[Rictor]

They're not political, or at least nor fundamentally political.

That's like saying that firefighters are political. The ACLU protects everyone's civil liberties, regardless of political affiliation. Government repression runs across the board, its only that Republicans (and I say this only because a Republican is currently in power, it was the same with the Democrats back in Clinton's day) freely give up their rights because they believe that partiotism is blindly following the government and being obedient.

Now, its not exactly like this in reality, but I think that the majority of what they fight for is not specific to one party or idealogy. Sure, they may do some things which could be considerd liberal, but the bulk of their work goes to protect all citizens.

[Bobboau]

what would you say the makeup of the ACLU is, poliiticly?
I mean they probly arn't exactly overbriming with conservitives, and as we've seen a few times, american democrats have a tendency to refuse the posability that there party could do anything even remotely unsavory.
one could conclude that this might have a signifigant effect on there pollicies. and given the nature of the organiseation, advicacy, this would basicly make them a democratic atack dog, much like the NRA is a republican atack dog regardless of what the organisation's purpose is.
if they actualy have proof this is all irrelevent, but untill it has been proven it's still suspect. wouldn't be the first time something that's suposed to be nutral provided forged documents in an atempt to discredit Bush (like you'd even ****ing need them)

[aldo_14]

Validate the evidence, not the people who present it, I say.

[Bobboau]

like I said, if what they have is legitimate and they can prove it then there motives are irrelivant.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Bobboau
what would you say the makeup of the ACLU is, poliiticly?
I mean they probly arn't exactly overbriming with conservitives, and as we've seen a few times, american democrats have a tendency to refuse the posability that there party could do anything even remotely unsavory.

You going to complain that the Equal Opportunities Commisssion doesn't have enough members from the BNP next?

Conservatives are welcome to join the ACLU. They don't because preventing the infringement of civil liberties isn't something that most conservatives care about.

[Bobboau]

so then there an organisation that is devoted to opposeing conservitive agendas...
how does this differ from my statement that they are a political organisation?

[aldo_14]

Conservatism basically stands for preserving the existing order, so there wouldn't be much sense in joining something like the ACLU for them.  However, that doesn't invalidate the purpose of the organisation; it's hard to find a cause or area which can't be classed as political in some manner.

[Bobboau]

so it's an organiseation tha, er, why am I argueing this, you are basicly admiting the ACLU is a political group, it's just they are for 'good' politics so you don't want to admit that they have a vested intrest in evicting Bush, even though it's plain to see as the inside of your eyelids from any perspective that they do.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Bobboau
so it's an organiseation tha, er, why am I argueing this, you are basicly admiting the ACLU is a political group, it's just they are for 'good' politics so you don't want to admit that they have a vested intrest in evicting Bush, even though it's plain to see as the inside of your eyelids from any perspective that they do.

If Bush and his government are violating civil liberties then of course they have a vested interest in removing them (personally, I see that as 'good' politics, but everyone know my opinions on this); Aids charities probably also have a vested interest in removing Bush, too (because of restrictions on funding which favour faith based abstinance initiatives).  The Red Cross probably does too (illegal holding and treatment of captives at Guantanamo).  You can easily apply vested interests to a massive amount of altruistic groups if you want.

Being a political group does not make the ACLU (or any group) wrong or invalid, so long as their politics are dictated by their social aims, not vice versa.  And, anyway, the political slant of the the ACLU is completely irrelevant when it comes to the raw evidence; that is what has to be evaluated.

[karajorma]

Nope. I'm saying that they are a group mostly comprised of democrats. That doesn't mean that they are anti-republican. As Rictor pointed out earlier when the democrats were in power they turned on them too.

Anyone who wants to protect civil rights has a vested interest in kicking out bush. That's nothing to do with politics.

Would you say that Medicen Sans Frontiers was a religous organisation because most of it's members are christians? The majority of people on HLP would support the democrats over the republicans. Is HLP a political group?

EDIT : Okay it's spooky how close Aldo's response was to mine

[aldo_14]

Copycat!

*runs*

[Bobboau]

ok, for the third or fourth time, there motivations are irrelevent if they have good evedence.

[Mongoose]

While the listed ideals of the ACLU are indeed noble, have any of you actually taken a look at some of the absolutely wacky lawsuits they've been involved in over the past few years?  Look particularly at some of the "separation of church and state" cases.  I'm sure that even the most atheistic members of this forum would think that the ACLU overstepped all limits of common sense in some of those cases.  For me, at least, that organization has lost all credibility and respect.

[karajorma]

Considering what you'd turn America into if you had your way I'm not particularly worried about your respect for it.

[StratComm]

As much as I hate to say it, Mongoose has a point.  Seperation of church and state cases are the wrong example because they are important things to bring up, but the ACLU has certainly participated in some of the most deranged and silly lawsuits I've heard of (they're only a couple of steps behind PETA).  They are also a huge, highly politicized lobby, so defending them on their merits isn't necessarily useful.  However, Bob's right.  We shouldn't be concerned with the ACLU's reputation unless the accusations that they have put forward are proven false.

[NGTM-1R]

Originally posted by aldo_14
Conservatism basically stands for preserving the existing order, so there wouldn't be much sense in joining something like the ACLU for them.  However, that doesn't invalidate the purpose of the organisation; it's hard to find a cause or area which can't be classed as political in some manner.

But therein lies the problem.

If, as you say, conservatism is devoted to preserving the existing order, then why is the ACLU disregarded by consertives when it claims it is attempting to preserve, preserve, the rights of Americans.

Because it's not.

It's trying to expand them. It is not trying to uphold the law, it is trying to create new law.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by ngtm1r
If, as you say, conservatism is devoted to preserving the existing order, then why is the ACLU disregarded by consertives when it claims it is attempting to preserve, preserve, the rights of Americans.

Because it's not.

It's trying to expand them. It is not trying to uphold the law, it is trying to create new law.

Nope. It's cause conservatives (with a small c) no longer exist. Certainly in the UK but also in America. Does Bush really look like someone who is trying to make the least possible changes to the country to you?

The days of a government who tried to make few changes as possible are gone in the US.

[Rictor]

like Kara said, conservativism no longer exists in America.

those who call themselves conservative are actually a mix of jingoist imperialists, religious fundamentalists and shotgun capitalists. The libertarians are as close to conservativism as you get in States.

[aldo_14]

Not to mention that conservatism - preservation of the existing order - inherently involves suppressing change, and specifically change to the ruling hierarchy.  

In the case of neo-conservatism, aspects such as human rights do appear to become of minimal consequence compared to exerting control; and specifically increasing power and control to react to pressures trying to force change.