| Author |
Message |
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
 Fri Mar 04, 2005 12:07 am The ACLU and Al Qaida |
|
| Bill O'Reilly wrote: | The Terror Tactics of the ACLU
By: Bill O'Reilly for BillOReilly.com
Thursday, Mar 03, 2005
It would be hard to imagine a better friend to Al Qaeda and other terrorist outfits than the American Civil Liberties Union. If that statement shocks you, please allow me to back it up with facts.
A few days ago, the ACLU announced it will sue Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on behalf of eight foreign nationals who say they were abused by American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. The ACLU contends that the ultimate responsibility for the physical and psychological injuries sustained by the men lies at the highest levels of the U.S. government. Thus, Rumsfeld is their poster boy. By the way, the word "alleged" is not mentioned by the ACLU in their brief.
The suit is a farce and will go nowhere, I predict. The terror war is now three and a half years old, there are more than 300,000 American forces deployed around the world, and the allegations of torture against those forces number about 300. That is very, very low. The ACLU is simply blowing far left smoke, doing what it usually does: undermining policies it dislikes.
There is no question the ACLU opposes just about every pro-active measure taken to fight terror. Consider the following:
* The ACLU opposes the Patriot Act. But, in 2003, when asked by liberal Senator Dianne Feinstein to produce examples of government abuse under the act, the ACLU did not produce one.
* The ACLU opposes the "No Fly List" complied by the Transportation Security Administration to keep known bad guys off American airliners.
* The ACLU has sued to stop federal authorities from giving information about illegal aliens to state and local police agencies. You read that right. The ACLU does not want local authorities to know who is illegally living in their neighborhoods.
* And the ACLU believes that terrorists captured wearing civilian clothing are entitled to the rights legitimate soldiers receive under the Geneva Convention. Thus, no coercive interrogation.
Now I ask you, who is Al Qaeda's best friend in the USA? Am I wrong here? I tried to find out just what anti-measures the ACLU did support, but was told that was not the organization's mandate. They are committed to the protection of rights. Well, what about the right to live, ACLU, a right Al Qaeda denied three thousand Americans on 9/11?
I am angry about this. The ACLU is making the war on terror much more difficult to wage. Under the guise of protecting the liberties of Americans, the ACLU combs the world to find foreign guys who say they were treated badly. Maybe they were, and it shouldn't happen. But I believe exploiting the situation to embarrass the Bush administration is the ACLU's goal, not protecting the little guy rounded up in Kabul.
One final example. Mohammed Atta most likely loved the ACLU. The dead 9/11 hijacker was in the USA illegally and roamed around planning the deadly attack. If the Feds had information on Atta in a database and a local Florida cop had managed to pick him up, the ACLU says the cop had no right to know any Federal information about the illegal alien Atta. That extreme position sums up just how much the ACLU is looking out for all of us.
And that is not at all. Source |
O'Reily is right on on this one. And don't go crying that he's a Conservative, which I know some Liberal will, because he's NOT. He's a fair, open-minded, independent American with equally left and right views.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Fri Mar 04, 2005 12:12 am |
|
Their argument is kinda funny. They're angry that Rumsfeld isn't at every place at every time. How could he have stopped it? He wasn't there.
|
|
|
Seven of Nine
Sammie's Mammy
Joined: 16 Jun 2001
Posts: 7871
Location: North East England
|
| Fri Mar 04, 2005 2:45 am |
|
Well, it's interesting 
I'm not worried too much about the civil liberties of American citizens. They have rights. What I'm worried about is this "coercive interrogation", which is basically torture, redefined. You'll never get the truth out of it, because if someone is in pain they'll say anything for it to stop. I thik anyone who agrees with this sort of trearment should undergo it for 48 hours and see if they still agree then.
|
|
|
webtaz99
Commodore
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 1229
Location: The Other Side
|
| Fri Mar 04, 2005 8:55 am |
|
| Seven of Nine wrote: | Well, it's interesting
I'm not worried too much about the civil liberties of American citizens. They have rights. What I'm worried about is this "coercive interrogation", which is basically torture, redefined. You'll never get the truth out of it, because if someone is in pain they'll say anything for it to stop. I thik anyone who agrees with this sort of trearment should undergo it for 48 hours and see if they still agree then. |
Only fools and amatuers use "torture". Believe it or not, the government and the military have experts who have studied interrogation throughout history. Ask any intelligence agent or officer and they will tell you, "torture" doesn't work. The idea is to maintain "pressure" on the subject. And that means psychological pressure, which is different for every person (although there are near-universal phobias). The problem is that this "pressure" needs to be applied by experts, and it has been left in the hands of people who did not have the proper level of professionalism. Where it has been carried out properly, it has produced results.
