The ACLU's Criteria for Conduct in War Gone Bonkers

Posted By: Lib and Con
Posted on: May. 21, 2006 at 4:43 PM

11 Comments

2.0 / 5

Based on 5 ratings.

Email Friend

Add to Favorites Add to del.icio.us

del.icio.us

Digg It!

Slashdot It!

Sometimes I think this is how ridiculous the whole concept of the ACLU is. The whole idea of the things they do to protect people's so called "liberties" is beyond reason. In war for example, there should be no chess game of movements back and forth to follow some kind of procedure that may get our soldiers killed worrying about whether or not they are playing by the rules. War is a dimension of life that defies all explanation with the necessity of it sometimes because of brutal dictators who seek dominion over others, and with the exception of blatant, unnecessary murder of the innocent non-participants should be no holds barred.

The dictators who bring about the destruction of war will answer to their crimes. There is no way all people can be protected in time of war from the horrors of it. So what do you do? There are always going to be blatant violations of war. But our soldiers should not go in to battle worrying about every move they make as possible criminal acts on account of the ACLU.

(Picture yourself trying to adhere to the phenomenon of the ACLU agenda. You are in a war zone. You are somewhere in Iraq or Afghanistan on patrol or whatever)

"Hey Sarge here comes an insurgent". "How do you know Corporal"? "Well Sarge, he has bombs attached to his chest". "How do you know it's a male Corporal"? How do you know they are bombs"?

"Well, I don't know for sure Sarge but what if he or she shoots at me"? "Do you see a weapon Corporal"? "No Sarge but he or she could have one hidden". "Well just wait and see Corporal. The bombs could be fake. They could be just fireworks he or she bought to celebrate his or her politically correct holiday".

"How do I tell if they are fake bombs Sarge"? "Corporal, according to the ACLU you must wait until you are positive there is a threat". "How do I tell that for sure Sarge"? "Just wait and see Corporal. If the bombs don't go off then you wait. If they do then you take action". "Sarge, I could be dead though". "But you won't be violating any rules Corporal. Now just be patient".

"Sarge, he or she is not wearing a uniform. I thought, according to the rules, the enemy had to wear a uniform". "Corporal, you worry about the silliest things". "Sarge, he or she is raising his or her arms". " Maybe he or she wants to surrender Corporal". "I don't think so Sarge. He or she is pulling a pin on those maybe fake bombs".

"Just wait till he or she gets closer Corporal. He or she is still twenty feet away. According to ACLU guidelines you must wait till they are within ten feet to take action. What's his or her age Corporal"?

"Looks to be a teenager Sarge". "Better be sure Corporal. Ask him or her for ID". "What if he or she has no ID Sarge"? "Then you call for an interpreter to vouch for him or her Corporal". "Now Sarge who would that be that we could trust"? "Well Corporal, the ACLU has a list of certified interpreters". "What if he or she lies to the interpreter Sarge"?

"Corporal, you really need to have more faith in these things. I'd hate to have to call you Corporal for the last time for violations of the rules of war. Don't you trust THEM to play by the rules"?

"Sarge, he or she is ten feet away now. ((((BOOM)))))

"Sorry abbout that Corporal. You exercized restraint. The ACLU will be proud.

Click here to view more articles by Lib and Con

Rate This Article | Create Account

Anonymous commenting has been disabled, you must login to comment on articles.

Signup for an account

Comments:

1 2 Next »

www.MoronInCharge.com

May. 21, 2006 at 06:24:38 PM

View Profile

Rating for this article

Dear L & C,

You are so off-based on this one that it is not funny. What gave you the idea that the ACLU agenda has anything to do with the battlefield? Do you see them taking anybody to court over the U.S. Marines shooting of Iraqi civilians in Haditha? The closest they have gotten to getting involved in war is to oppose the illegal detainment and imprisonment (without charge) of U.S. citizens accused of being complicit in terrorism.

Their mission is to be a civilian watchdog to make sure that the Constitutional protections guaranteed to all Americans are actually given. That is true whether they are advocating the rights of a gay-straight alliance club in a public school, protesting the overcrowding of female inmates in jail, or the ability of Rush Limbaugh to keep his medical records confidential as he doctor-shops for oxycotin.

Here it is in their own words:

The mission of the ACLU is to preserve all of these protections and guarantees:
Your First Amendment rights-freedom of speech, association and assembly. Freedom of the press, and freedom of religion supported by the strict separation of church and state.
Your right to equal protection under the law - equal treatment regardless of race, sex, religion or national origin.
Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake.
Your right to privacy - freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs.

Check out their website and see for yourself, http://www.aclu.com/about/index.html

If I am missing something here, please tell me. Your outrage against the ACLU appears to be groundless or, at the least, based on misinformation. The ACLU is an easy target because they often take on causes that are unpopular: for example, defending the right of the American Nazi Party to march in Skokie, IL. That's what happens when you take on the job of defending the underdog. Maybe someday, they will defend your right to post your "unAmerican" views on this website, or my "treasonous" critique of our President.

