Fanaticism Kills Irony

Anybody who votes for the republicans in a week is either ignorant, stupid, insane, or wicked.

Anybody who votes for the republicans in a week is either ignorant, stupid, insane, or wicked.

Note that those categories are NOT mutually exclusive.

Nor are they a particularly compelling reason to vote republican.

Ed--

By "fanaticism," I gather that you mean something along the lines of irrational behavior characterized, in part, by making sweeping, unsupported charges with the sole intent of affirming a preconceived concept of reality.

"But Glib actively defends a President who claims the authority to disappear American citizens, hold them without ever charging them with anything, without access to an attorney, without the right to a trial guaranteed by our Constitution AND without any right to challenge that detention in court."

Please prove this....let me save you some time...you can't. Not only have I not "actively" defended such things as you ridiculously claim, I have not done so even once. What are you talking about anyway? Talk about projection of fanaticism!

It is evident that you depend on the the few sycophants who regularly comment here to not check up on your claims and you have come to realize the several organizations/sites you pretend to win arguments against (STACLU, Dembski, ADF, WND), either have never heard of you or can't be bothered with your strange obsession, so you have a free field on which to make up whatever you want to make up because it will go unchallenged. No Ed - let me deflate your fragile ego - it's not because you are so brilliant that groups like ADF cannot possibly withstand your withering analysis of its "lies," it's because you have proven unworthy of ADF's time. What a joke for someone like you, with exactly ZEE-ro influence outside these pages and no real expertise in anything you comment on (exept maybe poker:), to imagine that a major national legal organization is concerned with anything you do in your little corner of the web where you've re-invented yourself as some Zoltan-like figure, leeching off a larger domain and preaching to a bunch of knobs that rarely question you.

When I visit your blog, I normally just laugh off your pitiably indefatigable obsession with a few organzations/sites, especially when you are being completely ignored by every one, but on this one you needed to be called out.

OK, Ed...let me tee this one up for you.

Ed writes:

But Glib actively defends a President who claims the authority to disappear American citizens... (emphasis mine)

Glib then claims Ed said:

Not only have I not "actively" defended such things as you ridiculously claim, I have not done so even once. (emphasis mine)

Poor Glib. Reading comprehension just isn't a strong suit.

Dan is correct. Glib is certainly Glib, but not much else.

His handle "Glib Fortuna" reminds me of the name of the song "O Fortuna" from Carmina Burana.

Sorry Dan, you've "teed it up" but whiffed. No mulligans.

I rarely even mention President Bush in my posts, let alone defend him or any policies of the administration. So you have the big problem of not knowing what you are talking about.

As much as Ed prattles on about others' use of hyperbole, he regularly sounds like a flaming alarmist with no interest in looking into the mirror his own words provide. Witness the language of this very post.

Poor Dan. He's tried to defend his Leader but has failed. Ed cannot substantiate the claim he's made. I'm sure he'll admit his error, honest guy that he is.

What a shock! Glib once again fails to understand, and in the process tries to move the goalposts.

Glib originally:

Not only have I not "actively" defended such things as you ridiculously claim, I have not done so even once.

Upon learning of his reading comprehension error:

I rarely even mention President Bush in my posts, let alone defend him or any policies of the administration.

Let's go out on a limb and see if we can anticipate Glib's next response, shall we? Bet it's something along the lines of "But you never refuted my point that I rarely mention Bush and don't defend his policies." Serving to demonstrate, yet again, the lack of reading comprehension skill. Or goalpost moving. Or both.

I also predict that Glib will discover (yet again) that Ed doesn't need me, or anyone else, to defend him. Have fun, Ed.

Sorry Dan, you've "teed it up" but whiffed. No mulligans.

I rarely even mention President Bush in my posts, let alone defend him or any policies of the administration.

This is a rather dishonest post, given the substance of your criticism of the ACLU.

Dan, I think you are the one who is having trouble with simple concepts here. I have not contradicted myself and, in fact, your juxtaposition of my quotes in your last comment strengthen my original point.

Ed wrote:

"Glib actively defends a President who claims the authority to disappear American citizens, hold them without ever charging them with anything, without access to an attorney, without the right to a trial guaranteed by our Constitution AND without any right to challenge that detention in court."

I wrote:

"Not only have I not "actively" defended such things as you ridiculously claim, I have not done so even once."

AND

"I rarely even mention President Bush in my posts, let alone defend him or any policies of the administration."

It is hardly "moving the goalposts" to address an accusation in its totality. Ed stated that I 1)"actively defend" the president and 2) by extension I "actively defend" the specific "policies" he mentions.

Since he associates my "active defense" of the president with something specific, the implication is that I am "actively defending" both the president and these "policies." I have done neither to the degree that Ed implies (and regarding this "policy," not at all -- what is he talking about anyway?), so he is mistaken.

Are you tracking now, Dan?

Nice non sequitur, gwangung.

I'm done on this one guys. Thanks.

Nice non sequitur, gwangung.

Not really. You attack the ACLU and their stands. They take their stands on issues proposed by Bush and his administration. To say that you're not actively defending the President is disingenous.

And you go run away again. Typical.

Glib, paraphrased:

"I didn't misread what Ed originally wrote, and to prove it, here's how I've changed my original response to what Ed wrote."

Keep digging, Glib. There's got to be a pony in there somewhere.

"...the several organizations/sites you pretend to win arguments against (STACLU, Dembski, ADF, WND), either have never heard of you or can't be bothered with your strange obsession..."

So when someone noted for his inability to recognize his own screaming irony rushes to prove his "accuser" absolutely right by being absolutely wrong -- I mean, at this point I don't even think it's possible to lose an argument with Billy Dembski -- is this ironic or not? I can only assess this at so many levels of superimposition.

Glib Fortuna wrote:

Please prove this....let me save you some time...you can't. Not only have I not "actively" defended such things as you ridiculously claim, I have not done so even once. What are you talking about anyway? Talk about projection of fanaticism!

Do you really want me to go back and dig out all the times you've defended the President and his unconstitutional polices, and called anyone who challenged them terrorist sympathizers and the like? You do this constantly, as does almost everyone at STACLUless. And everything else you wrote here in response is just your usual wanking.

Let me also add that Glib's comments here add yet another layer of irony (of hypocrisy, if you prefer) to the discussion. It is ironic indeed that Glib accuses me of distorting his position given that, in the past, he has written of me:

Ed Brayton, who runs a pretty interesting site, frequently criticizes STACLU because he believes that the ACLU is a NEAR-spotless paragon of liberty and we are just a bunch of hair-on-fire loons.

Anyone with few active brain cells and basic literacy knows that, while defending the ACLU against the ridiculous criticisms of braindead cretins like Glib, I am a staunch critic of the ACLU in many areas.

Here's one instance I found.

I know I said I was done, but this is too fun. Geeeeeeeez Ed, sit down and grab a nice Belgian beer (maybe a Trippel, or maybe a Farmhouse Ale)...you're getting all red and sweaty.

First Dan:

What an absolute joke that you pick a post that has nothing to do with what Ed charged me with. In fact, allow me to excerpt my own words, since you have been thoroughly Braytonized in the practice of linking to something and depending on others to just trust you. Either that, or didn't bother to read the thing, and seeing the word "Bush" assumed you had the goods. No Whammies, no Whammies, no Whammies....ohhhhhhhhh...wah, waaaaah:

"I understand that a reasoned and continuing debate is necessary in this country when it comes to striking a balance between protecting civil liberties and implementing counter-terrorism, intelligence and law enforcement measures designed to ensure that this, the greatest and freest nation in human history, continues to exist. There is no argument that the Bush Administration, or any other administration given the privilege by the people to lead this country, should be unfettered to take any action, no matter the circumstance."