-------signature-------
"History is made at night! Character is who you are in the dark." (Lord John Whorfin)
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Fri Mar 04, 2005 5:28 pm |
|
| webtaz99 wrote: | | Seven of Nine wrote: | Well, it's interesting
I'm not worried too much about the civil liberties of American citizens. They have rights. What I'm worried about is this "coercive interrogation", which is basically torture, redefined. You'll never get the truth out of it, because if someone is in pain they'll say anything for it to stop. I thik anyone who agrees with this sort of trearment should undergo it for 48 hours and see if they still agree then. |
Only fools and amatuers use "torture". Believe it or not, the government and the military have experts who have studied interrogation throughout history. Ask any intelligence agent or officer and they will tell you, "torture" doesn't work. The idea is to maintain "pressure" on the subject. And that means psychological pressure, which is different for every person (although there are near-universal phobias). The problem is that this "pressure" needs to be applied by experts, and it has been left in the hands of people who did not have the proper level of professionalism. Where it has been carried out properly, it has produced results. |
SUPERB point. No, Seven, it is not torture, and we MUST use harsh tactics to save the lives of terrorists. You must understand that. This is...Dan Rather reporting...CBS News.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Jemah
Lieutenant
Joined: 04 Mar 2005
Posts: 209
|
| Fri Mar 04, 2005 5:33 pm |
|
uggh.. i have even less respect for mr. o'reilly even more now.
| Quote: | | O'Reily is right on on this one. And don't go crying that he's a Conservative, which I know some Liberal will, because he's NOT. He's a fair, open-minded, independent American with equally left and right views. |
if you have to post this phrase, how unbiased in regard to this topic can he (and you) really be? 
|
|
|
Arellia
The Quiet One
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 4425
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Fri Mar 04, 2005 5:35 pm |
|
RM never said he was unbiased--everyone is biased, it's impossible not to be. O'Reilly is, though, not attatched to a party and therefore more open to liberal or conservative views than some.
|
|
|
Jemah
Lieutenant
Joined: 04 Mar 2005
Posts: 209
|
| Fri Mar 04, 2005 5:38 pm |
|
you just contradicted yourself.
bill o'reilly has not pledged himself to a political party officially, but i think we all know where his views lie. far to the right. :p
|
|
|
Arellia
The Quiet One
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 4425
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Fri Mar 04, 2005 5:43 pm |
|
I don't believe I did. He is open to listening to views from the other side, and following them if he likes them. He leans left sometimes, and right sometimes. To me, he's too liberal. To you, he's too conservative. What does that tell me? That he's pretty well middle, which seems farther to one side or the other for someone with potent left-or-right views.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Fri Mar 04, 2005 5:52 pm |
|
| Exalya wrote: | | RM never said he was unbiased--everyone is biased, it's impossible not to be. O'Reilly is, though, not attatched to a party and therefore more open to liberal or conservative views than some. |
EXACTLY.
| Jemah wrote: | you just contradicted yourself.
bill o'reilly has not pledged himself to a political party officially, but i think we all know where his views lie. far to the right. :p |
Yep, and I'm Michael Moore! I'm a Conservative, and he is NOT a Conservative!
| Exalya wrote: | | I don't believe I did. He is open to listening to views from the other side, and following them if he likes them. He leans left sometimes, and right sometimes. To me, he's too liberal. To you, he's too conservative. What does that tell me? That he's pretty well middle, which seems farther to one side or the other for someone with potent left-or-right views. |
EXACTLY. Same here.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
