BLOG PODCAST ARCHIVES LINKS

 

 

 

 

Image hosted by Photobucket.com

American Conservative Web Ring
Members List
Previous - Next
Random - Join
Previous 5 - Next 5

Site Meter

 

 

 

Powered by Blogger

 

Friday, November 25, 2005

The Double-Standards of the ACLU

The ACLU has been busy complaining about the abuse going on in the Abu Ghraib and if you hadn't heard the whole story you would have no complaints.

Right now some of you think this when you think of the Abu Ghraib prison:

US soldiers are torturing prisoners and it's wrong.

Regardless of your personal political stance I'm going to ask you to just open your mind for a minute and hear the whole story.

The US soldiers were not the only ones to occupy the Abu Ghraib prison, from 1984 to 2002 Saddam occupied the prison.

During the time Saddam occupied Abu Ghraib he tortured and killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Kurds and Shiites.

-------------------------------------------------

Saddam's Abu Ghraib occupation, 1984 to 2002

purpose for occupation:

To store Kurds and Shiites for torture

The people were:

Abused

Tortured

Raped

Killed

These specific things happened:

Fed prisoners shredded plastic instead of food

They became test subjects to chemical and biological weapons

beheadings in front of other prisoners

Amputations

Hooks were used for hanging people by the hands for beatings

devices for electric shock used

Justification:

Saddam didn't like Kurds and Shiites

-------------------------------------------------

When the war in Iraq (2003) began Saddam evacuated the Abu Ghraib prison and soon later the US used if for their purposes.

US Abu Ghraib occupation, 2003 --

Purpose for occupation:

To store and interrogate Islamic terrorists

The people were:

Interrogated by psychological means

These specific things happened:
























One of a series of photos taken by U.S. soldiers of Iraqi prisoners in Abu Ghraib. The hooded prisoner had wires attached to both hands and his penis, and was reportedly told that he would be electrocuted if he fell off the box he was standing on; the wires were not actually electrified.

Justification:

No physical harm actually done

Not torture but interrogation

Usually used to obtain information. Almost all of the times actually.

Guards that did abuse prisoners with no hopes of getting information were not views expressed by the military and weren't supposed to take place. This didn't happen often though.

-------------------------------------------------

So you could say we are still breaking civil rights, but by now you know there is a justification and it's nothing compared to what Saddam did, not to mention, unlike Saddam, what we're doing is all psychological!

The ACLU did not say one thing during the 18 years Saddam occupied the prison and tortured prisoners in Abu Ghraib. But during the 2 years of non-violent incidents done by people the military did not condone and didn't happen often, the ACLU would not be quiet.

Not only is this a double-standard but it makes us look bad when people don't even know what Saddam did.

All of this makes me wonder who's side the ACLU is on.

58 Comments:

  • At 26/11/05 1:00 AM, Blogger Allisoni Balloni said…

    It would be a "double standard" if Hussein was part of the U.S. military. But he isn't, so therefore it's not. Because these acts are being committed by Americans, the AMERICAN Civil Liberties Union is stepping in to make sure that they aren't violating someone else's personal rights.

    It is so amusing to me that nothing we could do over there would EVER be bad because, of course, it's better than what Sadaam was doing. Sure. You claim to know the evil of that man and therefore know what he was capable of. We could be doing just a step less than that and it would be "good," wouldn't it? I completely disagree with that but it seems to be what you're saying. Also, TORTURE is TORTURE. What do we know after three years of this "psychological TORTURE" that is supposedly acting as interrogation? I have recently been researching this for school and I have been relectant in finding very much.

     
  • At 26/11/05 9:19 AM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    Wow, SHE has double standereds. It was bad that Saddam did these things yet we shouldn't go to Iraq? Sounds pretty double-standerd to me. And why is the ACLU aiding the enemy? Sounds like treason to me.

     
  • At 26/11/05 9:38 AM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    It would be a "double standard" if Hussein was part of the U.S. military. But he isn't, so therefore it's not. Because these acts are being committed by Americans, the AMERICAN Civil Liberties Union is stepping in to make sure that they aren't violating someone else's personal rights.

    So being American means you can't be against something? You're telling me the ACLU doesn't have the power to do something like oppose Saddam's torture? I doubt it. They can't even say anything about it? I bet they can.

    Who's side do you think the ACLU is on?

    It is so amusing to me that nothing we could do over there would EVER be bad because, of course, it's better than what Sadaam was doing.

    So who's side are you on?

    Sure. You claim to know the evil of that man and therefore know what he was capable of. We could be doing just a step less than that and it would be "good," wouldn't it? I completely disagree with that but it seems to be what you're saying. Also, TORTURE is TORTURE. What do we know after three years of this "psychological TORTURE" that is supposedly acting as interrogation? I have recently been researching this for school and I have been relectant in finding very much.

    It's more than "a step less"

    Compare this one.

    Sticking hooks through the prisoners hands hanging him in the air and having people beat on him.

    Telling someone that if they fell of a box they would be electrocuted even though they wouldn't really be.

    That's a few steps.

    So putting panties on a prisoner is psychological torture? And it's close to what Saddam did? Amazing.

    Like I said earlier, the troops who actually did this were not ordered to do so by their superiors.

    But people like you would rather get rid of any form of interrogation even if it doesn't harm the prisoners.

    Fine, when America gets caught with their pants down again it'll be the Liberals fault.

    It's amazing how you think civil rights toward terrorists are more important than getting info that could help us when the war on terror or prevent a terrorist attack.

     
  • At 26/11/05 9:41 AM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    It's amazing how you think civil rights toward terrorists are more important than getting info that could help us when the war on terror or prevent a terrorist attack.

    Just pretend it says win.

     
  • At 26/11/05 12:09 PM, Blogger Allisoni Balloni said…

    Do you know what a double-standard is, Dark? Becaue your comment didn't show that.

    Basically none of your arguments stand, and my questions have not been answered. Keep trying.

     
  • At 26/11/05 1:21 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    What a cop out that was. Your double standerd is not supporting the war and not supporting Saddam.

     
  • At 26/11/05 3:50 PM, Blogger Phantom_Driver, USNR, Ret. said…

    Excuse Me?
    This is WAR, folks.

    If burning some dead body offends Muslims, THAT'S FLAT TOO DANG BAD.

    No one(except terrorists) had a problem when we hit Tora Bora with 15,000 pound fuel-air bunker busters.

    If connecting up Mohammed's area
    to a die-Hard battery will save one American life, I have two things to say:

    Red is positive
    Black is negative.

    The bleeding hearts of this country can be useful clearing minefields or acting as human shields.

    Ignore the wretches.

    Hooah!

     
  • At 26/11/05 5:40 PM, Blogger Allisoni Balloni said…

    A double standard is when you have two identical situations and treat them differently. For instance, a male teacher was recently senteced to 11 years in prison for having sex with a 15 year old female student. A female teacher was also recently discovered to have committed the exact same crime with a 14 year old male student, and she received 3 years of probation. THAT is a double standard.

     
  • At 26/11/05 9:51 PM, Blogger joe said…

    Good Work on this article! Underpants on the head never hurt anybody!

     
  • At 27/11/05 10:11 AM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

     
  • At 27/11/05 10:19 AM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    To allosoni EXACTLY! YOUR double standered is treating the same situation (tourture allegations) differently. ONE was Saddam who was dripping acid on people. The other was making terrorists feel bad. Which is worse? Yet you support the terrorists over going to Iraq. Voila! Double standerd.

     
  • At 28/11/05 12:27 AM, Blogger Allisoni Balloni said…

    But it's not the same thing. The ACLU doesn't monitor torture being committed by people who aren't American citizens.

    Do I think they should be tortured by the U.S. military? No. Is that what you want me to say? Did you want me to ADMIT that torture is wrong because I sure as hell have no problem saying it. Should they be tortured by their own ruler? Preferrably not, but what am I to do about it? How about you make me a list of all of the other countries in the world with evil leaders. Should we go in and save everyone, using them all as our excuse to protect ourselves? If you really are using that as your excuse, that we are there to protect their people from Sadaam, then you are going to have a pretty hard time explaining to me why we aren't doing anything anywhere else.

     
  • At 28/11/05 12:27 AM, Blogger Allisoni Balloni said…

    Also, it's spelled STANDARD. There is no "E" invovled.

     
  • At 28/11/05 8:10 AM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    Do I think they should be tortured by the U.S. military?

    I agree, we shouldn't torture. But what is happening now is not torture and I have no problem with it. I think putting panties on someone who would scream Allah while slicing your head off is pretty funny to be honest with you.

     
  • At 28/11/05 8:16 AM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    But it's not the same thing. The ACLU doesn't monitor torture being committed by people who aren't American citizens.


    But they've seemed to have taken a side already, the enemies. They want nothing more than to make us look bad regardless of what we're doing and what the enemy is doing. The ACLU is very close to treason.

     
  • At 28/11/05 5:10 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    Wow, attacking my spellng, no real arguement huh?

     
  • At 28/11/05 6:11 PM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    How ironic, you spelled spelling wrong! Just kidding, Robby.

     
  • At 28/11/05 6:37 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    Well... yeah, but THAT was a typo (although quite an ironic one). Anyway she's completly missed the point. The question was why is she AGAINST the embarresment (because that's all it really is) of our enemies but FOR the tourturing of millions of Iraqs by not freeing them from Saddam? Her answer? "You spelled standard wrong."

     
  • At 28/11/05 6:42 PM, Blogger PlaidBaron said…

    It's funny how everyone ignores the things Saddam did.

    Allisoni Balloni:
    If all you can do is attack other people's spelling you have no real argument do you?

     
  • At 28/11/05 8:53 PM, Blogger Rebekah said…

    I don't condone what happened at Abu Graib, but when you put it next to what Saddam did, it sure seems pathetic to focus so much attention on that, doesn't it?

     
  • At 28/11/05 11:02 PM, Blogger Allisoni Balloni said…

    I am wondering why you think it's necessary to publicly humiliate people for our benefit. I already explained what you just asked, Dark. I asked in my very first comment what information has been gathered because of it, and I have yet to see any. You might want to back up your side of the argument before you criticize mine.

     
  • At 29/11/05 6:22 AM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    what information has been gathered because of it

    Well, I don't work for the CIA so I don't know, and if I did work for the CIA I wouldn't be able to tell you. But I can assure you we have some names and places, you just don't hear about it, because it's confidential information.

     
  • At 29/11/05 8:46 AM, Blogger Gayle said…

    "I am wondering why you think it's necessary to publicly humiliate people for our benefit."

    Gee... if only the Terrorists would simply "publicly humiliate" us! If they would stop at putting panties on our heads or pretend to electrocute our people like we do them in order to get iformation from them, then we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we? It would be a nice little game of pretend war, and no one would get hurt! That would be great, but it isn't our world.

    I know there's no use talking to people who live in a world all of their own, but I sometimes still feel compelled to try. In the real world war = death. "Death" came abundantly to us on 9/11. Death comes wherever terrorists decide it does. We are lucky when they kill us, because their idea of torture make ours look like a walk through an undesireable neighborhood at night.
    Death on 9/11 was incredibly horrible because not everyone was mercifully killed instantly. Some burned to death - others jumped out of windows so they wouldn't have to burn to death. But Allisoni would treat the sort of people who did this "nicely." Let's give the little ba*tards trials in our civilian courts and give them the same rights as American Citizens, shall we? Not if I can help it!


    The bleeding heart liberals in this country will change their tune soon enough when things start to get really bad in our own country again, as they probably will, and we can thank the liberal mindset of sticking their heads in the sand and ignoring what's really going on. They will be yelling their heads off louder than anyone when the killings commence here in the USA.

    Interrogation is part of fighting a war. We must get information from the enemy. It's not a kiddy fight in a sand-box on a school ground. It's war. Bloody, horrible, extremely brutal and awful war. AND WE DIDN'T START IT. If you don't know what we are up against then you are so ignorant it is beyond belief.

    Winston Churchill said "An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last!" So go ahead and feed the crocodiles... in the end they will still eat you!

     
  • At 29/11/05 2:30 PM, Blogger Gayle said…

    BTW Cody... Excellent post! :)

     
  • At 29/11/05 2:35 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    I don't think I need to explain anything now. Gayle, Cody, Rebekah and the others got there before I did. (Extra points to Gayle for using Churchill as a qoute, he rocked!)

    This is WAR Allosoni, if you don't like it then get out. The ACLU is SUPPORTING OUR ENEMIES! This would be called treason in the 18th century but now I suppose its called open-mindedness. The ACLU is supposed to be the AMERICAN Civil Liberties Union not the AL-QAEDA Civil Liberties Union. And you still will not answer the following question.

    Why do you NOT support embarresment of prisoners (and I don't agree with what happend there either incidentally) yet you support NOT going to war to STOP a dictator who caused PHYSICAL damage to his OWN PEOPLE?

    Why don't you answer that question?

     
  • At 29/11/05 3:46 PM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    Why don't you answer that question?

    Because that would mean she has double-standards.

    She's probably at a liberal blog right now saying "America can do better" while the liemongers, traitors, flip-floppers, and conspiracy theorists pat her on the back and say "you got that right"

    Fine, you liberals have done a good job saying we could do better. If you are so smart why don't you tell us what we can do better and how. Or maybe you just don't know, just a thought.

    But you're right, America can do better. We would have won this war by now if it wasn't for the back-stabbing liberals.

     
  • At 29/11/05 4:00 PM, Blogger Allisoni Balloni said…

    We didn't start it? Who are you trying to fool? I saw President Bush, on live television, declare war on Iraq. We poked at him and irritated him enough until he looked like a good excuse for a threat and then WE DECLARED WAR ON HIM.

    How is the ACLU supporting our enemies? They are speaking out against the fact that the U.S. military would stoop as low as to de-humanize people in another country. Do you think what they are doing is not a big deal? "Compared to Sadaam, no." Well, obviously, but we shouldn't be AT ALL comparable to an evil dictator. We aren't interrogating the people who flew the planes on 9/11, we are interrogating people who are martyrs for their faith and who view the United States as the evil in the world. Interestingly enough, we feel the same about them.

    I don't know how many times I have to say this, Dark, that WE DID NOT GO TO WAR TO PROTECT IRAQI PEOPLE. You know nothing at all about recent history if you honestly think that was the case. It's just basic knowledge that we went to war to protect our own ass AND our own oil, and the fact that so many Americans use the "freedom" of Iraqi people as an excuse is just sickening to me.

    What war would we have won, Cody? We would have eliminated all the terrorists in the world if it wasn't for liberals? Interesting then that all the liberals I know are furious that OSAMA BIN LADEN, the responsible party for 9/11, has yet to be caught. What on earth would we have won??

     
  • At 29/11/05 5:51 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    Cody, calm down a bit, don't get so right wing that your unreasonable. Not ALL liberals are backstabbers, just those such as the ACLU.

    Allosoni said: How is the ACLU supporting our enemies?

    Oh I don't know maybe by suing the U.S. for terrorists?

    http://darksaturos.blogspot.com/2005/10/al-qaida-civil-liberties-union.html

    Read that. The ACLU is a treasonous organazation. If you don't want to believe it there's a link at the bottom to the story.

     
  • At 29/11/05 5:52 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    And I don't care why we went in the first place. What do you want to do, leave them to their fate? That's fair heartless for a liberal I'd have thought.

     
  • At 29/11/05 6:10 PM, Blogger Allisoni Balloni said…

    Maybe we should have thought about the Iraqi cictizens BEFORE we invaded their country. Seems reasonable to me...

    I find it comical that you are so disgusted by that article you linked to. FOX NEWS didn't even say anything negative about the ACLU. They are protecting the reputations of Americans and ensuring that we are treating our prisoners they way we would wanted U.S. prisoners treated. Please tell me why that is "treasonous."

     
  • At 29/11/05 6:11 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    Because aiding an enemy in a time of war is treason. Not very hard to understand.

     
  • At 29/11/05 6:19 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    And another thing, the Geneva Conventions do NOT apply to terrorists because they are not a militia of an organized country. Your attempt to compare them to American Soldiers was ill-mannered and uninformed.

     
  • At 29/11/05 6:20 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    And do you think that SADDAM obeyed the conventions. Why didn't you worry about it when Saddam was breaking them?

     
  • At 29/11/05 11:35 PM, Blogger Allisoni Balloni said…

    I didn't say anything about the Geneva Convention. There are basic human rights that should be obeyed no matter what crime has been committed. We don't need an international agreement to establish that, and even if other countries don't abide by it, WE should be the bigger nation and make the better decision.

    THEY ARE NOT AIDING THE ENEMY. They are not letting these people out of prison or sneaking them candy, they're making sure that they aren't treated like ANIMALS.

     
  • At 30/11/05 6:46 AM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    I don't know how many times I have to say this, Dark, that WE DID NOT GO TO WAR TO PROTECT IRAQI PEOPLE.

    We went to Iraq based on rougly 22 reasons. Strangely, Bush only publicised one which has come back to haunt him. WMD was one of the reasons we went there. There were though around 21 other legal reasons that were not talked about but the congress did get them. We did go to Iraq with humanitarian reasons, Saddam's threat, Iraq was a pool full of terrorism, alleged connections between Saddam and Al-Qaeda (has not been disproved), other reasons, and of course WMD.

    But the Liberals only want to use WMD and sometimes oil in their debates and with that tactic they usually win. No one will be getting away with that here because we DID go there for many reasons, we ARE making progress no matter what the media tells you, and we ARE almost finished training the Iraqi police force so we can LEAVE. This war is near finished!

     
  • At 30/11/05 2:23 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    allosoni said... They are not letting these people out of prison or sneaking them candy

    No, instead they are SUING THEIR OWN COUNTRY on behalf of its enemies. Ever SEEN the prisons? They are BETTER THAN STATE PRISONS!

    And why haven't you answered the question yet? Why won't you do that? Is it that you CAN'T maybe?

     
  • At 30/11/05 10:53 PM, Blogger Allisoni Balloni said…

    What you quoted from was at least the second time, if not the third, that I have answered your question.

