ACLU to Gitmo terrorists: Don’t talk
Posted on September 8, 2005
From World Net Daily
The Pentagon permitted lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union to sit in on interrogations of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and, in some cases, advise the terrorists of their rights, reports Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin.
That’s the word from U.S. military sources, some of whom are astonished the ACLU was permitted to interfere in the interrogations of hardened al-Qaida and Taliban enemy combatants, according to the premium online, intelligence newsletter published by WND’s founder.
According to these sources, the ACLU lawyers advised the majority of the prisoners that they did not have to answer questions from military interrogators.
“It’s as if they were shoplifters in the U.S.,” said one source. “The lawyers may have left by now, but the damage is done. We’re sending guys down to interrogate on taxpayer’s dime for absolutely no reason now.”
Apparently, the Pentagon believes the presence of ACLU lawyers at Guantanamo will help persuade the world it can give suspected terrorists a fair trial. The ACLU has been at the forefront of allegations of abuse of prisoners.
In another example of the Pentagon’s public relations effort, it brought in Marine Corps Col. Dwight Sullivan, a veteran of six years on staff with the ACLU, to be chief defense counsel for the Pentagon’s military tribunals.
In the past, he has defended Marines convicted of murder and spared them death row. He has championed homosexual rights and fought to keep the Ten Commandments off public property.
So far, four individuals have been charged before military commissions. The first hearings took place in a makeshift courtroom in Guantanamo Bay in August 2004. In November a federal district judge in Washington ruled the commissions were illegal, bringing the process to a halt. Last month, after a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit reversed the lower court, Pentagon officials said trials would soon resume.
What is the pentagon thinking? Political correctness has taken us to the point that we can’t trust our own military in the war on terror. How does this fall into American civil liberties? And why is it not considered aiding the enemy? And why is the pentagon involved in this crap? Think about what is happening here. The ACLU are advising many of our sworn enemies that they don’t have to say anything to us. That they have a right no less to keep their mouth shut. How cushy can we make it for our killer enemies that would slit our throats in second? Club gitmo indeed. While the rules don’t apply to the enemy violating every Geneva Convention precedent there is, we treat them to the lush extravagances of living it up. And while they continue to tortue whomever they capture for information, we tell them, “hey, if you don’t wanna talk, we understand…no,no…you have the right to remain silent. Don’t say anything till you call your ACLU lawyer. Ridiculous! Absoulutely, politically correct insanity!
Linked at Cafe Oregano
» Filed Under War On Terror
Trackback URL
Comments
35 Responses to “ACLU to Gitmo terrorists: Don’t talk”
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Stop the ACLU wackjobs!
Folks, it doesn’t get any sillier then what the ACLU is now pushing:WASHINGTON, DC-The Executive Director if the ACLU is reporting that they will challenge the usage of the term Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in all references in
Whatever happened to the good ol’ days when our friends from Langley could beat a confession out of a prisoner?
To date, how many of the prisoners released from Gitmo have committed terrorist acts or been arrested in other countries on different yet related charges? This is not a rhetorical question - I am hoping somebody has the answer.
Traveling the Blogosphere for Views of the ACLU…
Well, my mind has been spinning and the hamster running rapidly around the little wheel in my brain trying to come up with something unique for the Stop the ACLU blogburst this week. So, I surfed the blogosphere all over the world (isn’t that cool). …
“What is the pentagon thinking? ”
probably about the law.
What law would that be?
ACLU Protects The Rights Of Terrorists
It takes a lot of gall for an organization called the American Civil Liberties Union to protect the rights of people who have sworn to kill as many innocent Americans as they can. Apparently, the ACLU has gall to spare:
The Pentagon permitted lawyers…
“advise the terrorists of their rights”
What rights??? They have NO rights under the constitution there, and should not have any. At best they have basic human rights which means we cannot beat them to death, and must supply basic food and water…. thats IT! The Pentagon is not thinking about the law as no law applies here jackass. It was purely a PC move and should stop, period.
Stop The ACLU Blogburst-Katrina Speech
The ACLU defends the “civil rights” of terrorists. I wonder if the ACLU would fight for the free speech rights of BOTH these groups…
I think that they should interrorgate the prisoner then leave the ACLU lawyer in the room with the prisoner and tell the lawyer he can now talk to his client alone. But make sure that the prisoner knows that the lawyer is another american and do not leave the prisoner in restraints. That would eliminate a couple of the scumbags then the rest could get the real message. The isalm idiots do not like americans even if they are lawyers.
I’ll be going to Freedom Fest in Skidmore, Missouri (http://www.skidmorefreedomfest.com/)Saturday. One of the speakers will be Adrian Cronauer, Robin Williams played his part in the movie Good Morning Vietnam. As far as I know Adrian is still an atorney, he was the last time I saw him. He’s now working on POW/MIA issues for the Pentegon. I’ll have to see if I can get him to comment on the ACLU.
God Bless America, God Save The Republic.
