Posted on 10/22/2004 9:39:37 AM PDT by The_Media_never_lie
SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- The American Civil Liberties Union has sued the FBI, trying to get more information about the agency's questioning of Muslims and Arabs as it investigates the possibility of pre-election terror attacks.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
the IRS audit could do them in .....
I think there was a typo in your title. I think it should read, "ACLU Comes Down on the Side of the Bill of Rights."
Of course. Without them, who would we have to infuriate us, sicken us, and raise our blood pressure?
IRS AND FBI
The ACLU hates Jesus and America. They should move their organization to the middle east.
We don't, but hell does.
The ACLU wants to know, among other things, how the agency chooses whom it will interview.
Yes, they want the FBI to interview equal numbers of other ethnic groups in the building of a terror database, in that way hard disk drive makers will be the real winners in the war on terror. Do you really think the ACLU cares about the Bill of Rights, or are they using the Bill of Rights as a tool to acomplish some other agenda? I think they want the government to stop questioning and incarcerating people we capture in the investigation into international terror. If they get their way on this they will go on to something else, like open borders with Mexico and Canada. Don't bring the Bill of Rights into this arguement. The terrorists that were released because we did not have evidence to charge them have rejoined the fight as our enemy. (So why provide the Bill of Rights to our enemy?)
Oh, let's see: NAALCP, Muslims, Jesse Hijackson, Fat Al Sharpscum, Mikey Mooron, liberal-demokkkRATs... I could go on. We'll never run out of lowlifes, subhumans and other assorted filth to p!ss us off, T.
I shouldn't bring the Bill of Rights into an argument about the proper role of government in pursuing a criminal investigation? What?
Well, this is America, where some of us still believe in rights and freedom. I know, it's kooky and all, but I believe that the government should have things like, say, proof of criminal conduct before locking people away in prisons, probable cause before searching or detaining people, etc. You know, those basic things found in the Bill of Rights.
I know, I know, you say that things such as "rights" are an antiquated notion that have no place in today's society, but I'm just old fashioned. I believe that the individual, not the government, can best decide his own course of action.
You know I argued with you once before and never got any substance, only a quick comment with my question being thrown back. Too many comments to handle to actually dig into the wonderful position the ACLU is taking perhaps?
The argument IS about the Bill of Rights. I have no problem with the ACLU's position. I don't think that the government should be able to violate the Constitution. Period. Full stop.
If the Government chooses to detain and question people, those people have rights. If the Government wants to put someone in prison, those suspects have rights. This isn't a new concept, and it isn't radical.
Please everyone, stop using the word "religion" when referring to this hate cult. It depreciates the word religion and elevates a gutter hate cult to a status it does not deserve.
While I do admire you staunch defense of the Bill of Rights, I think it may be a bit misdirected.
IIRC, these interviews are voluntary and no one is being locked up.
If the people being interviewed are not involved with terrorism, they have nothing to fear.
If you're referring to Gitmo:
1 - The Bill of Rights applies to US Citizens ONLY.
2 - The scum locked up at Gitmo are terrorists and would not hesitate for one second to kill you if they could.
Remember, rights come with RESPONSIBILITIES. You have the right to free speech, but you have the responsibility not to slander or libel people. You have the right to freedom of religion, but you have the responsibility to ensure that your religion does not promote the killing people because they believe differently than you.
Yes, I’m a fan of the Bill of Rights too. I just don’t like FORIENERS coming to our land and using OUR Bill of Rights against us. The ACLU is helping to make this happen and as such, is the enemy.
True, but exceptions have been made in wartime. (And we are in a war.) Your arguement applies still to those investigated and arrested for crimes not related to the war on international terrorism. I have no problem if the ACLU wants to champion their cause (the criminal). The problem is that the ACLU makes no distinction for the war. To them, the enemy are only common criminals who are derserving of the constitutional protections under our law. (My point is that there are those who lose these protections, by conspiring and actually committing acts of violence against this country. This is the genesis of the arguement that the constitution is not a suicide pact.)
Now judges have found that after being captured and jailed, the persons are entitled to a hearing to decide whether they fall under the wartime rules or the normal criminal code. I have no problem with this, in fact this hearing should already have happened when they were captured and confined. The data in these hearings is classified, and I have no problem with limited disclosure of the hearing data. The person's lawyer and various judges should be able to see it with a requirement to keep it sealed.
Agreed 100%. I would like to think these people could be educated to reject their hate filled combat manual but I see no indication of a peaceful outcome. I only hope we don't wait until it is too late.
I understand this to be the case as well, which is why the ACLU is merely requesting information to ensure that the government is observing the constitutional rights of those interviewed. All we have is the government's assertion that the interviews are "voluntary." With this lawsuit, perhaps we'll get the whole story. I don't have a problem, of course, with the government voluntarily interviewing people, but far too often, those "voluntary" interviews are not voluntary at all.
The Bill of Rights applies to US Citizens ONLY.
I take issue with this assertion. The Constitution carefully distinguishes the rights available to citizens and those rights available to all people. For instance:
Art. IV, Sec. 2, Cl. 1: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
Compare: Art. IV, Sec. 2, Cl. 2: A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime...
And the Amendments:
Amend. V: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime...
Amend. VI: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial...(note that it doesn't say in prosecutions of Citizens)
Compare: Amend XIX: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged...
Amend XV: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged...
Indeed, look no further than the Boston "Massacre." Adams--one of the most ardent and outspoken Founders on declaring independence from Britain, demanded that the British soldiers receive a fair trial--by jury. Adams defended the soldiers and won acquittal for six of the eight. Adams quote on the subject: "The part I took procured me anxiety enough. It was, however, one of the most gallant, generous, manly and disinterested actions of my whole life, and one of the best pieces of service I ever rendered my country."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.