either?

I'm very aware that the ACLU was undoubtedly founded by communists, but those wild-eyed crazy revolutionaries who probably WERE trying to undermine U.S. society back then are very different from the current modern leadership of the ACLU. I actually know a couple of pretty highly placed folks in the organization, and there is nothing "communist" about them.

I agree completely that the ranks of the ACLU are filled with a lot of left-wing folks, some of them undoubtedly super-liberal, but they have become so obsessed with the 1st, 4th, 5th (etc)amendements, that they gladly defend christians and churches, on things like protesting, handing out literature in public schools, property rights, etc.

The silence on the 2nd amendement is shameful, I agree

, and have had several convserations with some of these guys about it.

Posted: 2/21/2006 9:25:12 AM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
ACLU was founded BY Communists FOR Communists.

It hasn't changed.

It has changed enormously, and has virtually nothing to do with its origins.

Bottomline is the ACLU is a Communist organization, always has been, always will be.

You are incorrect, but you obviously WANT to believe it, so there is no arguing with you.

I'm a smart person. I hate communists. I am a member of the ACLU.

Your explanation for that is that I am apparently a blind idiot, with no sense at all.

Forgive me for going with the more plausible explanation that you judgment might be slightly skewed or biased.

Posted: 2/21/2006 9:27:29 AM EDT

[#15]

The ACLU will probably defend them, because that's the kind of scum-sucking shitbags they are. FUCK THE ACLU! I would like to see them all hang.

Posted: 2/21/2006 9:27:41 AM EDT

[#16]

The ACLU is a good organization? I think NOT. Neither does Mark Hyman who broadcasts his one-minute political views on Sinclair Broadcasting stations. Here is his 5 part view on the ACLU and it is dead on. Mark is a distinguioshed veteran.

ACLU - The Reality
The American Civil Liberties Union has a membership campaign underway. It claimed over 400,000 members last year.
When I read this fundraising appeal from the ACLU, I realized it would be easy for some people to be taken in by its clever wording. The letter proudly points to the goals it has pursued since its founding 86 years ago.
So, are the unflattering stories about the founding principles of the ACLU true or are they urban legend?
The Point has spent considerable time researching this very topic. We didn't bother with the ACLU website, its marketing brochures, or rely on sympathetic biographies of founder Roger Baldwin. Instead, we studied the ACLU's very own words. We reviewed its annual reports and we read the writings of Baldwin, its leader for 50 years.
What we learned will shock you and I'll tell you about it in the coming days.
And that's the Point.

ACLU - The Reality 2
The ACLU was founded in 1920 by Roger Baldwin who served as executive director for 30 years. Although he stepped down from an official role, Baldwin controlled the organization well into the 1970s.
Baldwin openly promoted the ACLU's goals in 1920 and decades later. On the organization's 50th anniversary, Baldwin wrote that of the citizens groups it most opposed, "the anti-Communists are the most numerous and the most influential."
The Communist suppression of individual freedoms had been known for decades yet, in 1970 Baldwin, writing on behalf of the ACLU, advocated that the world accommodate Communism. And he singled out the UN as the vehicle to make this happen. The ACLU policy in support of Communism echoed the goal Baldwin identified years earlier when he wrote, "I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and sole control of those who produced the wealth: communism is the goal."
Baldwin's personal push for Communism was echoed in the official papers of the ACLU. Tomorrow, you'll hear about these documents.
And that's The Point.

ACLU - The Reality 3
Like its founder, Roger Baldwin, the ACLU sought to replace capitalism in the U.S. with Communism.
The very first annual report for the organization, dated September 1921, addressed key goals. Chief among these was to end "class conflict" the euphemism of the day for ending capitalism and for spreading Communism. The ACLU wrote that opponents of its goals are "property interests," in other words private home and business owners.
The ACLU noted it could achieve its goals by defeating specific groups. It was only 141 words into the annual report before the ACLU singled out by name the group it believed posed the biggest threat: the American Legion. Yes, that American Legion. This anti-veteran attitude was manifested in the ACLU's efforts at freeing World War One draft resistors serving time in jail.
While attacking the American Legion, the ACLU identified those organizations that must be protected including "the secret organization of the Communist Party."
The ACLU's naked support of dictatorial governments created a PR nightmare in tomorrow's Point.
And that's The Point.