Constitutional Ignorance and the ACLU
Are we surprised that the very school system that is failing at teaching math and science is also blowing it when it comes to civics? Could such dereliction of duty by our schools set up the perfect conditions in your child’s mind that would all…
This organization just never fails to amaze me.
fark…
“probably about the law.”
Jay…
“What law would that be?”
I’m still waiting for the answer to Jay’s question.
Top Ten List of Why the ACLU needs to be Stopped
Crossposted from Stop The ACLU Stop The ACLU was started on February 9th, 2004. We started with high hopes, and we realized we were facing a goliath. There were many reasons why we thought the ACLU needed to be countered,…
[...] #3. The ACLU Defend the enemy. They have a long history of this one. They defended the P.L.O. in 1985. They defended Quadafi in the 1980’s. And they continue today. They have told Gitmo detainees they have the right to remain silent, as in not talking to interrogators. One issue that really disturbs me is their refusal of funds from organizations such as the United Way that were concerned the money would be used to support terrorism. In October of 2004, the ACLU turned down $1.15 million in funding from two of it’s most generous and loyal contributors, the Ford and Rockefeller foundations, saying new anti-terrorism restrictions demanded by the institutions make it unable to accept their funds. [...]
Roll the dice
Today’s dose of NIF - News, Interesting & Funny … It’s Stop the ACLU Thursday (+ Open Trackbacks)
[...] #3. The ACLU Defend the enemy. They have a long history of this one. They defended the P.L.O. in 1985. They defended Quadafi in the 1980’s. And they continue today. They have told Gitmo detainees they have the right to remain silent, as in not talking to interrogators. One issue that really disturbs me is their refusal of funds from organizations such as the United Way that were concerned the money would be used to support terrorism. In October of 2004, the ACLU turned down $1.15 million in funding from two of it’s most generous and loyal contributors, the Ford and Rockefeller foundations, saying new anti-terrorism restrictions demanded by the institutions make it unable to accept their funds. [...]
[...] The ACLU Defend the enemy. They have a long history of this one. They defended the P.L.O. in 1985. They defended Quadafi in the 1980’s. And they continue today. They have told Gitmo detainees they have the right to remain silent, as in not talking to interrogators. One issue that really disturbs me is their refusal of funds from organizations such as the United Way that were concerned the money would be used to support terrorism. [...]
[...] Recently the ACLU have decided to represent two detainees who claim the U.S. Military threw them into lions dens. Somebody is lion alright. They have also accused the U.S. military of outright murdering 21 detainees. They have even advised the majority of the prisoners at Gitmo that they did not have to answer questions from military interrogators. [...]
[...] Recently the ACLU have decided to represent two detainees who claim the U.S. Military threw them into lions dens. Somebody is lion alright. They have also accused the U.S. military of outright murdering 21 detainees. They have even advised the majority of the prisoners at Gitmo that they did not have to answer questions from military interrogators. [...]
[...] Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! An extremist would be a group that defends organizations like NAMBLA. An extremist would be an organization that work with groups having known terrorist ties like CAIR. An extremist would be a group that advocates completely open borders. Extremism is advocating the legalization of child porn distribution. Most Americans would say that defending America’s enemies is extreme. [...]
[...] Hmmmm…I guess thats why the call it “Progressive” Insurance? You can bet this donation will go towards protecting civil liberties such as, defending NAMBLA, and defending America’s enemies. [...]
[...] It isn’t suprising that the ACLU would be against this, after all we are talking about an organization that thinks Gitmo detainees have the right to remain silent when interrogated. However, for the ACLU to pretend they care about people’s privacy is a joke. The ACLU have been against the Patriot Act since it was first introduced. There have been no verified civil liberties abuses in the four years of the act’s existence. Where privacy matters are concerned, the ACLU’s record is much more tainted. [...]
[...] It isn’t suprising that the ACLU would be against this, after all we are talking about an organization that thinks Gitmo detainees have the right to remain silent when interrogated. However, for the ACLU to pretend they care about people’s privacy is a joke. The ACLU have been against the Patriot Act since it was first introduced. There have been no verified civil liberties abuses in the four years of the act’s existence. Where privacy matters are concerned, the ACLU’s record is much more tainted. [...]
[...] Speaking of special investigations, the ACLU has waged war on our National Security, and aided and comforted our enemies. If anyone needs to have a special investigation done on them, its the ACLU. [...]
[...] I couldn’t say it any better myself. There is no reason to release the details of the NSA program. Doing so would benefit no one but our enemies, and only endanger America further. This irresponsible position of the ACLU is reckless and crazy. But we have come to expect such traitorous behavior from the so called civil rights group. They oppose almost every effort our government has to fight terrorism with one hand, and defend our enemies with the other. I still can not understand why our government has not investigated the ACLU itself, they most definitely have probably cause to do so. [...]
[...] Such as: The Legalization of Child Porn Distribution Defending The Enemy Tax Exemptions For Wiccans, but not for Christian Churches Open Borders Opposition To The Second Amendment [...]