    They are suing America? I'm pretty sure they are trying members of the military who have committed acts that are clearly wrong. I read the article, too, and I'm pretty sure no one is "suing America."

    Also, please show me the evidence of all of these reasons AND evidence that they were truly used at justification before war was declared. I'm very interested.

     
  • At 1/12/05 12:04 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    It's all in my post as well as the FOX News article you obviouly didn't read.

     
  • At 1/12/05 10:36 PM, Blogger Allisoni Balloni said…

    Your post is your opinion, so that does not count as evidence. Also, I have read the article for the third time and it STILL says nothing about suing America. Imagine that.

     
  • At 2/12/05 3:01 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    It doesn't say "the ACLU is suing America," it uses other words. Don't try to confuse me, it wont work.

     
  • At 2/12/05 7:00 PM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    But they are having soldiers tried in a court when they use too many bullets in a fire-fight.

     
  • At 2/12/05 8:40 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    If a terrorist gets hit with six clips I'll CERTINALLY complain, (about wasted ammo.)

     
  • At 2/12/05 10:30 PM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    Yeah that's taxpayer money right there. They should practice with their aiming so they don't waste taxpayer money from bullets and getting sued.

    lol.

     
  • At 3/12/05 11:23 PM, Blogger Allisoni Balloni said…

    Cold, heartless, and only 15. You should be proud. Or not.

     
  • At 4/12/05 11:49 AM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    Hey, making fun of the terrorists is great, you know why? They're called terrorists because they want to terrorize us. But when we laugh at them we know they failed as scaring us. Not showing fear is the way to beat this scum we're up against.

    I guess I'm not tolerant, or open-hearted to a cold-blooded killer, I sure am proud of it.

     
  • At 4/12/05 1:48 PM, Blogger Allisoni Balloni said…

    You weren't making fun of them, you were laughing about shooting someone several more times than necessary. Sick.

     
  • At 4/12/05 1:59 PM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    9/11 was sick. The video recorded beheadings were sick. killing these sick people is not sick.

    I'm sick of arguing about this, you don't get it. Not to mention I can't have any fun laughing at the bad guys.

    Whatever. Be tolerant of the terrorists, I don't care anymore. But I will continue to support the humiliation of terrorists in Abu Ghraib and us beating the bad guys and I will not be terrorized by the terrorists, that's what they want so I'm going to laugh at them.

     
  • At 4/12/05 2:22 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    Hell yes I was making fun of terrorists getting shot! Call me sick. I call sticking up for them sick.

     
  • At 4/12/05 4:33 PM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    Hell yes I was making fun of terrorists getting shot! Call me sick. I call sticking up for them sick.

    Very nicely put Robby!

     
  • At 4/12/05 5:03 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    Why thank you. Its just the way I see it is how George Bush put it. "Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists."

     
  • At 4/12/05 11:13 PM, Blogger Allisoni Balloni said…

    Being an American DOES NOT mean that you support brutal murder and uneccessary violence. You can say that it does but that is NOT true.

     
  • At 5/12/05 6:28 AM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    brutal murder and uneccessary violence.

    yeah it's called a war and usually when you're in a war and you don't fight you lose.

    Besides, we're trying to stop the "brutal murder and uneccessary violence" practicers and they go by the name of Islamofascists.

    Don't take the side of the enemy. Just look at what they have been doing to us and our allies, that's brutal and violent. We're trying to stop these few and far between extremists. But then whenever I say we have to beat Al-Qaeda you say I'm calling for genocide. I guess you don't know much about the Middle East, Al-Qaeda is not a country it's a small group of murderous people that can be stopped.

     
  • At 5/12/05 4:32 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    brutal murder? I didn't think panties on the head was brutal murder? Getting a little hot under the collar allosoni?

     
  • At 5/12/05 5:51 PM, Blogger Allisoni Balloni said…

    I said nothing about genocide. I was addressing what you two were previously commenting on, and how "with us or against us" does not mean that you have to support war and violence.

    Shooting someone multiple times AFTER they have been killed is unecessary. I was not referring to torture.

     
  • At 6/12/05 6:54 AM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    Shooting someone multiple times AFTER they have been killed is unecessary. I was not referring to torture.

    ummm, the U.S. military doesn't do that. And I never said I supported it either, go back and read the comments it says we should aim better so we don't use as many bullets. It doesn't say use a whole clip on every guy.

     
  • At 7/12/05 5:39 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    Yeah, geez, you think we WANT to waste the bullets?

     
  • At 7/12/05 5:39 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

     
  • At 7/12/05 5:39 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home