Thursday, September 07, 2006

ACLU Accuses Bush Of Gutting Geneva Conventions Enforcement and Undermining Due Process For Terror Detainees

Crossposted from
Stop The ACLU

It isn't suprising that the ACLU were quick to react to Bush's jaw dropping speech admitting to secret CIA prisons and pushing Congress to pass legislation that would put captured
terror supspects under the rule of a military tribunal.


America is a nation dedicated to upholding the rule of law. However,
President Bush’s draft proposal for military commissions fails to meet the
standards recognized by the Supreme Court in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. The court held
the President’s initial military commission scheme was illegal because it
violated Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, the most basic standards regarding treatment of detainees. The new proposal has
nearly all of the same problems, and will eventually be found to be illegal. For
example, it would allow a person to be convicted based on secret evidence and
would allow the use of evidence obtained as the result of horrific

Of course the ACLU automatically accuse the U.S. of using horrific abuse to
obtain our evidence without any evidence whatsoever to back that claim up. You
can also bet that if one of their terrorist plaintiffs were to go before our
court system they would make the claim that any evidence we have against them
was obtained through such procedures and argue it was inadmissable. This is
only one of hundreds of reasons that Congress needs to pass the legislation the
President is requesting so these terrorist creeps, several of which are in the
top Al Qaeda chain of command, need to go before a military tribunal. They are
not American citizens and we can not afford the dangers involved in allowing them to be represented before the U.S. courts, in all probabilitily represented by the ACLU.

"The president should have listened to the current Judge Advocates
General for the four military services, all of whom have urged close adherence
to the court-martial procedures, and all of whom oppose the use of secret
evidence and coerced evidence. By contrast, Senators John Warner (R-VA), John
McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) are reportedly following the advice of
these top generals and admirals and supporting due process protections that are
more in line with the time-tested courts-martial procedures.

"The president also proposes to gut enforceability of the Geneva Conventions by
amending the War Crimes Act to completely immunize from prosecution civilians
who subjected persons to horrific abuse that may have fallen short of the
definition of ‘torture.’ As a result, government officials and civilian
contractors who authorized or carried out waterboarding, threats of death, and
other abuse would get a ‘get out of jail free’ card under the president’s bill.
The nation’s soldiers and sailors would remain liable under the Uniform Code of
Military Justice, but civilians would be immune from prosecution under the only
statute that applies to many of these acts. That is simply wrong.

No, what is "simply wrong" is that cowards committed to terrorism and jihad
against America that do are not signatories of nor abide by the Geneva
Conventions should be afforded the protections of it. The sickening fact that
the ACLU would steep low enough to represent an enemy of our nation to sue a
military member for doing their job in capturing and interrogating these
killers. This is exactly what the President is asking Congress to keep from
happening. The President is asking Congress to make it clear what our
protectors can and can not do and to protect them from prosecution of being sued
by the very scumbuckets they protect us from.

"The new Army Field Manual avoids some of the worst problems with earlier drafts and clarifies that those held by the military or at military facilities must be afforded the protections of the Geneva Conventions. However, it then creates loopholes for so-called ‘unlawful combatants’ by depriving them of the same protections--and specifically authorizes holding persons in isolation. And, the new manual does not apply to those held by the CIA. The Bush proposal is lip service unless the executive
branch actually holds people accountable for violating it.

"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 loopholes 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

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.”

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, to stop what they
call profiling (we will never see a Protestant white middle-aged woman as a
terrorist working with an extremist Islamic organization) by race, sex and
religion, and to stop the government from detaining and questioning or
interrogating individuals who have ties or contact with known terrorist
individuals and organizations.

They tried to kill the Patriot Act because they see
the rights of an individual who may or may not be an American citizen as more
important than the safety of the nation at large. They want the borders open because they see that as an infringement of the rights of non-Americans to become Americans however they can manage it. They want to have military and intelligence sources, activities, and planning
revealed to the public so they can "watch dog" and ensure freedoms of
individuals and/or groups are not being compromised, but in doing so will enable
those very individuals and/or groups under surveillance the ability to avoid
surveillance and possible capture before they do something destructive to
American citizens.

When it comes to America's enemies you can count on the ACLU to be there to defend them.

This was a production of Stop The ACLU
Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay at or Gribbit at You will be added to
our mailing list and blogroll. Over 200 blogs already onboard.

No comments: