Anti-American Civil Liberties Union?
Though I am no student of all that the ACLU has accomplished, I know that it has taken up very important cases in the past. Many of which were of great importance. Being fairly young, and the media predominantly covering the most controversial of cases, most of the cases which I recall the ACLU being involved in have caused me to wonder if their sole purpose is to let murderers and rapists out on the streets. They usually talk with the press about how this person or that did not understand to what they were confessing, or the police missed one word of their rights, etc., but very rarely do they discuss the person's innocence.
While we need to protect an individual's rights it seems that they frequently do so at the expense of everyone else's rights.
Now in the war on terror they are some of the first to want to defend terror suspects. While I do not want a single innocent person jailed for terror, I also do not want a single guilty person to walk because of the ACLU. If they employ the same "technicality" tactics to get terrorists released for which they are famous, they should be ashamed. And we should not support them in those efforts.
Do you think they will? Just wait until you read the b.s. move the ACLU just made.
In January the ACLU, in order to improve their ability to raise money signed a contract with the federal government that they would not "knowingly" hire people on government terrorist "watch lists" (What American would want to hire someone on the list?) Well, Anthony Romero, executive director of the ACLU, thinks he can hire all of the terror listed people he wants by stating, "I've printed them out [terror watch lists]... I've never consulted them," Since he never consulted (translation into English… read) them he did not “know” who was on the lists, therefore he could not “knowingly” hire them. And Nadine Strossen, president of the ACLU board, agrees. The "knowingly" loophole was "a very reasonable, certainly clever interpretation."
What? Reasonable? Are the ACLU people nuts? Does this sound "reasonable" to you? Does it sound “reasonable” to ANYONE with a brain?
Being comprised of lawyers I suspect that the ACLU thinks that they have a legal loophole, which will at least keep them from jail. However, the term “knowingly” has been used in contracts for a very long time to prevent someone from accidentally breaching a contract. But, EVERYONE KNOWS that should a person CHOOSE not to make ANY effort to inform themselves of facts, that they are actually in violation of the contract. They are CERTAINLY in violation of the “intent.” And considering that the “intent” is to PROTECT America from TERRORISTS what kind of FOOL would even try to find a way around it?
This commonly used legal term has a universally understood meaning. If the AACLU is allowed to get away with this distortion then virtually ALL legal contracts in force today will have to be rewritten so as to close this nonexistent loophole. Which will, of course, cost MILLIONS or BILLIONS of dollars. That money will go to attorneys. The AACLU is mostly attorneys. Could they have another hidden agenda? Could they be trying to drum up work for themselves and their friends?
To summarize, the (A)ACLU uses trickery to hire suspected terrorists, and may be causing a cost to the American economy of MILLIONS or even BILLIONS of dollars. Does this sound like an American organization?
Al Qeada hires terrorists and they want to cost America MILLIONS and BILLIONS of dollars.
Should the ACLU be forced to change its name to the Anti-American Civil Liberties Union? Would it be more appropriate?
Read more about it, and…
Think for yourself!
Make up your own mind!
While we need to protect an individual's rights it seems that they frequently do so at the expense of everyone else's rights.
Now in the war on terror they are some of the first to want to defend terror suspects. While I do not want a single innocent person jailed for terror, I also do not want a single guilty person to walk because of the ACLU. If they employ the same "technicality" tactics to get terrorists released for which they are famous, they should be ashamed. And we should not support them in those efforts.
Do you think they will? Just wait until you read the b.s. move the ACLU just made.
In January the ACLU, in order to improve their ability to raise money signed a contract with the federal government that they would not "knowingly" hire people on government terrorist "watch lists" (What American would want to hire someone on the list?) Well, Anthony Romero, executive director of the ACLU, thinks he can hire all of the terror listed people he wants by stating, "I've printed them out [terror watch lists]... I've never consulted them," Since he never consulted (translation into English… read) them he did not “know” who was on the lists, therefore he could not “knowingly” hire them. And Nadine Strossen, president of the ACLU board, agrees. The "knowingly" loophole was "a very reasonable, certainly clever interpretation."
What? Reasonable? Are the ACLU people nuts? Does this sound "reasonable" to you? Does it sound “reasonable” to ANYONE with a brain?
Being comprised of lawyers I suspect that the ACLU thinks that they have a legal loophole, which will at least keep them from jail. However, the term “knowingly” has been used in contracts for a very long time to prevent someone from accidentally breaching a contract. But, EVERYONE KNOWS that should a person CHOOSE not to make ANY effort to inform themselves of facts, that they are actually in violation of the contract. They are CERTAINLY in violation of the “intent.” And considering that the “intent” is to PROTECT America from TERRORISTS what kind of FOOL would even try to find a way around it?
This commonly used legal term has a universally understood meaning. If the AACLU is allowed to get away with this distortion then virtually ALL legal contracts in force today will have to be rewritten so as to close this nonexistent loophole. Which will, of course, cost MILLIONS or BILLIONS of dollars. That money will go to attorneys. The AACLU is mostly attorneys. Could they have another hidden agenda? Could they be trying to drum up work for themselves and their friends?
To summarize, the (A)ACLU uses trickery to hire suspected terrorists, and may be causing a cost to the American economy of MILLIONS or even BILLIONS of dollars. Does this sound like an American organization?
Al Qeada hires terrorists and they want to cost America MILLIONS and BILLIONS of dollars.
Should the ACLU be forced to change its name to the Anti-American Civil Liberties Union? Would it be more appropriate?
Read more about it, and…
Think for yourself!
Make up your own mind!
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home