Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] Anti-Troll Law! : )

[Rick Buford <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

Christian M. Cepel wrote:
> Not at all.  What a funny thing to ask.  No, I, and those like me 
> dislike the ACLU because they take on cases like the NAMBLA case, and 
> Michael Newdow type stuff.

I used to support the ACLU, but can simply not abide some of their 
opinions. While I applaud their support of the Bill of Rights, I abhor 
some of the cases they choose to support (like the NAMBLA one) and blind 
support for anything is questionable, if not outright "bad".

> Yes, I will agree that they've done some very good things, but if you 
> read my post below, you'll see that it's not worth it to someone of my 
> viewpoint to get on that wagon for one positive destination when it will 
> mean being forced to stop at very contrary and negative (to me) 
> destinations.
>
> I'd like an organization like the ACLU that had a better track record 
> (in my book).
>
>
> There's nothing of 'competition' in it at all.  Its simply a matter of 
> conscious.
>
> Not to invoke Godwin's law (because, really, this isn't meeting the 
> requirements... I'm using an analogy, I'm not actually comparing the 
> ACLU to Hitler), but Hitler did a lot of good things, but nobody should 
> support him because he'd done horrific things that far outweigh any good 
> he's done.  I'm sure the same could be said of Hussein, or Castro. 
> That's how I feel about the ACLU.  I think it's really cool that they've 
> defended the civil rights of some Christian's (or other religious 
> folksies) out there, but they still leave a bad taste in my mouth.

Sadly, this is a direct invocation of Godwin's Law:
As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison 
involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.

> Not only do I not like the lion share of their causes, but I despise a 
> lot of their tactics.  There are always different ways of approaching a 
> certain problem, and more often than not, the ACLU's approach will be 
> the opposite of the one I would have chosen, or very likely someone like 
> the ACLJ would have chosen.  A lot of times I think the ACLU quashes 
> civil rights when defending civil rights.

My problem with the ACLU is more along the lines that I perceive them as 
defending anyone *but* a majority. A quick google of "aclu Christian 
Muslim" will yield any number of articles about the ACLU defending 
Muslims at the expense of Christians.

> > > > We should consider the possibility that Bush doesn't care about the 
> > > > Constitution and he would in fact like to undo it and place more 
> > > > power in his own hands.

I agree with Mike on this. Bush has repeatedly trampled civil rights in 
blatant power grabs like the Patriot Act, which I absolutely abhor 
(oooo...I used abhor twice in the same post!) and would *never* had made 
it past congressional review without 9/11. <tinfoil> It's almost as if 
they had this legislation prepared just in case of some national 
tragedy...</tinfoil>

I understand that the right leaning among us are more likely to support 
GW, but in my opinion, he's probably been the worst thing to happen to 
this country in 3 decades. Sadly, I doubt Kerry would have been any 
better, and sadder still, I see it as a truly abhorrent (does this one 
count?) situation that very few people actual vote *for* anyone anymore. 
They only vote *against* the other guy.

> > It's about his conduct.  Consider the Patriot Act, his defiance if 
> > wiretapping laws, his disrespect for the Geneva Convention, etc.  All 
> > this conduct is an attempt to increase Presidential power at the 
> > expense of the rights of others.  This is what Bush is about.

Agree with Mike.

> I approve the Patriot Act.  What's your point?  I have considered it.  I 
> say, "Good Job Mr. President".  For the most point I don't agree with 
> any of the objections your side has lodged.  I'd like to see it extended 
> with a bit of revision to increase oversight while not making it's 
> powers less broad.  I.e., I fully support any efforts that prevent abuse 
> while still allowing the goals to be achieved.

What about it can you possibly approve of? The blatant trampling on 
personal privacy? The massive overextension of the definition of terrorism?

> Mike.  Where has he been defiant of wiretapping laws?  Right now, this 
> one is still up in the air and waiting to be decided.  The White House 
> right now claims that it was all perfectly legal.  A lot of pundits 
> respond to this by saying, "well duh, of course it was legal, it's the 
> law in black and white and those who say otherwise are just slinging 
> hogwash."  A lot of pundits are saying the opposite.  It still remains 
> for the issue to be decided in the future.  There's no point in you 
> convicting him in your own court of public opinion.  Who cares what the 
> blazes you think or feel.  The law is the law, and his actions will be 
> judged in light of that.

No they won't. I don't trust *anyone* who's primary defense is "trust 
me, we know what we're doing". I'm sorry, but anyone in a position of 
power without oversight is tempted to abuse it. For an example, I point 
to the local Columbia cop who was stalking an ex-girlfriend. It's all 
very harmless until it's *you* in the crosshairs.

> Same goes for the Geneva Convention.  I've never seen any viable 
> evidence that Bush has done anything that in any way violates the GE.

I think the Abu Grahib incidents count. I'll wait to comment on the 
whole NSA kidnapping people to Europe until more is known. Frankly, I 
hold that to get Geneva convention protection, you have to actually wear 
a uniform and be a known combatant. Terrorists need not apply.

> There are two issues here.
> 1. Abuses that were not sanctioned, that, when discovered have been 
> stopped and punished.
> 2. The nonsense claim that those held in various holding facilities 
> qualify under the GE.
>
> Again.  Who cares what your opinion is.  Read the Law (or in this case 
> the signed document) that clearly states that they do not meet the 
> qualifications of an enemy combatant and therefore do not fall under the 
> GE protections and guidelines.)

So, I sort of agree with Christian here.

> These are things you disapprove of, but there's no evidence that your 
> opinion is that of the majority, so I fail to see why you feel it would 
> be a good argument on your part to list these things as though I'd be 
> ashamed of them.  Quite the opposite.  What I'm ashamed of him for is 
> for his namby pamby treatment of the border problems until recently. For 
> granting immunity to those who have broken the law unequivocally across 
> the board.  For cutting Immigration off at the knees.  I'm ashamed of 
> him for pulling his head under a rock for the past year and not 
> challenging the nonsense that has been allowed to run rampant regarding 
> his conduct with regards to the war and to domestic disasters.   I'm 
> glad he found his backbone recently.  The troops both home and abroad 
> deserve a CIC who does no less.

The troops deserve a leader, and GW is *not* that man. Any commander 
that lets a situation be handled as badly as Iraq would have been 
beheaded Sun Tzu's time.

> You treat these things like they are done deals... convictions of the 
> President of wrongdoing in the court of public opinion.
>
> The problem is, is that you don't allow anyone into the courtroom who 
> would vote for acquittal (and even commendation).
>
> Your court has no teeth outside of your circles.
>
> History may show that he's the bad guy in some of these topics, but it 
> has not done so yet.

Is he a bad guy? I'm sure he has the best intentions. But, you of all 
people, should know that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Rick

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion