Skip to content

The ACLU’s Latest Attempt to Humiliate America Defeated

December 2, 2009

The Supreme Court has handed the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) a stunning defeat by reversing a lower Court’s order allowing the release of photographs showing alleged prisoner abuse in Guantanamo Bay. A report yesterday from Democracy Now! highlighted the ACLU’s fight to have the photographs released in order to bolster its argument that “detainee abuse was widespread during the Bush administration.”

The ACLU has argued that some of the photographs show:

Soldiers pointing pistols or rifles at the heads of hooded and handcuffed detainees,” a soldier who appears to be striking a detainee with the butt of a rifle, and a soldier holding a broom “as if sticking its end” into a prisoner’s rectum.

The ACLU has been fighting for release of the images since 2004, when it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, as well as a subsequent lawsuit later that year when the Bush administration denied the FOIA request. From the ACLU’s perspective, the suit was filed because of the need for America’s transgressions—especially those committed under the leadership of former President George W. Bush—to be made public. As Jameel Jaffer, Director of the ACLU National Security Project put it:

Their disclosure would both discourage abuse in the future and underscore the need for a comprehensive investigation of past abuses. And we continue to believe that permitting the government to suppress information about government misconduct on the grounds that someone, somewhere in the world, might react badly or even violently, sets a very dangerous precedent.

Here is where the ACLU gets it wrong. It is the release of the photographs that would set a bad precedent, not the opposite, as they argue. The fact is, there are those who would use the images to “react badly or even violently,” and this important point should not be dismissed out of hand. Solicitor General Elena Kagan, for one, had warned the Supreme Court that:

Disclosure of those photographs would pose a clear and grave risk of inciting violence and riots against American troops and coalition forces.

And she was right.

Down but not out, the ACLU has vowed to continue the fight to have the photographs made public. ACLU Legal Director Steven Shapiro re-iterated the organization’s position:

We continue to believe that the photos should be released, and we intend to press that case in the lower court. No democracy has ever been made stronger by suppressing evidence of its own misconduct.

This is not surprising, coming as it does from an organization that has made its reputation by defending America’s enemies. The ACLU has, in the past, defended Sami Al-Arian, the former North American head of Palestinian Islamic Jihad, radical attorney Lynne Stewart, currently in prison for aiding “blind sheik” Omar Abdel Rahman, and has even filed suit on behalf of three suspected al-Qaida operatives against aircraft maker Boeing for allowing the CIA to transport them to Arab countries for interrogation.

In fact, the ACLU’s relentless fight to have the Guantanamo photographs released in order to humiliate this country, without concern for the well-being of our overseas troops and private citizens (who may be put at risk by their release), is exactly what one would expect from an organization that has opposed virtually every post-9/11 national security measure that the U.S. government has enacted.

  1. Carterthewriter permalink
    December 2, 2009 6:39 am

    Hopefully, this action will dispell any rumors that the ACLU is an organization that is patriotic. Actions speak louder than BS.

  2. logdon permalink
    December 2, 2009 7:19 am

    Once the prime task of any organisation has been fulfilled what is left but extremism and mischief making? To push the boundaries of the initial remit into territory which is in many ways anti ethical to the founding concept.

    And, lo it came to pass.

    Over the last two nights I watched two dvd’s. The first a recording of a BBC programme based on one year in the history of jazz.

    The year was in fact 1959, an astounding kernel of time where music took such huge steps in as diverse a manner to include Dave Brubeck in the same frame as Ornette Coleman and Miles Davis.

    At that point blacks were undoubtedly oppressed and footage illustrated dogs, fire hoses and helmeted police wading into black protesters, billy clubs swinging and all the rest. Alabama Governor Faubus defied Federal law. He was duly put right and we know the rest.

    The second was Martin Scorcese’s Dylan history with similar footage of the bard in his civil rights mode. He actually stood on a stage as Martin Luther King delivered his ‘I have a dream’ speech, some going for a Jewish white kid at that time.

    So where am I going with this?

    Back to the first paragraph. Those days are over. It’s 50 years ago and US society has moved on.

    Back then civil rights needed reordering and they have been. Now the ACLU and other similar organisations have moved on also, sticking noses, for want of better things to do, in areas so absurd as to defy reason.

    What exactly has Palestine got to do with US equality lawmaking?

    Why has Iraq become part of a domestic organisation’s remit? ‘American’ Civil Liberty is in the title and as such the job description. Are Iraqi’s US citizens now?

    This is pure and plain good ol’ Marxist anti US bashing.

    Do these people think Iraq has any interest in what they think? Do these people consider Saddam an example of democracy and freedom? Do these people ever stop to watch what Iraqis are doing to each other?

    Or is it pure knee jerk Middle Easterners good. American patriots bad?

    This, surely is the Age of Orwell.

    • Freeme permalink
      December 3, 2009 7:38 am

      Research the history of ACLU and find this ‘organization’ was founded by COMMUNISTS! The whole country has been sold a bill of goods by those pretending to ‘DO GOOD’ as a wolf in sheeps clothing. Need I say more?

  3. Rogert permalink
    December 2, 2009 7:40 am

    The ACLU has long since removed itself from Clarence Darrow. As has been apparent for so long, the headline says it all!
    Some years back, I read an article which denied the ACLU had an Anti Christian bias. It had two of the rumor-breakers listed as confirming sources. I do not recall the one, but the other was Snopes.
    Visiting the first one, the sources were listed as Snopes and the ACLU. Going to Snopes, I read their article which categorically denied the bias against Christianity. Its source of confirmation? The ACLU.
    Since that time, I take Snopes with a rather large grain of salt…as I look for other sources.

    • Freeme permalink
      December 3, 2009 7:42 am

      When researching, one must KNOW THE SOURCES who publish the ‘truth’ or ‘facts’. I have not found one yet that is not socialist and filled with misinformation and disinformation…hit and miss intentionally to confuse.

  4. politicalmoxie permalink
    December 2, 2009 9:10 am

    I recieved an invitation to join the ACLU. My first instinct was to send it back with this written across the cover letter…you’ve got to kidding me, I’ve been punked, right?
    Then I laughed…now it’s in my safety deposit box. When I leave this world my son, one of the funniest people I know, will get the best laugh of his life.

  5. FarmerTom permalink
    December 2, 2009 11:00 am

    Sorry, I’m missing something– it the Gitmo pix reveal torture or other misbehavior on the part of Our Troops, that’s not worth showing to the American People? That should be kept from the very people in whose name these reportedly barbarous acts were done? Sorry, I don’t see it that way. WE have a RIGHT to know what is done by OUR government in OUR name. And if it comes up short somehow, well doesn’t that suggest that maybe the actions are the problem and not the photos?

    • Rogert permalink
      December 2, 2009 11:48 am

      You make something akin to a valid point. However…any such photos must be supplied and required to be shown with the methods used by the terrorists. They used a few things the ACLU and others of their ilk do not classify or refer to.
      Let’s see now, decapitation? The enemy loves that one. Each should be shown in its entirety! How about Saddam’s use of electrical shock to the genitals? Or the beating of the soles of the feet with canes? How about the amputations?

      I have no problem with holding our version of torture to the same standards as the enemy. Anything less would need to be considered open territory. While we’re at it, let’s go back to Vietnam and see how John McCain was tortured. And all of the other POWs. Then let’s watch how the liberals treated our returning soldiers. All’s fair…right?

    • William James Ward permalink
      December 3, 2009 9:22 pm

      You have been eating chicken food farmer tom……..
      Humiliation yes torture no, you have no idea of what you
      are talking about. Actions due to lack of proper supervision,
      done by bored overpowered guards are not national policy.
      There is real violence in American prisons but no violence
      shown anywhere in military detention. Where were the brutalized
      corpses, the mutilated and destroyed bodies. Where were the
      blinded, crippled and disfigured victims? The dead? College
      hazing has been more severe. The whimpification of America
      continues by Marxist stooges in the media, get some stones.

  6. Scott Welsh permalink
    December 2, 2009 11:16 am

    If you want to protect peoples’ rights, you must protect the rights of everyone- not just those you feel deserved it. The ACLU expects our country to follow the letter of the law and apply it equally. I am glad that at least some people in our country are willing to defend this principle even if it means that they suffer unpopularity. Before you make statments condeming the ACLU for taking a position you disagree with, research the rights they have protected. After educating yourself you may realize that they have done far more good than bad. You may also realize that the ACLU is used as a scapegoat for problems that are endemic to our leagal system and the real root to our problem comes from our leaders not those who try to protect the rights of all.

    • Cas Balicki permalink
      December 2, 2009 4:53 pm

      The letter of the law says that non-uniformed combatants (terrorists) are not subject to the rules of the Geneva Convention. Given that letter of the law these bast@rds should be shot at the military’s earliest convenience. Tomorrow would be fine with me. Remember that the next time you want to plump for the ACLU.

    • Freeme permalink
      December 3, 2009 7:46 am

      Well, how about YOU collect the FACTS AND STATS of this organization run by wolves in sheeps clothing? If anyone ‘selects’ who they will and WILL NOT DEFEND…IT IS THE ACLU!

  7. Rogert permalink
    December 2, 2009 11:52 am

    Letter of the law? The ACLU does its own interpretation of the law. They are on record as declaring they do not agree with the gun law, so they refuse to be party to a constitutional defense of weapon possessions. Not exactly “letter of the law” is it?

  8. William James Ward permalink
    December 2, 2009 5:04 pm

    The ACLU is a commie front and never had any interest in being
    a legal help for any American. Their entire thrust in our history
    has been to undermine good law to the debasement of moral and
    ethical conscience. Their motives have always been suspect and
    bent on destroying our culture, undermining social equanimity
    to the promotion of disorder. The destabalizing of our society
    has always been the Marxist plan and they have been a big player
    in what we see today in the crumbling of American identity.
    If Americans ever form a Nationalist government it may be that
    one day we will see these people excised and sent to Cuba.
    Yeah Cuba, a half way house to hell.

  9. December 3, 2009 9:47 am

    The conservative, religious, right-wing, republicans and democrats, and the corporations they represent have done a fine job of humiliating this country without the assistance of the ACLU.

    When the Bush administration decided to ignore international law and invade a peaceful country to overthrow a dictator that was put in place there by the Reagan Administration, they went against every principle that made this country great.

    Until we remove all our troops from the middle east and do something to solve our problems at home, our reputation in every country is ruined. If I could afford to go anywhere after the damage the neoconservative war/profit-mongers have done to our economy, I would definitely say I was from Canada.

    • Carterthewriter permalink
      December 3, 2009 12:00 pm

      Did you say “peaceful”, sir? The man supported terrorism, invaded a neighboring country, & rattled his sword at the world.

    • William James Ward permalink
      December 3, 2009 3:35 pm

      The Canadians wouldn’t have you, go back to third grade and start
      over, or maybe you haven’t gotten that far, where there is life there
      is hope, even for you’re extreme case of non compos mentis.

  10. Rogert permalink
    December 3, 2009 11:27 am

    Personally, I will gladly say you are from Canada as well. No offense, Canada.
    You are completely disassociated from reality. “Peaceful country?” Is this then same one who invaded its neighbor (in a most peaceful way of course)? Peacefully used WMDs against its own people? Tortured its own people for protesting? Executed numerous of its own leaders who the president thought were trying to over throw him? Paid $25,000 to each suicide murderer’s family for each Jew they killed? Made and used chemical and biological weapons? Had a nuclear program until Israel took it out? Is this the one?

    Are you speaking of the Conservative Christians who collect and distribute food and medical supplies around the world? My, such humiliation!

    I could literally go on for hours, but, obviously, your idea of pride and honor is walking into a crowded public place and blowing up innocent men, women and children. Flying planes into buildings and killing thousands. Your idea is enslaving women and torturing and killing anyone who leaves the muslim faith and becomes a Christian, or…God forbid…a Jew.

    Your idea of shame is for American soldiers to die on foreign soil defending one country against “peaceful” invaders. Or protecting their own shores.

    Personally, I don’t want to improve our reputation with any country who takes our assistance and protection and says we are the bad guys. Our reputation is taking a nosedive now due to an incapable leader who snubs and trashes our allies and kisses up to the most dangerous people on earth…who sneer at him and let it be known that they will not follow his “humanitarian” lead, but will continue to press on with their projects with complete disrespect for a weak head of state!

    Your skewed view of history and truth is no doubt colored by a liberal feel-good-by-hating-America education, devoid of fact reality.

    Please, do us all a favor and move to one of those countries which have so peacefully earned your esteem. Then, we won’t have to feel we insult you by forcing such a decadent lifestyle upon your oh, so perfectly peaceful self!

    No doubt Iran can use your help in quelling the ungrateful protesters which they have to peacefully beat and execute in the streets. I’ll kick in a buck to buy you a canoe, since you wouldn’t, I’m sure, want to soil yourself by using American transportation or facilities.

    • William James Ward permalink
      December 3, 2009 9:27 pm

      Rogert you get a perfect 10……..WJW

  11. Marylou permalink
    December 3, 2009 2:06 pm

    I think it is important to savor and celebrate and publicize each and every victory that we have!! This is a good one. Yay!

Comments are closed.