[Flipside]

Just think, if it is true, what happens when he really gets his teeth into the American public with his anti-terror laws?

[Kosh]

More crap like Guantonomo Bay and the end to the Bill of Rights......

[Bri_Dog]

Blah. I don't even care anymore.

[NGTM-1R]

Originally posted by Kosh
More crap like Guantonomo Bay and the end to the Bill of Rights......

Except the 2nd Amendment. Which would in the end solve the problems, but hey, let's pretend you're making sense. That's the problem with every "Republican=Fascist" theory. They support the right to bear arms, which is ultimately a very bad idea if you intend to be a totalitarian government.

I want to know where and how BBC obtained these reports before I judge their accuracy. If they came through the ACLU, they're tainted.

[demon442]

An unnamed agent describes seeing a detainee at Guantanamo Bay wrapped in an Israeli flag and bombarded with loud music and strobe lights, adding the supposition that such practices were employed by military personnel. No physical abuse was witnessed.

Don't know about the flag, but the rest sounds like a typical concert minus the mosh pits.


And I wouldn't be surprised if that bastard signed the order himself, autographed a 'Get Out of Jail Free' card for every soldier caught abusing prisoners, and then pissed on a budget reform bill.

[Rictor]

You're taking the best (well, least bad in any case) of it. Yeah, yeah, loud music, big deal.

But what about when they, deprive them of sleep, lock them up in little room with no light for days on end, force them to maintain "stress positions" (I definitely get the feeling someone from a PR agency had a hand in this) for long periods of time, let the dogs loose and stuff like that.

Its torture dude, use you imagination. People seem to have no trouble imagining what horrors Saddam perpetrated in his prisons, why should it be any different here?

[Flipside]

Personally, I'll wait to see the evidence before I judge the source, after all, America could have been accused of being a 'biased accuser' in the Cuba Crisis, but being brave enough to do so saved the world a lot of problems.

[Rictor]

Not to derail the topic, but they stationed missles in Turkey, the Soviet equivalent of Cuba, more than a year before the Russians put their missles in Cuba.

[Kosh]

Of course you won't hear THAT in a history class in this country.

[NGTM-1R]

Actually, you will. I certainly did. It was even in the movie on the subject, if you were paying attention.

[jdjtcagle]

Originally posted by Kosh
Of course you won't hear THAT in a history class in this country.

I love my History teacher, an ex-marine patriot.  He doesn't leave out the parts about America's emperialistic arrogance and dirty history.

[Mongoose]

You realize that most Americans feel about the ACLU the same way that most foreigners look at Fox News?  I like how the BBC is your "credible source;"  all that story does is describe the ACLU's case.  All of you are so quick to jump on the "Damn Bush!" bandwagon without knowing any real facts.  But, then again, why would I expect anything better from this forum?

[Rictor]

hold on a ****ing second.

Someone want to give me one good reason why the ACLU is not to be trsuted, or in fact why they're not a positive force in US politics? I've seen nothing but good coming from them, so what's the deal? Does someone object to civil liberties?

[Kosh]

All of you are so quick to jump on the "Damn Bush!" bandwagon without knowing any real facts.

I've seen you jump on "Yeah Bush" bandwagons with even less real facts than we have. Hyppocrite.

[NGTM-1R]

Originally posted by Rictor
hold on a ****ing second.

Someone want to give me one good reason why the ACLU is not to be trsuted, or in fact why they're not a positive force in US politics? I've seen nothing but good coming from them, so what's the deal? Does someone object to civil liberties?

Because, let's face a big fact now: the ACLU was created to get certain liberties granted.

They succeeded.

Now their original reason to exist is gone. And they must create a new one or the people who are running it have their paychecks stop coming. So they look for another possible threat. Or they just pull one out of their ***, which is unfortunately more common since it takes less effort.

This same phenomenon can be observed in other advocacy groups. The NAACP, for example. Or any of the big unions. They have achieved the goals they set out for. The NAACP sought equality under the law, and they got it. Yet they're still here. This is beaurcracy in action, becoming self-sustaining. The unions sought better conditions for workers. They got them. Now they must keep getting them, or else they cannot justify their own existance and the union dues will stop coming in, and the people who run the unions and make hundreds of thousands a year doing so will be out of work.

The reason people don't trust the ACLU is because of this very phenomenon.

[Kosh]

The ACLU is still around mostly to make sure people's liberties don't get taken away. That is a far more realistic prospect than I think most people realize.

[Rictor]

Originally posted by ngtm1r


Because, let's face a big fact now: the ACLU was created to get certain liberties granted.

They succeeded.

Now their original reason to exist is gone. And they must create a new one or the people who are running it have their paychecks stop coming. So they look for another possible threat. Or they just pull one out of their ***, which is unfortunately more common since it takes less effort.

This same phenomenon can be observed in other advocacy groups. The NAACP, for example. Or any of the big unions. They have achieved the goals they set out for. The NAACP sought equality under the law, and they got it. Yet they're still here. This is beaurcracy in action, becoming self-sustaining. The unions sought better conditions for workers. They got them. Now they must keep getting them, or else they cannot justify their own existance and the union dues will stop coming in, and the people who run the unions and make hundreds of thousands a year doing so will be out of work.

The reason people don't trust the ACLU is because of this very phenomenon.

uhm, they exist cause civil liberties are continually under attack, and will continue to be. Should I start listing the ways, or are you just going to take a quick look around?

They're basically people who know the legal system, and use that knowledge the prevent the government from getting away with ****. And don't tell me that the government is a benign and caring entity, the only thing that is preventing it from turning tyranical is people who take a stand aganist it. Left to its own devices, the government will naturally increase it power over the population. As long as there is a government, it will be power-hungry, and there will need to be people or groups of people who hold that power in check, since obviously John.Q.Citizen has no problems with handing over his liberties to gov't under threat that the boogeyman will him.

Now I don't know about the NAACP, which BTW I think is a pretty stupid idea, but I don't think you should just lump all these groups together who are so very different in their goals. Labour unions exist in theory to give workers a united front against corporate exploitation, but how many unions are in bed with the corporations or with the government? They're still needed, they just need to do a better job of it.

[Tiara]

Originally posted by jdjtcagle


I love my History teacher, an ex-marine patriot.  He doesn't leave out the parts about America's emperialistic arrogance and dirty history.

That's the kind of teachers that need to get some more respect instead of being attacked for 'making America look bad' (and believe me, there are more then enough people who don't want their children to know the truth about this subject in the US ).

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by ngtm1r


Except the 2nd Amendment. Which would in the end solve the problems, but hey, let's pretend you're making sense. That's the problem with every "Republican=Fascist" theory. They support the right to bear arms, which is ultimately a very bad idea if you intend to be a totalitarian government.

I want to know where and how BBC obtained these reports before I judge their accuracy. If they came through the ACLU, they're tainted.

It's only a problem if the gun-owners are against you.  

NB: bbc source is stated in the first link.

[Bobboau]

the ACLU is a political organisation (as are most things you hear from today), therefore you can't trust them on there word.