ACLU - The Reality 4
Throughout the 1930s and 1940s, the ACLU aggressively pursued Communist causes.
In Soviet Today magazine, ACLU executive director Roger Baldwin proudly claimed he was "anti-capitalist and pro-revolutionary" and he advocated violence to overthrow the U.S. Although Soviet leader Josef Stalin was slaughtering millions and brutally suppressing millions more, Baldwin wrote "the Soviet Union has already created liberties far greater than exist elsewhere in the world." Moreover, after a personal visit to the USSR, Baldwin approved of the imprisonment of opponents of the Soviet regime.
After the USSR allied itself with Nazi Germany, the ACLU banned Communist Party members from office. Baldwin acknowledged the action was undertaken simply to protect the ACLU from intense public criticism over its ties to the Soviet Union and now, indirectly, to Hitler's Germany.
Baldwin issued a personal denunciation of the Soviet Union during World War Two, but the ACLU continued its pro-Communist policies well into present-day.
On tomorrow's Point, ACLU policies as they exist today.
And that's The Point.

ACLU - The Reality 5
ACLU supporters claim that its decades-old opposition to American institutions is a thing of the past. But this doesn't square with the facts.
In an interview last year, ACLU president Nadine Strossen addressed a number of priorities including ending a moment of silence in public schools, abandoning personal property rights, limiting school choice, and placing some restrictions on religious freedom.
The most astounding position is that the ACLU does not necessarily view rights embodied in the Constitution as being valid.
For more than 80-years, the ACLU supported external opponents to the U.S. and it pushed a domestic agenda to end institutions aimed at good order and discipline including the military and the police. It has saved special wrath for religion and community groups such as Scouting. Throughout its history, the ACLU has advocated a nation made up of workers collectives, which would result in dozens of fiefdoms of thuggery, corruption, and individual exploitation.
The irony is the ACLU seeks to end the institutions that preserve its very existence.
And that's The Point.

Posted: 2/21/2006 9:28:53 AM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
Quoted:
ACLU was founded BY Communists FOR Communists.

It hasn't changed.

It has changed enormously, and has virtually nothing to do with its origins.

Bottomline is the ACLU is a Communist organization, always has been, always will be.

You are incorrect, but you obviously WANT to believe it, so there is no arguing with you.

I'm a smart person. I hate communists. I am a member of the ACLU.

Your explanation for that is that I am apparently a blind idiot, with no sense at all.

Forgive me for going with the more plausible explanation that you judgment might be slightly skewed or biased.

REad Mark Hyman's five-day write up on the ACLU. They are STILL hard-line communists.

Posted: 2/21/2006 9:33:54 AM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:
I agree completely that the ranks of the ACLU are filled with a lot of left-wing folks, some of them undoubtedly super-liberal, but they have become so obsessed with the 1st, 4th, 5th (etc)amendements, that they gladly defend christians and churches, on things like protesting, handing out literature in public schools, property rights, etc.

The silence on the 2nd amendement is shameful, I agree , and have had several convserations with some of these guys about it.

The ACLU and others are actively trying to redefine the US Constitution to mean something completely different than it means.

The 1st ammendment doesn't exist to allow Howard Stern to spank strippers on air while forbidding a high school valedictorian from mentioning the word Jesus in their graduation speech.

Posted: 2/21/2006 9:35:46 AM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
I wonder if they are from the Mosque that Quietshootr posted the pics of?

I didnt see those pics, but we do have a major mosque in the Toledo area. There is full surveillance cams in the parking lot. The mosque was built on a former corn field. Several years ago, my nephew knew of a local carry out, toledo area, that was owned by, shall we say middle eastern people. He said he was in the back room one day and they had a crate of either m-16's or ar-15's. That bit of info got passed along, but never heard anymore about it.

Posted: 2/21/2006 9:35:52 AM EDT

[#20]

Isn't Sinclair that corporate entity that decides what "their" viewers can and cannot see on supposedly network TV?
"Real Americans", eh?

Quoted:
The ACLU is a good organization? I think NOT. Neither does Mark Hyman who broadcasts his one-minute political views on Sinclair Broadcasting stations. Here is his 5 part view on the ACLU and it is dead on. Mark is a distinguioshed veteran.

Posted: 2/21/2006 9:36:19 AM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
REad Mark Hyman's five-day write up on the ACLU. They are STILL hard-line communists.

No offense to you, but I thought that was a completely unconvincing argument.

Notice how 90% of the demonizing of today's ACLU is about what the founders of the organization believed 75 years ago, and what they did during the 30s and 40s. Then they add in some vague and unsubstantiated claims that tie some amorphous connection to "communism" by mentioning that the ALCU wants to abolish property rights (which is an outright lie) and then try to scare everyone into

Seriously - this is like people bashing Olympic arms who have never owned one, or telling me not to buy starbuck's coffee because they hate the Marine Corps. I'd love to actually see actual evidence of current heads of the ACLU spouting communist doctrine, since that is apparently what they all believe.

Don't get me wrong - I completely agree that the ACLU is very left wing, and there is a huge and obvious hypocracy in their attitude towards the 2nd amendement, but the suggesting that they are hard-core communist subversives is ridiculous, and is based on unsubstantiated hearsay and rumor and myth, and has nothing to do with the reality of the ACLU today.

Unfortunately, a lot of smart people obviously have made up their minds, and have decided what they WANT to believe, so I won't waste any more time trying to bring actual facts into a discussion.

Posted: 2/21/2006 9:36:51 AM EDT

[#22]

Stop the presses! Living in Toledo is punishment enough.

Posted: 2/21/2006 9:37:38 AM EDT

[#23]

I'm not all that happy with most of the positions the ACLU pushes, HOWEVER, these US CITIZENS do deserve the full protections afforded in the US Constitution.

I agree that their alleged actions are despicable and if they are found guilty by a proper, constitutional legal process, I hope they're given the maximum sentence.

However, I cannot support the US government suspending, even temporarily, any of the sections of the Constitution for any reason whatsoever.

- CD

Posted: 2/21/2006 9:37:40 AM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:
Quoted:
ACLU was founded BY Communists FOR Communists.

It hasn't changed.
It has changed enormously, and has virtually nothing to do with its origins.

Wrong.

It's still defending a "Godless Collectivism" view of America.

Quoted:
Bottomline is the ACLU is a Communist organization, always has been, always will be.
You are incorrect, but you obviously WANT to believe it, so there is no arguing with you.

What tenents of their ideology have so radically changed since it was first established?

Quoted:
I'm a smart person. I hate communists. I am a member of the ACLU.

Your explanation for that is that I am apparently a blind idiot, with no sense at all.

Oh puh-LEESE!!

Whaa-waa-waaa... Don't take it so fucking personally!

Sheesh!

For some reason you think the tenents of the ACLU is "enormously" different than when it was founded and that it has virtually NOTHING in common with Communist goals - well it's up to YOU to show why you think that.

We all know it was a Communist organization, founded by Communists, devoted to Communist ends - so what has changed?

Posted: 2/21/2006 9:38:33 AM EDT

[#25]

Stop trying to help them think 4 themselves. They are trained to parrot talking points.

Quoted:
Quoted:

And that's The Point.

Notice how 90% of the demonizing of today's ACLU is about what the founders of the organization believed 75 years ago, and what they did during the 30s and 40s. Then they add in some vague and unsubstantiated claims that tie some amorphous connection to "communism" by mentioning that the ALCU wants to abolish property rights (which is an outright lie) and then try to scare everyone into

Seriously - this is like people bashing Olympic arms who have never owned one, or telling me not to buy starbuck's coffee because they hate the Marine Corps. I'd love to actually see actual evidence of current heads of the ACLU spouting communist doctrine, since that is apparently what they all believe.

Don't get me wrong - I completely agree that the ACLU is very left wing, and there is a huge and obvious hypocracy in their attitude towards the 2nd amendement, but the suggesting that they are hard-core communist subversives is ridiculous, and is based on unsubstantiated hearsay and rumor and myth, and has nothing to do with the reality of the ACLU today.

Unfortunately, a lot of smart people obviously have made up their minds, and have decided what they WANT to believe, so I won't waste any more time trying to bring actual facts into a discussion.

Posted: 2/21/2006 9:39:12 AM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:
Quoted:
REad Mark Hyman's five-day write up on the ACLU. They are STILL hard-line communists.

No offense to you, but I thought that was a completely unconvincing argument.

Notice how 90% of the demonizing of today's ACLU is about what the founders of the organization believed 75 years ago, and what they did during the 30s and 40s. Then they add in some vague and unsubstantiated claims that tie some amorphous connection to "communism" by mentioning that the ALCU wants to abolish property rights (which is an outright lie) and then try to scare everyone into

Seriously - this is like people bashing Olympic arms who have never owned one, or telling me not to buy starbuck's coffee because they hate the Marine Corps. I'd love to actually see actual evidence of current heads of the ACLU spouting communist doctrine, since that is apparently what they all believe.

Don't get me wrong - I completely agree that the ACLU is very left wing, and there is a huge and obvious hypocracy in their attitude towards the 2nd amendement, but the suggesting that they are hard-core communist subversives is ridiculous, and is based on unsubstantiated hearsay and rumor and myth, and has nothing to do with the reality of the ACLU today.

Unfortunately, a lot of smart people obviously have made up their minds, and have decided what they WANT to believe, so I won't waste any more time trying to bring actual facts into a discussion.

Reading is Fundamental. Did you miss:

ACLU - The Reality 5
ACLU supporters claim that its decades-old opposition to American institutions is a thing of the past. But this doesn't square with the facts.
In an interview last year, ACLU president Nadine Strossen addressed a number of priorities including ending a moment of silence in public schools, abandoning personal property rights, limiting school choice, and placing some restrictions on religious freedom.
The most astounding position is that the ACLU does not necessarily view rights embodied in the Constitution as being valid.
For more than 80-years, the ACLU supported external opponents to the U.S. and it pushed a domestic agenda to end institutions aimed at good order and discipline including the military and the police. It has saved special wrath for religion and community groups such as Scouting. Throughout its history, the ACLU has advocated a nation made up of workers collectives, which would result in dozens of fiefdoms of thuggery, corruption, and individual exploitation.
The irony is the ACLU seeks to end the institutions that preserve its very existence.
And that's The Point.

Posted: 2/21/2006 9:40:32 AM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
Isn't Sinclair that corporate entity that decides what "their" viewers can and cannot see on supposedly network TV?
"Real Americans", eh?

Quoted:
The ACLU is a good organization? I think NOT. Neither does Mark Hyman who broadcasts his one-minute political views on Sinclair Broadcasting stations. Here is his 5 part view on the ACLU and it is dead on. Mark is a distinguioshed veteran.

They allow me to watch 24. And that is all that matters. I could see ALL of Fox Broadcasting, if I so wanted. No, they have NOT prevented me from watching anything. STFU

Posted: 2/21/2006 9:42:23 AM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:
We all know it was a Communist organization, founded by Communists, devoted to Communist ends - so what has changed?

That fact that you feel strongly about it doesn't make it a fact.

There was a guy here just the other day who believed strongly in bullshit conspiracy theories about 9/11. So what?

Btw- I'm not WHINING about anything - I'm pointing out the logical implication of your argument, which is that I am somehow either retarded or unable to read english (since apparently I am unable to realize that the organization I am a member of are hard-core communists). I'm just saying that the MORE LIKELY explanation is that you might just be a smidge closed-minded about this - and we've all seen evidence of how high-strung you can get. Like for example your need to insert "MoslemMaggots" in news stories, just to make sure we understand your point. Personally, I'm jsut saying the latter explanation seems more likely that me somehow being an ignorant communist sympathiser.

Posted: 2/21/2006 9:43:59 AM EDT

[#29]

Did you drink the Kool-Aid at the ACLU meetings? Sounds like it.

Posted: 2/21/2006 9:44:02 AM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
REad Mark Hyman's five-day write up on the ACLU. They are STILL hard-line communists.

No offense to you, but I thought that was a completely unconvincing argument.

Notice how 90% of the demonizing of today's ACLU is about what the founders of the organization believed 75 years ago, and what they did during the 30s and 40s. Then they add in some vague and unsubstantiated claims that tie some amorphous connection to "communism" by mentioning that the ALCU wants to abolish property rights (which is an outright lie) and then try to scare everyone

Seriously - this is like people bashing Olympic arms who have never owned one, or telling me not to buy starbuck's coffee because they hate the Marine Corps. I'd love to actually see actual evidence of current heads of the ACLU spouting communist doctrine, since that is apparently what they all believe.

Don't get me wrong - I completely agree that the ACLU is very left wing, and there is a huge and obvious hypocracy in their attitude towards the 2nd amendement, but the suggesting that they are hard-core communist subversives is ridiculous, and is based on unsubstantiated hearsay and rumor and myth, and has nothing to do with the reality of the ACLU today.

Unfortunately, a lot of smart people obviously have made up their minds, and have decided what they WANT to believe, so I won't waste any more time trying to bring actual facts into a discussion.

Reading is Fundamental. Did you miss:
ACLU - The Reality 5
ACLU supporters claim that its decades-old opposition to American institutions is a thing of the past. But this doesn't square with the facts.
In an interview last year, ACLU president Nadine Strossen addressed a number of priorities including ending a moment of silence in public schools, abandoning personal property rights, limiting school choice, and placing some restrictions on religious freedom.
The most astounding position is that the ACLU does not necessarily view rights embodied in the Constitution as being valid.
For more than 80-years, the ACLU supported external opponents to the U.S. and it pushed a domestic agenda to end institutions aimed at good order and discipline including the military and the police. It has saved special wrath for religion and community groups such as Scouting. Throughout its history, the ACLU has advocated a nation made up of workers collectives, which would result in dozens of fiefdoms of thuggery, corruption, and individual exploitation.
The irony is the ACLU seeks to end the institutions that preserve its very existence.
And that's The Point.

The part in red specifically refers to that

What specifics?

What did she say?

Nothing but unsubstantiated bullshit, to desperately try to draw a link from the ALCU of today to the completely different ACLU of 60-70 years ago.

Posted: 2/21/2006 9:45:35 AM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
Stop trying to help them think 4 themselves. They are trained to parrot talking points.

First of all, spell out the word "for" if you intend anyone to take you seriously.

Secondly, I have personally been involved in planning graduation ceremonies where the ACLU threatened the school districts that "operatives" (their words) would be in the crowd listening for any mention of God or anything religious and would sue if they saw anything they didn't like.

I have seen the local campus ACLU activities and events, and heard their objections to various practices and issues.

They are not out to guard "freedom". They THINK that they are out to guard freedom, but they define freedoms as being the ones THEY AGREE WITH, as opposed to the ones that are right there in the Constitution, as their stance on the 2nd ammendment demonstrates.

Posted: 2/21/2006 9:46:20 AM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:
Did you drink the Kool-Aid at the ACLU meetings? Sounds like it.

Of course - because (again) the ONLY POSSIBLE explanation is that I am a communist, right.

It's not even possible that some people might have a slightly skewed and factually inaccurate perception of the ACLU at all, right?

Of course not - why question your views when some talking head on the radio agree with you. Much easier than actually looking into the actual cases the ACLU has been supporting over the past few decades, and then realising that the "communist subversives" label is complete BS.

Posted: 2/21/2006 9:47:58 AM EDT

[#33]

Posted: 2/21/2006 9:50:13 AM EDT

[#34]

Sorry

Quoted:
Quoted:
Stop trying to help them think 4 themselves. They are trained to parrot talking points.

First of all, spell out the word "for" if you intend anyone to take you seriously.

Secondly, I have personally been involved in planning graduation ceremonies where the ACLU threatened the school districts that "operatives" (their words) would be in the crowd listening for any mention of God or anything religious and would sue if they saw anything they didn't like.

I have seen the local campus ACLU activities and events, and heard their objections to various practices and issues.

They are not out to guard "freedom". They THINK that they are out to guard freedom, but they define freedoms as being the ones THEY AGREE WITH, as opposed to the ones that are right there in the Constitution, as their stance on the 2nd ammendment demonstrates.

Posted: 2/21/2006 9:51:21 AM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:
Don't get me wrong - I completely agree that the ACLU is very left wing <snip>

[cough] "very left wing" = "communist" [/cough]

DK-Prof, if they are so "different" of late why do they seem to unfailing support anti-American, anti-religious, anti-establishment causes? Come on. You said "blind idiot"--I believe the term they prefer is "useful."

Posted: 2/21/2006 9:51:31 AM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Stop trying to help them think 4 themselves. They are trained to parrot talking points.

First of all, spell out the word "for" if you intend anyone to take you seriously.

Secondly, I have personally been involved in planning graduation ceremonies where the ACLU threatened the school districts that "operatives" (their words) would be in the crowd listening for any mention of God or anything religious and would sue if they saw anything they didn't like.

I have seen the local campus ACLU activities and events, and heard their objections to various practices and issues.

They are not out to guard "freedom". They THINK that they are out to guard freedom, but they define freedoms as being the ones THEY AGREE WITH, as opposed to the ones that are right there in the Constitution, as their stance on the 2nd ammendment demonstrates.

No doubt, some members of the ACLU are idiots - and of the batty left-wing variety. You've got idiots in every organization, but judging the principles of an organization like the ALCU based on actions of cluelss college kids is as bad as judging the Catholic Church on the basis of a very few bad priests, IMO.