Report Abuse

Lib and Con

May. 21, 2006 at 07:09:17 PM

View Profile

You are right.
I should have titled it different. In retrospect, I should have used a different theme. Maybe just the Media in general? There is no ACLU basis in war. Looks like I will get a whole bunch more fat zeros knowing that, as you say, that premise is off base. I was just poking fun at all the things a soldier seems to have to worry about. Like when the media prints something about what happens in war, they always seem to print something which makes the soldiers look bad. All in all, there are some soldiers who may go off the deep end but I think all in all they are pretty mindful of not committing savagery. The ACLU defending me? Wouldn't want that at all.
About what I say about Bush? Un-american? That seems to be the prevailing theme of the Cons. That's ok. Because it doesn't matter what people say or how they say it, the Cons, the Ann Coulters, Sean Hannitys, the Rush Limbaughs, the Tony Snows, are always going to say that people say things about Bush because they hate him. Hate him? Heck no! He seems a likable guy and appears cordial and friendly, has good mannerisms. He is just not my idea of someone representing the USA with his lack of capability of intelligent discourse.

Report Abuse

www.MoronInCharge.com

May. 21, 2006 at 07:20:15 PM

View Profile

Rating for this article

I only hope that when I am caught making an unintentional mistake, I am as abig a man as you to freely admit to it. You ROCK. I now give you a 10 in my thoughts.

Report Abuse

AZ Moderate

May. 21, 2006 at 11:37:41 PM

View Profile

Rating for this article

How about if I give Lib and Con a ten for you www.MoronInCharge.com? Not for the article, which attacks the ACLU unfairly and for that deserves a “fat zero” but for the contrite admission in Lib and Con’s comment.

Good for you Lib and Con. Please understand that the ACLU’s only mission is to defend OUR Bill-of-Rights. And our Bill-of-Rights is the only thing that stands between you and AG Gonzales’ permissiveness concerning torture, between you and a totally intrusive dictatorial government.

As www.MoronInCharge.com so adroitly put it, this mission, unerringly pursued by the ACLU, finds it defending some unpopular causes (e.g., the Neo Nazis marching in Skokie). In fact, it is not defending them, but is defending our Bill-of-Rights that protects our freedom of speech and right to assemble, and so on.

Their mission is perhaps best summed up by Voltaire’s statement that “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” That is a damned hard thing to do, and it is what every American should aspire to.

Our Bill-of-Rights is probably the single most important element that defines America. And it is always under attack by the likes of fools and wannabe dictators such as Bush, Cheney, Gonzales and all of their minions and cohorts.

Given enough time and issues, everyone gets their ox gored by the ACLU. While I am a staunch supporter of the ACLU as the champion of OUR Bill-of-Rights, they pissed me off when they were on the border monitoring the Minuteman project. But I am not going to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Your contrite comment on the poor choice of theme leads me to believe that you can accept the ACLU’s mission of defending our Bill-of-Rights, even though in the process your ox may be gored on occasion.

God bless our Bill-of-Rights. Thank God for the ACLU. NeocoNazis, keep your stinking hands off of it!!

Report Abuse

Akman

May. 22, 2006 at 07:29:12 AM

View Profile

Congratulations L&C for recognizing and admitting your misjudgement of the ACLU. Yours is exceptional courage. Thank you.

It's worth stressing that the ACLU deals exclusively with the protection of Constitutional principles and every American's rights - good guys and bad guys - to impartial and unprejudiced treatment in our justice system.

Of course, critics don't acknowledge that when they point to offensive cases or defendents as an example of the ACLU's Liberal/Commie/unAmerican ways.

You've said, "I was just poking fun at all the things a soldier seems to have to worry about."

Sorry L&C, there's nothing funny in that life and death dilemma which our soldiers face daily.

I also have to call you on: "Like when the media prints something about what happens in war, they always seem to print something which makes the soldiers look bad."

Look L&C, our fighting men and women are disciplined to risk their lives based on decisions of their superiors - whether those decisions are good or bad.

A "good soldier" cannot not question those decisions. That does not preclude those outside the military from questioning decisions that cause our troops to unnecessarily put their lives on the line.

I see the media publishing a lot of those questions, directed at White House policymakers and top civilian Pentagon decisionmakers. The chain of command requires the military to voluntarily and unquestioningly implement these policies and decisions. They have no choice.

Mistakes and bad decisions are made in wartime but I haven't seen any articles that assigns the responsibility to our troops. Certainly none that "always make our soldiers look bad".

You are dangerously close to the Bush Administration's policy of NOT assigning responsibility for bad decisions to the decisionmaker in the name of "supporting the troops".

Can you give me an example of what you're talking about?

