Marines in Shackles! Where's the ACLU?

... associating closely enough with terrorists to be taken in a sweep... IOW's suspected of at least aiding and abetting.

Not a misrepresentation. As best we know, most of those who were subject to interrogation at Abu Ghraib, both legal and illegal, were genuine enemies.

Nope. Just making a direct analysis of what you've said on these two threads. Perhaps you should reflect a little more since someone else noticed the exact same things and has posted some of your own words to prove it... notably you accused them of poisoning the well too for bringing up incongruencies in your claims and statements.

The ACLU like its Christian counterpart the ACLJ solicit opportunities to involve themselves in what they think might be landmark cases. Both have even provided unsolicited friends of the court briefs on things they care about but aren't direct participants in. I doubt that the ACLU would even deny that they approach people they think have been wronged before they ask.

I don't think so. The Establishment Clause for instance was never meant to prevent religion in the public square, on public property, in government, etc. It was meant to prevent gov't from being dominated by or favoring one sect over another.

Moreover, it was never, ever intended to keep religion out of schools... it could be more rightly argued that if applied to schooling in 1800 it would have kept the gov't out of schools.

 

So you're contending that by being "close" to someone, in the proximity or being "suspected", they implicitly agreed to be transported, etc?

Then what? a deliberate lie? Please show where I have "loudly protested" when terrorists and enemy soldiers have been treated as these Marines have been.

The comparison was Guantanamo Bay, not Abu Ghraib - you're switching right in the middle without notice. Is that an honest mistake or a deliberate misleading?

Since you know best, how many people were subject to interrogation at Abu Ghraib?

Your analysis is sloppy and your conclusion - which I suspect was reached before any "analysis" - is wrong.

That's funny - you and others, using a common logical fallacy, falsely claiming that I feel a certain way even after I have stated, using fairly simple words**, that I do not, is not my responsibility. I'll point out the fallacies and falsities as they occur, but I cannot prevent you all from posting as you please. Speaking of common fallacies, argument from numbers is just another and adds nothing to your credibility.

I'll repeat again here: Martin did not use my own words when he claimed, "So you argue against putting terrorists (who you claim are innocent people picked up on the streets, Gitmo thread post #40, dated 6/15/06) in prison because they have not been charged with anything". Again, I have not claimed that terrorists are innocent people - to say that I have may be a mistake the first time, but it is a lie every time afterwards.

And?

The ACLU fights for civil liberties, the individual's right not to be oppressed by governments. As for that "sect" nonsense, that is pure revisionism of the worst kind.

Religion isn't being kept out of schools. The ACLU defends the individual's religious rights, too, whether it is not having religion forced on him or not being allowed to practice his own. See this (linkie) latest example.


**although, at times, a convoluted grammatical structure

 

I am saying that if your friends took you to a bank and robbed it then you would be an accessory and legitimate suspect. I am saying that if the whole gang was picked up in one sweep and you were there you would be a legitimate suspect.

No they don't. How is someone being oppressed by government if a local Christian group exercises its expression rights to put up a manger scene on public property? How is it oppressive if the city gov't itself did it? No one is being forced to bow down before it or even regard it at all. There are many examples where the ACLU demonstrates that it is far more anti-Christian than pro-civil rights.

No it isn't. Read the writings. The founders had no qualms whatsoever about openly religious people serving in gov't or expressing their religious convictions in the discharge of their offices... so long as they didn't attempt to establish their religion as the national religion. Further, I forget the exact number but there are many scriptures inscribed into gov't buildings in Washington. Some of these inscriptions date from the period when the founders would have still been living and serving in office. Yet similar new displays are routinely opposed by the ACLU.

Yes it is. Even concepts that are clearly not sectarian like Intelligent Design are opposed by the ACLU as attempts to teach religion in school.

 

BTW, In a very inconsistent manner, the ACLU has opposed prayer at football games, graduations, et al.

 

And... you claimed they didn't get involved without being invited.

 

Oh, and one more thing, please explain who the ACLU is protecting from oppression in the San Diego cross case.

 

Who says everyone in the neighborhood are "friends"?

Yes, they do.

I happen to disagree with their position on creches, but it has to do with public money supporting a religion.

Yes, it is. I have read the writings and it is not about "sects"; it is about religion.

Let me know when you find which buildings and which quotes - your memory may be faulty.

No, it isn't. ID is recycled Creationism. Read the Dover decision.

If friend of the court briefs are getting involved, then I was mistaken. Have any of the shackled soldiers filed suit yet?

Any one who wants to pray as an individual, can. No one should be coerced into prayer.

The guy who filed suit and taxpayers who don't want to pay to support it. It also seems to have violated the original terms of the guy who contributed the first cross & land.

 

I agree with you. It does seem the way that the bleeding heart liberal look at it.
Faithgirl

 

I personally know two atheists who subscribe to ID. I have read of many others.

 

That would be correct.
That's part of why I'm against the recruitment of teens in high schools. They aren't told the whole story, or old enough to think of the possibilities of what could realistically happen.
Age should be 21 imo. Or at the least, a more complete presentation made.

 

No kidding? Who do they think the Intelligent Designer is, then?

 

The soldiers you're talking about were charged with murder.


FOXNEWS.COM HOME > NATIONAL Seven Marines, One Sailor Charged With Murder in Iraqi Civilian Death at HamdaniyaThursday, June 22, 2006


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200428,00.html

 

The two that I know personally, simply say something along the lines of "I don't know". (However, I have my suspicions that they would agree with the following...)

About a year or so ago, I believe it was Time magazine that did an article on several scientists who believe in ID and that superior aliens "planted" us.

I find it quite ironic that people who simply cannot bring themselves to believe in God do believe in superior aliens.

 

Can't argue there!