Comments on: Rep. Peter King: ACLU Is "Tearing Down The United States"

[An-Historian]

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights..."

~The US Constitution

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

That famous phrase from our Constitution says "all men" -- not just Americans. It claims that all men enjoy "certain inalienable rights".

This is the fundamental ideology that we Americans try very hard to export and sell to the rest of the world at every possible opportunity. But nobody is ever going to buy it if we don't even honor it and follow it ourselves, will they?

In this country, even convicted murderers retain certain inalienable rights, because we believe those rights to be truly fundamental, based on our moral values.

We either believe and honor that Constitutional statement about what kind of nation we are and what values we hold dear, or we don't. Which is it going to be?

Are we a nation that only "talks the talk" (which is both easy and meaningless) or are we a nation that actually "walks the walk", no matter what obstacles we must overcome in order to do so, while still remaining true to our most essential values?

Nobody ever claimed that doing the "right" thing was always going to mean doing the "easiest" thing. Torturing is certainly easy, but is it morally right? Hardly.

As long as we chose to take people as our prisoners we are responsible (and accountable) for their humane treatment while in our custody. And we must always keep in mind another of our fundamental principles: that being accused of something is NOT the same as actually being found guilty -- the accused might always be found innocent in the end -- so it *does* matter how we treat those that we incarcerate lest we become guilty of committing serious injustices ourselves.

As a nation we have always tried to take the moral high ground and not cave in to mere expediency. Torturing people doesn't qualify as "taking the moral high ground" - it's just the easiest and least effective option available, and one that also satisfies some people's lowly desire for punishment and revenge, and it's beneath us as a nation that supposedly cares about the morality of it's actions as a nation.

We can surely get to where we need to be without stooping to such a universally reprehensible level. If we can't, then we really are no better than the very worst examples that history has to offer.

The high road is not the easiest route, and it usually comes at some cost, but taking it is always worth the extra effort. Those who defend the use of torture are obviously incapable of understanding that, or caring, or of doing what is morally right. They apparently prefer the "low road" just because it's so much faster and easier, even if it isn't particularly effective, and they apparently give no serious thought at all to the frightening consequences that their choice may have on our own troops who still remain in harm's way, or upon this nation's credibility and image as a whole.

Any nation can resort to thuggery -- but it takes a truly great nation to rise above it, and yet still prevail in the end.

Lets keep our national self-respect intact, and refuse to use torture as a handy "security tool".

[Slrman]

All the neo-con wing nuts like Peter King need to accept that their day is over. Whining, name-calling, and crying "wolf" at everything that is happening now only makes them look even more stupid than they are, if that is even possible.

If they ever expect to regain the respect of the American voter, they have to repudiate the religious reich and the entire travesty of the Bush years. They were, to use the Portuguese, "Anos de chumbo" (Years of lead) meaning the bad times. It's a law of nature, evolve or die.

[earlysaid]

King and all the other republicans have a lot to be ashamed for. They were in control of the government, (the Whitehouse, Senate, and Congress) for six of the 8 years Bush was in office. Did they ever question the excessive spending and lack of accountability of any kind for the Iraq War? Did they ever question any of Bush's policies? Bush never vetoed a thing until the Democrats took over in 2006. Then the republican senators got busy filibustering everything that came from the Democratic controlled congress. The rare legislation that made it out of the senate with the 60 votes required to over-ride the filibuster was then most of the time vetoed by GWB. Bush became a veto loving republican maniac. Just the same it was a joyful time because it put a stop to Bush getting away with any and everything he wanted as he had done up until then.

[earlysaid]

The ACLU fights lots and lots of battles for people who would have no one else if not for them. They have stood up for gays, stood up for human rights, stood up for fairness in hiring and many other matters. They have been very busy fighting against the power grabs republicans have tried for years. So although I am not a fan I know they do lots of good against the right wing extremists who would have no opposition but for the ACLU.

[joe1022joe]

The people who make up the ACLU have more loyalty to their peculiar ideology than they do to our nation.

[joe1022joe]

The people who make up the ACLU have more loyalty to their peculiar ideology than they do to our notion.

[earlysaid]

There is absolutely no reason not to try these people in the US. The real problem is the scaredy fraidy republicans who are such wussies that even though these men are beaten down and pitiful after years and years of being imprisoned, King would have everyone believe they are armed to the teeth ruthless savages who will bring havoc to America. Not true of course. If republicans could be any more hypocritical and politically motivated it would amaze me. President Obama should do what he thinks is best and never let the alarmism of the phony republican outrage deter him from doing what is right in every situation. I know for sure that the republicans failed at oversight of the former president and did nothing to stop his corrupt policies and criminal mismanagement on every issue.

[McHineguy]

You are apparently unaware that the judge can completely "lock down" the courtroom except to "participants only" and can ban ALL recording equipment "except the stenographer", and completely seal the records in the name of national security.

...

A trial DOES NOT mean the automatic exposure of our national security secrets - those are lies that you are being told, and that you're falling for - HARD.




"I think in one of our earlier debate you went so far as to say the neighbor deserves to die if he helped us capture the terrorist."

100% unadulterated BS.




And for the hundredth time, HOW do you know if they are innocent or guilty, UNLESS THEY HAVE A TRIAL?!?!?
Posted by hungry1968-15 at 3:19 PM : May 17, 2009

Gotta go. Family calls.

But here is a quick answer:

1. I will accept the findings of a secret court. Will you? Even after the defendents lawyer declares it was a kangaroo court? You know he will if his defendent loses.

But you and I have no argument, a court could, with proper safeguards hold a limited hearing (limited because some accusers cannot attend or be identified) and that would be good.

I very seldom fall for anything. My opinion is based soley on watching the behaovior of those in charge interpretted with some intimate details of past experience. But the logic is clear, there ARE secret informants in positions of power in foreign governments that cannot be disclosed in presence of the defendent. This gives rise to claims of a kangaroo court, Iran holding Americans in retribution, etc.

Im sorry if I have mised you with a different poster. But I do recall the debate. My apology if these are not your claims.

But, gotta go.

[McHineguy]

Gotta go. I respect the search for truth in a safe and careful way. I despise the quest for revenge.

[McHineguy]

Um...McHine?...a terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist...how can you be an 'innocent' terrorist? it's an oxymoron - if you're talking "a terrorist who wasn't involved in 9/11, the reason they are there is because they were involved in something to do w/ terrorism - Romero is an idiot and King is dead on right - for ACLU to challenge our President/military is ridiculous - ACLU and it's members used to serve a purpose, but now they want to sit in the oval office AND wear the General's stars - it's wrong and they are destroying the fabric of what used to keep us safe.
Posted by sbbm-2009 at 2:58 PM : May 17, 2009

Yeah, I mispoke. "Innocent terrorist" is an oxymoron. I should have said "innocent detainee". I was debating a poster who claimed many detainees were innocent.