Yeah, this really sounds like a mindless defense of all Bush policies, doesn't it? (Yes, I realize that the last sentence isn't as grammatically artful as it could have been, but the meaning is clear and you get my point.) A GEICO caveman wouldn't have committed the blunder of using that post as "evidence!" Yes, the post thrashes the ACLU, but for its ill-advised opportunism on the solemnest of days, not because the Evil Bushies had, yet again, to utter, unmasked in head-hung despair, "If it weren't for you meddling heroes of liberty, we would certainly have done what Ed Brayton knows we want to do - take away ALL FREEDOMS. Drats, the ACLU has foiled us again!"

Now to Ed:

"Do you really want me to go back and dig out all the times you've defended the President and his unconstitutional polices, and called anyone who challenged them terrorist sympathizers and the like? You do this constantly, as does almost everyone at STACLUless."

Yes Ed, dig. You've made the charge, now produce the evidence. Obviously you tried to unearth something being that you pulled a quote from a months-ago a post...so how's that search going? You went from "actively" to screeching that I "do this constantly." If I did, you'd have no problem demonstrating it -- looks like first you stepped in it, now you've slipped in it. You're acting just plain silly here Ed -- you sound like a Democrat accusing the GOP of "questioning my patriotism." I'm not saying that I've never defended an administration policy in the context of a ridiculous, overreaching, ideologically-fueled ACLU suit, but the bizarre charge you make can't stand up to sunlight. (What is this "disappearing" of "American citizens" you keep thundering on about anyway? Been busy, must have missed the ribbon cutting at the U.P. Gulag). You know Ed, for as much as you accuse others of fanaticism...you sure sound like an absolute Idaho basement dweller when you opine on the Bush Administration while accusing those who dare to consider that there may be SOME necessity for SOME change in defense, law enforcement, counter-terrorism and intelligence policy in order to deal with the realities of our day of being in league with the surviving loyal members of the Hitler Youth and the Little Rascals.

"Anyone with few active brain cells and basic literacy knows that, while defending the ACLU against the ridiculous criticisms of braindead cretins like Glib, I am a staunch critic of the ACLU in many areas."

"Braindead cretins" -- Ed you certainly have mastered self-control. Paper bag, breathe deeply...

Please demonstrate where you've been a "staunch critic of the ACLU in many areas." I searched your site (http://scienceblogs.com/cgi-bin/MT/mt-search.cgi?IncludeBlogs=4&search=…) and the only time there's even a hint of criticism of the ACLU is your position on the current gag-and-purge (with one short item about the ACLU's member-privacy-agreement-violating data mining, which didn't really bother you THAT much). Even then, your problem is not with the ACLU at all, but clearly with Romero (you're "fond of" the dim Nadine Strossen and the rest of the civil libertines), who you even manage to compliment (his management skills, you know, the kind that result in muzzling your employees) despite his manifest totalitarianism. So, really, the only time I can find where you've even logged a flaccid objection, it's not, in your view, because of any endemic problem with the ACLU, but with one guy who you claim is not a REAL ACLU guy. Otherwise, the only times there is any mention of ACLU criticism is when you claim that you have been a "staunch critic...in many areas." If you show me the plethoric examples that must exist since you've been a "staunch critic in MANY areas," I will concede, admit you are right and pull back on my comment about your tender kisses on the Left cheek of the ACLU's big ol' butt. It seems you are not man enough to do the same.

Glib, Glib, Glib. Go back and look at the text of what I said about you. It's been quoted for you several times, but let's try again:

But Glib actively defends a President who claims the authority to disappear American citizens, hold them without ever charging them with anything, without access to an attorney, without the right to a trial guaranteed by our Constitution AND without any right to challenge that detention in court.

Now, if you're seriously going to deny that you're an active supporter of President Bush or, for that matter, an active basher of anyone who objects to his unconstitutional policies, you are going to look very, very stupid. Of course, you should be used to that by now. This point is so obvious that there is no point whatsoever in digging up the volumes of evidence for it. Any literate person who has read the crap you shovel out knows that description is absolutely accurate. Dave S dug up one recent piece of evidence, which you dismiss only by, once again, distorting what I said to claim it doesn't fit.

'm not saying that I've never defended an administration policy in the context of a ridiculous, overreaching, ideologically-fueled ACLU suit, but the bizarre charge you make can't stand up to sunlight.

There is absolutely nothing "bizarre" about charging you with supporting a president who claims the right to disappear American citizens. You do. Everyone knows it. To claim otherwise is to be an outright liar.

(What is this "disappearing" of "American citizens" you keep thundering on about anyway? Been busy, must have missed the ribbon cutting at the U.P. Gulag).

Go read up on the Hamdi case. Hamdi was an American citizen held incommunicado in a military prison for years with no charges filed, no access to an attorney and no trial. When a suit was filed on his behalf, the administration argued not only that they had the inherent authority to suspend habeas corpus, but that the courts had no authority at all to even hear a challenge to that authority. This is the same argument they've been making in every suit filed against them. Even Justice Scalia told the administration in no uncertain terms that they were violating the constitution, that the administration absolutely could not suspend habeas corpus in individual cases and that only Congress could suspend habeas corpus, and only then if there is no functioning system of civilian courts (which is what the constitution requires). Thus, what I said is absolutely true - President Bush does claim the authority to disappear American citizens, to imprison them as long as he wants without ever charging them or giving them a trial. Even a moron like you can read the 5th and 6th amendments and see that this is blatantly unconstitutional, yet you still support that President. And on top of that, you blast anyone who dares to challenge his unconstitutional behavior as a commie and a terrorist sympathizer. And that is exactly what I claimed about you, and it has now been proven true yet again.

Please demonstrate where you've been a "staunch critic of the ACLU in many areas." I searched your site (http://scienceblogs.com/cgi-bin/MT/mt-search.cgi?IncludeBlogs=4&search=…) and the only time there's even a hint of criticism of the ACLU is your position on the current gag-and-purge (with one short item about the ACLU's member-privacy-agreement-violating data mining, which didn't really bother you THAT much). Even then, your problem is not with the ACLU at all, but clearly with Romero (you're "fond of" the dim Nadine Strossen and the rest of the civil libertines), who you even manage to compliment (his management skills, you know, the kind that result in muzzling your employees) despite his manifest totalitarianism. So, really, the only time I can find where you've even logged a flaccid objection, it's not, in your view, because of any endemic problem with the ACLU, but with one guy who you claim is not a REAL ACLU guy. Otherwise, the only times there is any mention of ACLU criticism is when you claim that you have been a "staunch critic...in many areas." If you show me the plethoric examples that must exist since you've been a "staunch critic in MANY areas," I will concede, admit you are right and pull back on my comment about your tender kisses on the Left cheek of the ACLU's big ol' butt.

Your reading comprehension skills are as unimpressive as your reasoning skills. Try that search again, Glib, and if you actually bother to read the posts - I know that takes some effort, and the big words sometimes throw you off - you'll find numerous criticisms. Let me list a few examples:

I've criticized them for putting a Muslim on the board of the Florida chapter who supports blasphemy laws.

I've criticized their nitpicking in cases like the LA county seal case, which I regard as completely pointless.

I've criticized their stance in the Brittany McCombs case and their entire position in regard to "captive audiences".

I've criticized their position on funding for college student religious groups, like the various CLS chapters who have been denied recognition at many universities around the country.

Just today, I criticized their position on the eminent domain proposition in California, which I find appalling for a civil liberties group.

And as you note, I've been extremely critical of the current leadership. And this is a perfect example of how you distort reality. You claim that I "manage to compliment" Romero's management skills; that's a lie. I have said that he's a good fund raiser, which he is; the ACLU's fundraising has increased substantially while he's been there, hardly a surprise since his entire background is in foundation fundraising. That is not a complement to his management skills; his management skills are nothing short of terrible. He's alienated virtually everyone in the national office because of his bad management skills and his tone deafness regarding the principles of civil liberties. Yes, I do admire many things about Nadine Strossen, but so what? The fact that you don't like her has no bearing on the fact that I have, in many ways, been a staunch critic of the ACLU on several prominent issues.