Report Abuse

Average American

May. 22, 2006 at 08:10:39 AM

View Profile

Rating for this article

L&C, you made no error. THe ACLU is and has gone out of it's was to promote it's socialist agenda.

Report Abuse

www.MoronInCharge.com

May. 22, 2006 at 11:53:24 AM

View Profile

Rating for this article

AA, just what is socialist about defending your civil liberties as outlined in that socialist rag, the Bill of Rights? As a conservative, you should be more behind this than any one of us tree-hugging Commie liberals. Please outline for us the Socialist agenda of the ACLU point by point.

Report Abuse

Phaedrus

May. 22, 2006 at 01:55:12 PM

View Profile

First of all, all members of the US Armed Forces are not protected by the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Conduct. L&C where you are off the rails is there are very clear, concise rules of engagement, and every last soldier and marine knows them before they ever get out of basic training. In fact they can recite them, verbatim with a 220 lb DI screaming in their face how they are the lowest maggot on earth (from my personal knowledge, my father having been a paratrooper and jump instructor at Fort Bragg, and at Fort Benning).

Second, as you may have gleaned from watching any decent war military film, Marines follow orders, or people die. In my personal experiance as boy of 6, being late for little league was not an option; when people are counting on you, if you're late, people die!

Ergo, If they know the UCMC and they are good soldiers, then there can be no incidents as you desribed. If someone approaches a check point, they follow the soldiers or MP's instructions or the intruders face immediate consequences.

from DailyKos

Haditha Civilian Killings: "This One Is Ugly"
by SusanG
Wed May 17, 2006 at 07:14:23 PM PDT

Back in November, Iraqi residents in the town of Haditha claimed the U.S. Marines went on a civilian killing spree, leaving 15 dead, 10 of them women and children. A Marine spokesman initially denied the charge, saying that they had been killed by an IED and that in a following gun battle, eight insurgents were killed.

At a news conference today originally called to mark the six-month anniversary of his call for withdrawal from Iraq, John Murtha confirmed that the Iraqi civilian reports were indeed true and that the Marines "killed innocent civilians in cold blood."
NBC News contacted and interviewed officials today who confirmed the story:

Murtha, a vocal opponent of the war in Iraq, said at a news conference Wednesday that sources within the military have told him that an internal investigation will show that "there was no firefight, there was no IED (improvised explosive device) that killed these innocent people. Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood."

Military officials say Marine Corp photos taken immediately after the incident show many of the victims were shot at close range, in the head and chest, execution-style. One photo shows a mother and young child bent over on the floor as if in prayer, shot dead, said the officials, who spoke to NBC News on condition of anonymity because the investigation hasn't been completed.

One military official says it appears the civilians were deliberately killed by the Marines, who were outraged at the death of their fellow Marine.

"This one is ugly," one official told NBC News.

Wow, L&C, a mother and young child, bent over in prayer and they were shot, dead. Is there anywhere in your cold, pitiless soul where you may feel that these Marines did anything wrong? Or is it just that we are in Iraq, destroying the village to save the village... well, I'm sure you'll read this and run off to the local Amry recuiting station; take BAA with you.

Report Abuse

www.MoronInCharge.com

May. 22, 2006 at 02:54:31 PM

View Profile

Rating for this article

Go easy on him Phaedrus! We already gave him 40 lashes with a wet noodle, and he's crying like Duke Cunningham right now. Can't you see he's sorry?

Report Abuse

Lib and Con

May. 23, 2006 at 12:12:23 PM

View Profile

You know what. I think this is a crock. I am aware of all the rules of engagement. I am also aware that many times things go wrong in war and that is the nature of the beast. I also know that I like to poke fun at a lot of things, good and bad, because I am not so stiff as some of you here. The gist of what I wrote is implying that a soldier can get himself killed worrying about every little tiny detail of the ethics or procedures of war that these armchair liberals purport to be so easy to follow.
I find nothing off limits to poke fun at(I wasn't poking fun at Soldiers anyway, only nuts can't see that), and probably the only person in this world that is Saintly enough otherwise was Mother Teresa. Gosh, I never seen such a bunch of stiff people as here. Baiscally, as AA said, I am not in error as to what I said, but whatever range the ACLU has may be. They not only take on unpopular agendas, they take on anti-American agendas in my mind. Kinda like anyone in America that would be more concerned with Saddam Husseins rights as a brutal dictator in his trial, as if somehow there is a noble cause in worrying about someone who would gas and kill and torture many people relentlessly and with passion.
Unlike the US Army or Marines who I doubt very seriously get a thrill out of it. I never seen so many stiff people as is here.
Thanks AA. I appreciate your words. I think you are the only one here who knew what I meant, whether it was worded ACLU or Geneva Convention or Ramsey Clark's Guide to Defense or whatever.

Report Abuse

1 2 Next »