Originally Posted by Wow Civic
Okay, Benjamin. The ACLU regularily threatens to file lawsuits against U.S. Government for this so-called "torture." The U.S. follows the Geneva Convention strictly. Is "torture" when an interrogator breaks down a terrorist suspect psychologically to retrieve information from the enemy? Yes, actually, the U.S. is critisized for that. Even if an interrogator contradicts Islam in front of a Muslim suspect -- torture. Now what kind of double standard is the ACLU following when they cry out "TORTURE" when our interrogators break a suspect down psychologically, but when video-tapes come out of the enemy decapitating or executing an American the ACLU is silent? Our soldiers were wrong for putting taping wires on a terrorist and telling him if he stepped off the bucket he would be zapped (even though there was no electricity in those wires) Yes it was wrong. But it was in an area that if a terrorist did that to a hostage on video-tape we would all be saying "Oh, thank God, he's not killing him." We would be THANKFUL if a terrorist did that to a hostage. Terrorists don't give their hostages trials. They decapitate, execute, and abuse. Okay, obviously I've proved that the ACLU is not patriotic. But why must they be anti-American?
You haven't proven that the ACLU is unpatriotic. The reason that the ACLU doesn't issue press releases when our soldiers are tortured and murdered is that it simply isn't part of their mission. The United Nations doesn't speak out against street racing because its just outside the scope of what they do. It makes me sick to my stomach to think of that video of Nick Berg being decapitated, and I imagine the employees of the ACLU feel the same way. That the organization doesn't issue a press release doesn't mean they're happy about Americans being killed.
You're wrong that the military is abiding strictly by the Geneva Conventions, and you in fact cited an example of violations in your paragraph above:
Our soldiers were wrong for putting taping wires on a terrorist and telling him if he stepped off the bucket he would be zapped (even though there was no electricity in those wires) Yes it was wrong.
You said yourself that torture is wrong. So why are you against a group that is trying to prevent it?
Originally Posted by Wow Civic
We live in a world where our own military charges our soldiers with murder and assault IN A WAR. The enemy has no rules or morales. They will kill and kill all in the name of this non-existent "Allah." Should we blame these poor misguided fools though? Maybe they are brainwashed into violence. After all, have you ever read phrases from the Qu'ran? If you have you would swear you were reading a Charles Manson rant.
I absolutely do want murderers and criminals to be captured and punished. Fortunately, our justice system is set up to do exactly those things. Torture and secret government investigations with unbridled power are not necessary to accomplish it. A man should be held responsible for his actions.
By the way -- I'm not sure if you're Christian or Jewish or something else, or not religious at all, but "Allah" is the same Judeo-Christian God that most of the world prays to. As I recall, Isaac had two sons, Jacob by his wife Sarah and Ishmael by his maid Hagar. Jacob's name later changed to Israel and he had twelve sons, literally the twelve sons of Israel that fathered the twelve tribes.
Ishmael was cast out of his father's house and his descendents-in-faith are Muslims. Allah is just a different name for God.
(If I've butchered this, somebody please correct me. I am not an expert in theology.)
Originally Posted by Wow Civic
The point is is ACLU's policy is extremely Anti-American. They do not speak out when our soldiers and innocent civilians are kidnapped by a ruthless Muslim and decapitated, mutilated, or executed.
Neither does the National Automobile Dealers Association, and for the same reason.
Originally Posted by Wow Civic
They do, however, speak out when some guy was supposedly "racially profiled" in a NYC subway by a random search. I could go on and on about racial profiling and how it would actually benefit rooting out terrorists, but I have a feeling you would deem that "outrageous" and "unlawful!!" After all, would you, as a police officer, stop a middle-eastern man that has wires sticking out of his backpack, or a 4 year old girl on her way to Grandma's house?
Actually, I do think that profiling, used appropriately, makes a certain amount of sense. If you told me that black people driving BMWs should all be pulled over because they're probably drug dealers, I would deem that outrageous and unlawful.
If you told me that the FBI, on the basis of substantiated evidence such as decoded messages from Al Quaida, were at Newark Airport pulling aside Arab men around 24 years old who also fit some other critical criteria and searching them, I would call that prudent.