If the ACLU truly are only interested in teh rights that THEY care about, and they are godless evil communists, who are trying to destory america and religion, then

Why have they gone to court to defend the rights of Christians to hand out christian literature in public schools?

Why have they gone to court to join Jerry Fallwell in his suit against the commonwealth of Virginia about coportation and property issues related to his church?

Why have they gone to court to support the right of Christian protestors at abortion clinics?

Why have they gone to court to support the rights of Christian evangelicals to preach in front of casions in Vegas?

I still don't understand that logic. Those aren't stupid threats made by misguided clueless college kids, those are cases that the leadership of the ACLU have chosen to go to court over.

Posted: 2/21/2006 9:52:16 AM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:
Of course not - why question your views when some talking head on the radio agree with you. Much easier than actually looking into the actual cases the ACLU has been supporting over the past few decades, and then realising that the "communist subversives" label is complete BS.

It is not BS.

The position, for instance, that the first ammendment requires a seperation of church and state to the point that no personal expression of religious faith can occour on public property is not Constitutional protection.

It is constitutional revisionism.

When I examine their lawsuits attacking the boyscouts and defending NAMBLA publications, I get the distinct impression that they haven't the foggiest clue what the 1st ammendment actually means.

Posted: 2/21/2006 9:52:35 AM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Did you drink the Kool-Aid at the ACLU meetings? Sounds like it.

Of course - because (again) the ONLY POSSIBLE explanation is that I am a communist, right.

It's not even possible that some people might have a slightly skewed and factually inaccurate perception of the ACLU at all, right?

Of course not - why question your views when some talking head on the radio agree with you. Much easier than actually looking into the actual cases the ACLU has been supporting over the past few decades, and then realising that the "communist subversives" label is complete BS.

You are the one who has been fooled. Hell, most ACLU members have been fooled into the same beliefs. It is a form of brainwashing.

Posted: 2/21/2006 9:53:59 AM EDT

[#39]

Some Christians ARE communists. These are the Christians they support.

Posted: 2/21/2006 9:55:38 AM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Don't get me wrong - I completely agree that the ACLU is very left wing <snip>

[cough] "very left wing" = "communist" [/cough]

DK-Prof, if they are so "different" of late why do they seem to unfailing support anti-American, anti-religious, anti-establishment causes? Come on. You said "blind idiot"--I believe the term they prefer is "useful."

So I'm not an evil communist, I'm just a gullible fool?

My point is that they DON'T unfailing support "anit-religious" causes, for example - but that's all that people get to hear about, because NEITHER the liberal left media, NOR the right-wing media have ANY INTEREST in talking about how the ACLU will often fight for Christian rights.

Think about it - the left doesn't want stories like that, because it makes the evil fundamentalist christians look reasonable, and reminds us that they've got the exact same rights to free expression as everyone else (whcih is what the ALCU fights for)

And the right doesn't want stories like that, because they want to perpetuate the notion that the ACLU are nothing but godless communist subversives.

All I'm saying is that the perception of the ACLU as communists, or as only being interested in the rights that they want, is compeltely incorrect.

I don't lie on arfcom, and I'm not stupid.

If people choose to assume I am either one, that's really more their issue than mine.

Posted: 2/21/2006 9:57:02 AM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:
Some Christians ARE communists. These are the Christians they support.

So Jerry Fallwell is a communist now?

High school kids that want to hand out Christian literature in public schools are communists?

Christian protestors at abortion clinics are communists?

Wow - communism sure has changed since the Cold War.

Posted: 2/21/2006 9:58:01 AM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:
I still don't understand that logic. Those aren't stupid threats made by misguided clueless college kids, those are cases that the leadership of the ACLU have chosen to go to court over.

I am not asserting that there is no intellectual dissent within the ACLU.

Take the NAACP as an example. Nationally, their leadership is dumber than a post. The local chapter, however, is actually a sensible group of people with good ideas.

When I examine the net effect the NAACP has had in the past couple of decades, however, and what their leaders represent, I am forced to come to the conclusion that the NAACP as a whole, stinks. I can point to specific examples where NAACP organizations and decisions have been sensible, but those hardly erase the glaring stupidity that (rightly) is used to classify the organization's modern incarnation. It was founded on good principle, but has gone completely nuts.