But see, a dolt like you can only think in the most simplistic dichotomies. Either one believes that the ACLU is absolute, pure evil sent by Satan himself and you buy into every idiotic conspiracy theory that you and your dumbass friends invent about them, or your a slavish, mindless ACLU follower. Rational people, on the other hand, can see beyond such simplistic dichotomies and can criticize them on one issue and praise them on others - without all the ridiculous hyperbole about the ACLU wanting to "destroy Christianity" or help the terrorists win, the sort of stupid fucking nonsense you and your pals spew on a daily basis. I know you'll never understand such rational people; it's quite literally beyond your limited ability to process that kind of logical thought. In your fevered little mind, the world is a cartoon drawn in pure black and white and, like your hero Mr. Bush, "you're either with us or against us." But most people outgrow such a cartoonish view of the world by the time they hit puberty.

More proof of lack of reading comprehension skills: Glib can't tell the difference between Dan and Dave. Yes, they sort of look alike, Glib, but they're different. I know, those big words can be tricky.

Punch holes in any walls Ed? I might call your wife and tell her to take a walk around the block, Rage Boy. You got yourself all tied up in knots and couldn't provide a shred of evidence to back up the claim you made...and yopu're pissing all over over yourself to cover up your flub. "No point in digging up volumes of evidence?" This just shows you've got none Ed...and this is what's got you so unglued and bouncing of the walls with your psychotic manifesto.

Let me tell you a little something...I look at Bush as no more than an average president as things stand now and am only a tepid supporter, so what you think you know comes out of pure, steaming pile o' ignorance, so you are losing all over the place here Ed. Again, as much as you stammer on about people who hold the ACLU in contempt and who let our opinions be known, you do the SAME THING in the same tone with as much totality regarding the current administration. Get a mirror Ed.

Regarding your stance on the ACLU, I said I would admit error if you could provide evidence...would you mind providing links to those posts you cite? I provided the link I used with the broad search term "ACLU" and on that I uncovered exactly what I related back to you. I did find what you wrote in the comments section in the eminent domain situation, but a passing word in the comments section doesn't make your case on "many areas" grounds. I would take your word for it but...

You know, your infantile, writhing-red-faced-on-the-floor tirade makes your talk about "rational people" and "logical thought" and "puberty" so comical that I don't even think I need to point out the irony. Finally, as much as you go on vomiting about others' lack of intelligence, you are really starting to sound like an insecure little boy who knows nothing else but eruptive rage when threatened by someone he knows full well is not his intellecual inferior.

Glib Fortuna wrote:

Punch holes in any walls Ed? I might call your wife and tell her to take a walk around the block, Rage Boy.

Once again the astonishing lack of ability to recognize irony is demonstrated with superb clarity. The same posturing pseudo macho man who responded to criticism at STACLU by telling meatbrain to go to Cleveland so he could beat him up is now accusing someone else of having too much rage and punching walls. You are impossible to parody, Glib. There simply is no limit to how stupid and hypocritical you can make yourself look. And just for the record, I am not the least bit angry. I've gotten many laughs out of this, as I always do when you stop by. This notion that I'm redfaced and angry is purely a figment of your imagination.

Regarding your stance on the ACLU, I said I would admit error if you could provide evidence...would you mind providing links to those posts you cite? I provided the link I used with the broad search term "ACLU" and on that I uncovered exactly what I related back to you. I did find what you wrote in the comments section in the eminent domain situation, but a passing word in the comments section doesn't make your case on "many areas" grounds. I would take your word for it but...

I know quite well what I've said. You know how to do a search, everything I said is in those posts for you to find. Good luck.

You know, your infantile, writhing-red-faced-on-the-floor tirade makes your talk about "rational people" and "logical thought" and "puberty" so comical that I don't even think I need to point out the irony.

