ACLU: The Western Arm of Al-Qaida

To the ACLU, revealing all Abu Ghraib pictures and video tapes supersedes the possible consequence of violence and death. They feel that releasing all the evidence is necessary to fulfill our full disclosure policies. Yes, al-Qaida couldn’t buy this kind of global recruitment publicity!

It’s not like they haven’t been warned:

Gen. Richard B. Myers wrote in recently unsealed court papers filed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan that it was “probable that al-Qaida and other groups will seize upon these images and videos as grist for their propaganda mill.” — by Larry Neumeister, AP via Seattle Post-Intelligencer

Apparently, they have not heard about common sense and the conscientious application of law. If we hadn’t experienced the death and the escalation of violence brought on by the inaccurate “flushing the Koran” Newsweek story, the ACLU’s demands may not seem quite so ill-advised. Under their defense of full disclosure, they push a left-wing agenda without regard to the cost in peace and lives. Isn’t that exactly of which the left accuses the President regarding operations in Iraq? It would appear and interesting double standard is in play.

The group’s actions also show little regard for our men and women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our troops will be the beneficiaries of the ACLU’s high-minded sense of “full disclosure.”

The world knows what happened at Abu Ghraib. The government released many of the pictures – some of which the left-slanted MSM judiciously decided not to publish. Military inquiries and trials were and are being conducted using the entire block of incriminating evidence. The accused have had their “air time” with the media. Procedures were instituted to prevent any future incidents. There seems little left to the story that isn’t purely voyeuristic in nature. (But, then, what are we to expect from an organization that supports NAMBLA [North America Man/Boy Love Association]?)

That’s just not enough for the ACLU — which apparently has appointed itself as the Sixth Estate. You might say that the ACLU operates its own jihad against the Bush administration and conservative values under the guise of righteousness. They file their suits in courts where they know a favorable opinion will be reached. They have become masters of the game.

The ACLU continues to pursue the release of information about detainee torture and abuse. The truth must be aired and our leaders held accountable. ACLU homepage

Well, if that isn’t a political statement . . . . Perhaps we need to investigate the ACLU’s tax-exempt status.*

Their charges go even further than Abu Ghraib. The ACLU contends that prisoner abuse is “systemic” and sanctioned by the Bush administration. The ACLU has become the legal hammer of the liberal left. Unfortunately, no countermeasure on the right with as much money and clout exists. They run amok with our “rights” and refuse to acknowledge the possible consequences of their actions.

Let’s put the ACLU lawyers with our troops on the front line in Islamic countries just prior to the release of these pictures and videos. Let’s have all the members of NAMBLA relocated to the same neighborhoods where their families live. Let’s force their employees and families to take public transportation without the benefit of bag searches. Let them taste the fruits of their labor first hand. After they “walk a mile” in the shoes of those affected by their “righteous” pursuits, they would likely sing a different tune.

(* An interesting side note: Litigation on behalf of the ACLU is usually performed by the ACLU Foundation — which is its tax-exempt branch. You can find the explanation here.)



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

3 Responses to “ACLU: The Western Arm of Al-Qaida”

  1. N. Mallory says:

    I have to admit I’m torn with this particular issue. On one hand, I do think it’s important that the full truth be disclosed, but on the other hand, I think that now isn’t the right time for it to be public. I think that something has to be done to make certain it doesn’t continue to happen and I don’t know if we can trust the government & military to keep itself in check with the evidence that’s already been presented. I think the leaders do need to be held accountable. I think this is a big grey area with no clear right answer.

    I don’t know that the whole truth needs to be disclosed right at the moment. It’s kind of like all those press conferences during the Gulf War where reporters would ask for specific information on troop movements and battle plans. Wait until the war is over before thrusting it on the public…but let the internal investigations continue or arrange for some high security commission.

    And you have no idea how hard it is for me to say that considering I don’t trust the government no matter who’s party is in charge. ;)

  2. Surfside says:

    I agree. I have no problem with the ultimate release of these pictures and videos. The timing — given the Iraq situation, Afghan situation and the Gaza situation — could not be worse. To put perspective on this issue, look how long it took/is taking to release information on the Kennedy assassination. The Warren Commission documents aren’t due to be released until 2017.

    Regardless how “sensitive” the Kennedy information is, it certainly doesn’t have global ramifications. I feel fairly certain that, should the Warren Commission documents reveal anything important, the party(parties) will be dead or in nursing homes. Big help!

    Releasing info seems to have become a partisan issue. Kerry, Kennedy, Dean — they have all refused to release pertinent info when running for office. But, President Bush released his National Guard info to quell the roar. Now, Judge Roberts is being hounded for not releasing priviledged information.

    All around, the relevance of information/disclosure has become secondary to use of/pursuit of said information. And, as in the case with Pickering (and, likely, in the case of the additional Abu Ghraib photos) is often misused in a partisan fashion.

  3. N. Mallory says:

    Funny. I was thinking of the Warren Commission myself for a comparison.

    As far as it being a partisan issue now, I feel that if the Bush Administration was a little more willing to share more information for less contraversial things, then perhaps the Dems would ease up a bit.