The ACLU was STARTED on bad principle. They don't show up to fight for property rights, and indeed their shing star, Ms. Ginsburg, took a giant leap towards the abolition of private property in the SC eminent domain ruling. (No private property rights....sound familiar???) They don't show up for gun rights because they don't believe they exist. (Also sounds familiar...)

When I look at the total effect the ACLU has had on American society and legal thinking, I am inclined to believe that they haven't strayed too far from their founding.

Posted: 2/21/2006 10:06:00 AM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Of course not - why question your views when some talking head on the radio agree with you. Much easier than actually looking into the actual cases the ACLU has been supporting over the past few decades, and then realising that the "communist subversives" label is complete BS.

It is not BS.

I disagree

The position, for instance, that the first ammendment requires a seperation of church and state to the point that no personal expression of religious faith can occour on public property is not Constitutional protection.

This is an example of where you are simply wrong.

The ACLU has NO SUCH position, and in fact has gone to court to protect the right to PERSONAL EXPRESSION of religious faith on public property.

They just freak out when expression of religious faith on public property are imposed upon other involtarily, or use public funds to facilitate such expression.

It is constitutional revisionism.

And what the supreme court has been doing for decades.

Unfortunately, that's the world we live in, and that we need to deal with.

When I examine their lawsuits attacking the boyscouts and defending NAMBLA publications, I get the distinct impression that they haven't the foggiest clue what the 1st ammendment actually means.

The boyscout thing has NOTHING to do with the first amendement, as far as I can tell (but I'm certainly not an expert), so I don't really get the comparison.

The NAMBLA case is one that is so often misunderstood that it is painful. Cases like the NAMBLA case are taken up by the ALCU for the value of precedent, and it is precisely cases like that which can help defend the Avila's against lawsuits when lawdog goes on a high school killing spree, after asking lots of questions on-line about AR-15's, and room-clearing, and LEO responses, etc. Or, alternatively, it will help keep ar15.com on-line during a Hillary Clinton adminsitration, where they try to ban gun-sites like this under some "hate group" legistaltion of new bizarre assulat weapons ban or somethign weird. The value is in the precedent, not the particular group.

Posted: 2/21/2006 10:07:56 AM EDT

[#44]

Of course the ACLU is going to defend them. Is that even a question?

Posted: 2/21/2006 10:10:20 AM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:
I disagree

Nobody gets them all right.

Not even you...... ;-P

Ruth Bader Ginsburg's version of America is completely foreign to all America has stood for.

And she isn't merely some relic from a bygone age.....

Posted: 2/21/2006 10:14:32 AM EDT

[#46]

Ultimately, I hate these kinds of discussion (and don't know WHY I get into them) because they get me into pointless arguments that cannot be "won" or "lost" with people whom I really respect.

I'll stop arguing, because I'm obviously not convincing anyone of anything, and this discussion is jsut divisive. Plus, I've got work to do

Btw - everyone I know in the ACLU sees the eminent domain cases as examples of government abuse of individual property rights, and were pissed as hell at the SCOTUS ruling.

Posted: 2/21/2006 10:15:29 AM EDT

[#47]

Marwan?

Posted: 2/21/2006 10:16:32 AM EDT

[#48]

Quoted:
Btw - everyone I know in the ACLU sees the eminent domain cases as examples of government abuse of individual property rights, and were pissed as hell at the SCOTUS ruling.

Well I tell ya what:

If the ACLU starts raising holy hell about ED stuff, I will take back the "communist subversives" comment.

Do that and eject the asshole members going around threatening school districts like some sort of gestapo, even I might consider joining....

Fair enough?

Posted: 2/21/2006 10:18:22 AM EDT

[#49]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Btw - everyone I know in the ACLU sees the eminent domain cases as examples of government abuse of individual property rights, and were pissed as hell at the SCOTUS ruling.

Well I tell ya what:

If the ACLU starts raising holy hell about ED stuff, I will take back the "communist subversives" comment.

Do that and eject the asshole members going around threatening school districts like some sort of gestapo, even I might consider joining....

Fair enough?

And if they don't, I'll definitely consider dropping my membership.

Posted: 2/21/2006 10:32:48 AM EDT

[#50]

Quoted:
If the ACLU starts raising holy hell about ED stuff...

Not gonna happen.

Quoted:
and eject the asshole members going around threatening school districts like some sort of gestapo...

Not gonna happen.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Ohio ROPers Indicted For Terrorism - will ACLU defend them? (Page 1 of 2)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us