[...] Crossposted from Is it Just Me? So now the ACLU is promoting itself as a champion of both safety for our citizens and of freedom. What a joke! When 9-11 occurred what measures did the ACLU take to ensure our safety? None, zip, nada. This organization has done nothing to ensure our safety, in fact it has chosen to sue our government on behalf of terrorists outside of their legal jurisdiction while they were located in prisons on foreign soil. [...]
I also oneself something would want to find out on this theme. Very attentively I will read every post.
ACLU: Working For A Less Secure America
The above banner and slogan is quite deceptive and an utter joke to those that are truly aware to the ACLU’s workings. Just in the past week the ACLU has launched a massive campaign against the NSA’s efforts to…
[...] A while back, my friend Kathy wrote about how deceptive this banner is, and it still applies today. So now the ACLU is promoting itself as a champion of both safety for our citizens and of freedom. What a joke! When 9-11 occurred what measures did the ACLU take to ensure our safety? None, zip, nada. This organization has done nothing to ensure our safety, in fact it has chosen to sue our government on behalf of terrorists outside of their legal jurisdiction while they were located in prisons on foreign soil. [...]
[...] "So called" unlawful combatants? If you are not abiding by the rules of being a lawful combatant then you aren’t one. It is that simple. The ACLU are the ones looking for loop holes in the system, and the very reason they are so up and arms on this is that it closes them up. What the President is asking is for Congress to make the definitions clear. In the Hamdan case, which the ACLU played a major part in, the door was left wide open for Congress to clarify and create legislation making military tribunals the main process for due process dealing with terrorists caught on the battle field. What does the ACLU have against bringing these murderers to justice? The ACLU Defend the enemy. They have a long history of this one. They defended the P.L.O. in 1985. They defended Quadafi in the 1980’s. And they continue today. They have told Gitmo detainees they have the right to remain silent, as in not talking to interrogators. One issue that really disturbs me is their refusal of funds from organizations such as the United Way that were concerned the money would be used to support terrorism. In October of 2004, the ACLU turned down $1.15 million in funding from two of it’s most generous and loyal contributors, the Ford and Rockefeller foundations, saying new anti-terrorism restrictions demanded by the institutions make it unable to accept their funds. “The Ford Foundation now bars recipients of its funds from engaging in any activity that “promotes violence, terrorism, bigotry, or the destruction of any state.” The Rockefeller Foundation’s provisions state that recipients of its funds may not “directly or indirectly engage in, promote, or support other organizations or individuals who engage in or promote terrorist activity.” [...]
[...] The ACLU Defend the enemy. They have a long history of this one. They defended the P.L.O. in 1985. They defended Quadafi in the 1980’s. And they continue today. They have told Gitmo detainees they have the right to remain silent, as in not talking to interrogators. One issue that really disturbs me is their refusal of funds from organizations such as the United Way that were concerned the money would be used to support terrorism. In October of 2004, the ACLU turned down $1.15 million in funding from two of it’s most generous and loyal contributors, the Ford and Rockefeller foundations, saying new anti-terrorism restrictions demanded by the institutions make it unable to accept their funds. [...]
[...] Ah, the old “Safe and Free” banner! Since when did the ACLU care about us being “safe”? So now the ACLU is promoting itself as a champion of both safety for our citizens and of freedom. What a joke! When 9-11 occurred what measures did the ACLU take to ensure our safety? None, zip, nada. This organization has done nothing to ensure our safety; in fact it has chosen to sue our government on behalf of terrorists outside of their legal jurisdiction while they were located in prisons on foreign soil. They have since then demanded that the government release and make public top secret security information regarding not only the activities of our military, but also that of our intelligence forces. They have also initiated one lawsuit after another against the government to stop the searching of individuals for security purposes in mass transit situations, and to stop the government from detaining and questioning or interrogating individuals who have ties or contact with known terrorist individuals and organizations. That is just naming their actions off the top of my head. The fact is that the ACLU is making America less safe. If what the ACLU means by political scare tactics are the warnings about the NSA surveillance program being put into jeopardy and other liberal techniques of surrender and stupidity then I must disagree. Perhaps the American people fell for the scare tactics of groups like the ACLU. It isn’t a scare tactic to state the truth about the threats we face from our enemies, and the threats still remain. The beat goes on. In several congressional races voters rejected the strategy to paint national security as a polarizing issue. In Ohio, incumbent Senator Mike DeWine was defeated. DeWine sponsored legislation that condoned the president’s warrantless wiretapping program. [...]
[...] Ah, the old “Safe and Free” banner! Since when did the ACLU care about us being “safe”? So now the ACLU is promoting itself as a champion of both safety for our citizens and of freedom. What a joke! When 9-11 occurred what measures did the ACLU take to ensure our safety? None, zip, nada. This organization has done nothing to ensure our safety; in fact it has chosen to sue our government on behalf of terrorists outside of their legal jurisdiction while they were located in prisons on foreign soil. [...]