At this point, Glib, you wouldn't recognize irony if it crawled up your pantleg, perched on your ass and yodeled the Ave Maria. That has been demonstrated repeatedly. And it's doubly funny that the guy who feels the need to strike the "come see me and I'll kick your ass" pseudo-macho pose is actually trying to claim that someone else is having a tirade. It just doesn't get much funnier. Please come back and dig that hole a little deeper. It's endlessly amusing.

the only person whose erupting here is you, Glib. Granted, we've kinda been provoking it but one should be able to control that at least when you type if not in person. You must not read this blog much, if you think Ed does the same thing with regard to the ACLU as your circle. You guys seem to think the ACLU's motives are sinister and purely anti-clerical. Ed criticizes the ACLU when he feels it behaves in counter productive ways.

And just in case you want to lie and claim you didn't do that either, here's the link and a direct quote:

I'm off to Cleveland this afternoon to see if a couple of my favorite trolls have the intestinal fortitude to show up and take the ass beating they deserve. So if I don't post for a day or so, that's because I'm in jail.

When I was growing up, you refrained from using the liar moniker because to allow that to fly indiscriminately was grounds for a fat lip. Well there are a couple of trolling moonbats who, like Al Franken, have a "liar" fetish and I've invited them to meet me this evening to get what they deserve. Although, I have a feeling as though all I'm going to get out of this trip to Cleveland is a good dinner.

If they don't have the stones to show, it will be apparent. I'll post something when I get home to prove it to you all.

Now seriously, how do you parody someone who not only strikes the "I'm gonna kick your ass" pose on the internet, but then accuses someone else of having a problem with anger? Glib, if you didn't exist, you'd be impossible to invent. If I tried to write a character as ridiculous as you, I'd be accused of engaging in a farcical exaggeration.

"The same posturing pseudo macho man who responded to criticism at STACLU by telling meatbrain to go to Cleveland so he could beat him up is now accusing someone else of having too much rage and punching walls."

Ummmm...you better check up on who you're talking to and about, Earthquake Ed. You've made a buffoon of yourself here again. What a losing streak. Glib Fortuna. Gribbit. Different dudes. Never met, never talked. This is getting really funny...it's like you got your jock pulled down in front of some chick you've had a bone for since grade school or your Dungeons and Dragons buddies played without you. Are we to trust you on anything else?

Again, you have failed to admit your original accusation has been hammered to absolute dust and you've tried to obscure your "Doh!" behind a blubbering, shaking tantrum. And you've made yet another huge boo-boo on top of it. Are you getting enough sleep Ed?

One more thing...and I promise that this isn't just an attempt to get the last word as I am not inflicted with this sorry neuro-social disorder typical in outcasts masquerading as intellectuals in "safe places" like this...that will more totally shrink you Eddie and bring your Liliiputian fiefdom to crashing demise. For all your heaving (you know a big guy like you who's starting to mix a little gray with the auburn, you should work to control the BP a bit) about what a fire-breathing fool I am regarding the ACLU, allow me to disabuse you of yet another illusion by providing a link:

Go get 'em ACLU -- Election laws ARE an affront to the First Amendment
http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/2006/09/01/go-get-em-aclu-election-laws…

Here you see that I have no problem recognizing when the ACLU is in the right. ***Poof*** Another Brayton canard obliterated. Really, it's all a matter of degree -- I think on balance, the ACLU is a net negative...no probably worse than that, let's say a pox-ridden danger...to this country and you think the the ACLU deserves a Nina Burleigh-to-Bill Clinton.

BTW Ed -- where do you get the "7,000 daily visitors" number on your post above? Your very own Sitemeter link says less than half that...is there some super-secret way to find out that more people are really reading Ed Brayton than the stats show? I'm willing to be educated if you care to share.

Oops, you're absolutely right. I did confuse you and Gribbit. Given that you appear to share a brain (or part of one, at least), that's an honest mistake.

BTW Ed -- where do you get the "7,000 daily visitors" number on your post above? Your very own Sitemeter link says less than half that...is there some super-secret way to find out that more people are really reading Ed Brayton than the stats show? I'm willing to be educated if you care to share.

I only use sitemeter to track recent referrals. The official stats for ScienceBlogs come through Google Analytics, which average just under 200,000 hits a month for this blog, or almost 7000 per day.

Glib Fortuna wrote:

Regarding your stance on the ACLU, I said I would admit error if you could provide evidence...would you mind providing links to those posts you cite?

Here you go, Glib:
Bashing the Florida ACLU

LA county seal case

Brittany McCombs post

Post listing more of Ed's disagreements with the ACLU
Quote from above post:

When religious right legal organizations are right on the constitutional issues, then I openly say that they're right. The ACLJ was right in Lamb's Chapel. The Rutherford Institute is right in the Brittany McComb case in Las Vegas, where they cut off her mic during graduation (and yes, that means the ACLU is wrong in that case). I think the ACLU was wrong in Good News Club, I think they were wrong in the LA County seal battle, and I think they were wrong in the CLS' lawsuit against Hastings School of Law.

So there are a few of the links where Ed has posts disagreeing with the ACLU, and I know there are more.

On a side note, it is far easier to search Ed's blog than it is to search STACLU. I find the STACLU site crowded, disorganized, and generally a pain to navigate effectively. Don't know if you have any influence over that, Glib, but I'd recommend looking into revamping it. There is plenty of blogging software out there that would go a long way to making STACLU a much better website.

*whistles tunelessly*

http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/2006/10/26/poll-most-feel-civil-liberti…

This is actually news from last week I somehow missed. It is good to see some groups jumping in against the ACLU's attack on this critical [domestic NSA spying] program.

Meanwhile, just in case they lose in the courts, the ACLU are rooting for the Democrats to take control of Congress in the hopes that they will kill any bill authorizing this important weapon against terror. Jay makes a great point in stating it is the President's job and not the judiciary's in protecting Americans. This is what he was elected for. Who elected these judges or the ACLU in this realm? No one, and many of us would like for them to butt out. Judges have a history and experience in the realm and knowledge of rights and very little if none in the areas of National Security. Ruling this vital program to cease is a dangerous decision that could put many lives at risk. It is a decision the courts should bow out of. The alleged injuries in this case are based in the hypothetical, can not be proved, and have no standing. While the Courts have the power to check the other branches, in this case I believe they should stand down unless a legitimate injury can be shown. This debate can be solved outside of the courts and voted on by the representatives we have elected. As much as the ACLU hate that process of democracy...these are the people elected to represent and protect America, not the judges.

By the way, did someone else write that, or have you taken to talking about yourself in third person?

http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/2006/10/19/the-plan-to-impeach-bush/tra…

Although why this is filed under 'War of Terror' escapes me...

http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/2006/10/19/the-geneva-conventions-and-h…

From one of your co-posters... Who might, by the way, want to read up a little on the Geneva Convention:

Article 5

The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

In other words, you have to prove that someone is an illegal combatant before you shoot him out of hand or imprison him in a secret concentration camp. And no, you're not allowed to torture someone just because the Geneva Convention doesn't apply to him.

http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/2006/10/18/the-aclu-claims-to-be-most-c…

What the ACLU is really seeking to conserve is a 9/10 mindset for America. They hope to conserve privacy rights for terrorists. They want a Democrat controlled Congress and they are not ashamed to admit it. They know this is the only way they can be successful striking down the NSA legislation and other important terror bills and tools that come may come along. They fear legislation currently pending in the Senate to strip them of their taxpayer funded attorney's fees in Establishment Clause cases, and they know a Democrat controlled Senate is the sure fire way to kill it.

Is Ed being too harsh? Maybe. Is he totally off his rockers? I've reported, you decide.

I personally, however, find the occasional jape at the STACLU's collective litteracy (both in posts and comments here) less than amusing. I've seen a lot worse in the Talk.Origins Archive's Feedback section.

- JS