I also never claimed that you supported any of the transgressions the left has performed in regards to Constitutional Rights so your defense is aimed at an accusation that never was made.
In regard to, I'm not entirely sure how "leaking national secrets" is an issue involving individual rights, but I'm sure you'll explain when you have the time.
The leaking of national secrets is being used to profess a concern for individual rights when the goal is really to further a collectivist agenda by weakening the opposition by any means necessary. Circular logic? Yes. The truth? Most assuredly. Other wise we would have multiple movies, tv series, university symposiums on the evil of the police states of the former USSR or current governments of Vietnam, China, Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea etc. and their perpetual violation (through elimination) of individual rights through secret police and violent enforcement.
Of course that cannot be comfortably allowed because the view is that the collectivist vision has never been properly practiced when the truth is that it never can be because such adherants have to reshape human nature. This, as before and forever more, can never be achieved without eliminating individual rights for the sake of collectivist utopia. The ACLU is at the forefront of this continuous push.
The ACLU supports boutique individual rights - race, sexual orientation, gender - that create a two-track vision that Orwell's "all animals are equal but some are more equal than others" sums up very nicely. The ACLU has a constant outlook that supports "individual group rights" so to wonder why some(one) on this board would immediately make an assumption that the ACLU would exploit this still-evolving incident is because the assumption, like so many other times, has been proven by an ACLU action. Time after time after time after time after...
In the end it has been you that has failed to highlight the conservative trangressors utilizing "popular sentiment to erode Constitutional provisions" while jumping to the defense of one of the leading liberal organizations that have perverted the true definition of individual rights so as to "erode Constitutional provisions."
If you'd like to spend more time arguing a point no one is disputing, I suppose that's your business. I don't find it terribly enlightening, however, to discuss a topic in which the all responses will essentially be "Yeah! Me too!".
My original post responded to a complaint about the AP and the ACLU as a first reaction to reading the story about the alleged incident at Haditha. My comment was not a statement about the veracity of the AP nor the motives of ACLU. It was intended (but obviously not recieved) as a comment about someone using a story about an alleged tragedy as a platform to complain about the ACLU. And at this point, it is rather uninteresting to keep rehashing a third party's first response to a post. So I'll stop.
Frankly you didn't point out what constitutional rights were being whittled away.
My post was not in regards to this thread. It was a Freepmail regarding the limitation of First Amendment rights in response to Fred Phelps and his idiot friends. If you'd like to discuss that issue, I believe I sent you a ping to the thread.