The ACLU is ostensibly a group of American lawyers who concern themselves with American civil liberties. Why then is a Canadian lawyer for the ACLU concerning himself with the appropriate number of American soldiers who ought to expose themselves to death or mutilation in the prosecution of stateless terrorists on foreign shores?
Jonathan (Mannes) said, for example, that one of the issues with Predators was that they removed the “natural barriers” that would otherwise have to be fought through in order to attack alleged terrorists. It made it (too) easy for the US to resort to violence… But it would be hard to come up with a more direct statement that the issue for the ACLU is not the usual (at least surface) concern of human rights groups with jus in bello and the conduct of armed operations, but instead a belief that the US needs to be restrained — through direct and personal exposure to death on the part of its soldiers — in order that it have the proper incentives not to over-resort to the use of force.
What the ACLU… seems really to be saying is that “we”… should not make it too easy for the United States to win its wars, if necessary by forcing its troops to fight their way through “natural barriers” and at the appropriate cost in American lives. Wow. Heck of a point of view, at least for an ostensibly American organization and its lawyers. Count me out.
Yeah, me too.
The ACLU, for all its obstreperousness, serves an important national function. But it when it allows itself to dabble, as it all too often does, in issues far outside the organization’s swim lane, they make a mockery of themselves.
Being too cool and refined to take sides is not always a sign of moral superiority… Suggesting, however sophisticated the language, that superior intellects understand that “we” need to have more American GIs killed, or at risked, in order to reach the efficient equilibrium of incentives and disincentives to violence is not a winning argument.
It takes a really smart lawyer to look this stupid.
NO it doesn’t – It just takes some fat-arse with a law degree sitting in a comfortable office somewhere thinking about how he wants to even the playing field, as if that was the way the “real world” operated…
Let’s drop Mr. Smarty-panys ACLU Lawyer-boy off in down-town Kandahar, far from the shelter & protection of our troops and have him meet the people he is talking about….That would be the right thing to do as he is looking out for their best interests….
Then, when we see him on CNN with a AK-47 pointed at his thick head, while telling the world that his “clients” have decided they don’t need his representation and that his head will be the next one severed….Bet that would change a few minds at the ACLU on what works best & what isn’t best when you are fighting a war.
Arhabi Civil Liberties Union
Shakespeare was right.
“First, kill all the lawyers.”
ACLU is not a friend of this country, in my opinion. They are a tort terrorist group, funded by obscure provisions that basically get them nearly unlimited money by winning “civil rights” suits.
Back to Shakespeare and that will reward the ACLU.
As a lawyer, I am embarassed that such itdiots would allowed into my profession.
My apologies to all on behalf of the large, responsible majority in my profession who disagree with such boneheads.
But, let’s not take Shakespeare out of context. The quote “First, kill all the lawyers” was advice given to a character in Henry VI who wondered aloud how to overthrow the rule of law in society and take over.
My observation is that 99% of the Lawyers make the other 1% look bad.
Now, now…I’m a cop so one would think I would hate lawyers, but I don’t. Sure, there are a lot of weasels in the legal profession, but that’s true in any line of work. The problem with the ACLU isn’t that it’s infested with do-gooder lawyers. The problem with the ACLU is that it’s infested with hard-core leftist ideologues who happen to be lawyers and use the legal profession to push their agenda.
Indeed, they are among those who Custiodet ipsos Custodes. They keeps us honest, as it were.
Looks like a pulled a bit hard. Would you like me to return your leg now?
The legal profession, however, is far being squeaky clean. It is as close to being corrupt as any profession and stay out of prison.
NO, politicians do not count. They are anything but a learned profession. They are more along the lines of prostitution.
The quote in context –
DICK
The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.
CADE
Nay, that I mean to do. Is not this a lamentable
thing, that of the skin of an innocent lamb should
be made parchment? that parchment, being scribbled
o’er, should undo a man? Some say the bee stings:
but I say, ’tis the bee’s wax; for I did but seal
once to a thing, and I was never mine own man
since. How now! who’s there?
Dick was being sarcastic, but Cade one-upped him by showing that the Law, having been established as a tool for Man to use, had been perverted into a tool used to enslave him.
Was it Schwartzkopf who said, “In war, you don’t want to win 51-49. You want to win 100-0.”
Chaps, I want to be on your side!
The ACLU is to law as Joe McCarthy was to politics.
ahem, respectfully submit ya catch up on your reading.
History has vindicated Tail Gunner Joe and confirmed his suspicions.
BE603, that is my understanding also.
Recently finished reading a few books on the McCarthy & Chambers era. “Red Hunter” by Buckley (the good one, WFB, not Chris), recommended by VX if memory serves, was good; “Witness” by Chambers was very good.
In toto, McCarthy was correct, though he certainly had his faults.
My point was comparing his self-rightous, self-important heavy-handed methods with those of the so-called ACLU. I wasn’t commenting on his suspicions.
I am once again reminded of Orwell’s statement when an MP about some bat-shit crazy lefty Labor MPs rhapsodizing over some even more insane crazy theories proposed by some French “intellectuals”: “Only an intellectual could POSSIBLY believe in such things; no ORDINARY person could ever BE such a fool!”
Speaking of Orwell, at the bottom of the ACLU link is the phrase “The need has never been greater for freedom-loving people to support the ACLU.” Where have I seen that slogan before? Hmmm… I wonder if they’re taking double-speak lessons from an
href=”http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/v/vladimir_lenin_2.html” >expert, “To rely upon conviction, devotion, and other excellent spiritual qualities; that is not to be taken seriously in politics.”
Yup — note that the first political group to self-style themselves as “Progressive” were the Bolsheviks. Malenkov used to praise Stalin as the only man who had the moral authority to “unite the progressive and freedom-loving people of the world.”
Someone needs to find this Canadian lawyer, grab the briefs from his hand, rip them up and scatter them to the four winds, then kick his ass over the border and tell him if he comes back he does so at his own peril.
Life is too short and too important to allow an imbecile like him to practice law, or even open his mouth to speak.
He’s proven his worthlessness. Let him get to a nunnery.
Respects,
Tim, isn’t that: “hie thee to a Nunnery!”
If Nuns live in a Nunnery, then why don’t Monks live in a Monkery?
I stole that from Victor Borge.
And can a Monkey use a Monkey Wrench?
Tim, my friend … Wouldn’t a monastery be better? If the lawyer is a guy … Nuns can be formidable, as anyone who ever went to parochial school knows. And some of them are nuns because they don’t like men very much.
Which is one of the reasons I never yearned to be a nun.
Marianne
That’s why I’d like to see him with the Good Sisters. It would be a special sort of h3ll for him, as it were.
Sister Mary Elephant to the rescue.
Or G. Gordon Liddy’s “Sister Diesel Locomotive.”
As George Patton said (I’m sure I paraphrase) “Nobody ever won a war by dying for his country, the way to win a war is to make the other poor b**tard die for his country.”
100-0 sounds fair to me.
Greetings:
The way my favorite Platoon Sergeant explained it to me was both clear and succinct. “As many as you can, as often as you can, anywhere and any way you can.” But then, he was an American.