Obama admin retains Bush position on rendition secrets

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

You can't dispute the facts....

What facts? The article states a partial transcript of ACLU's press release, and takes it out of context. Nowhere in your article does it say the ACLU supports anyone's "right" to molest children".

Originally Posted by TGRR

What facts? The article states a partial transcript of ACLU's press release, and takes it out of context. Nowhere in your article does it say the ACLU supports anyone's "right" to molest children".

In fact, Merc's reliable source and "facts" took the ACLU's association with NAMBLA in an related case completely out of context.

Putting aside the fact that NAMBLA is a despicable organization promoting sex with minors....

The ACLU represented a man associated with NAMBA in a case involving sodomy with a minor. In the state where the crime (and yes, the ACLU called it a crime) occurred, the penalties for anal intercourse with a minor boy were much harsher than vaginal intercourse with a minor girl.

That disparity in sentencing was the point of law raised by the ACLU. Never did the ACLU defend the act itself, defend MABLA's organizational "mission" or argue that sex with a minor, of any nature, should not be a crime.

The ACLU often represents despicable organizations and sleezy individuals ...whether its the Nazi party's right to free speech or Limbaugh's right to privacy regarding his medical records.

Its important to look beyond the defendant to the points of law that the ACLU raises.

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by Redux

In fact, Merc's reliable source and "facts" took the ACLU's association with NAMBLA in an related case completely out of context.

Putting aside the fact that NAMBLA is a despicable organization promoting sex with minors....

The ACLU represented a man associated with NAMBA in a case involving sodomy with a minor. In the state where the crime (and yes, the ACLU called it a crime) occurred, the penalties for anal intercourse with a minor boy were much harsher than vaginal intercourse with a minor girl.

That disparity in sentencing was the point of law raised by the ACLU. Never did the ACLU defend the act itself, defend MABLA's organizational "mission" or argue that sex with a minor, of any nature, should not be a crime.

The ACLU often represents despicable organizations and sleezy individuals ...whether its the Nazi party's right to free speech or Limbaugh's right to privacy regarding his medical records.

Its important to look beyond the defendant to the points of law that the ACLU raises.

Any time you have a group dedicated to impartial law, people who hate impartial law will attack that group based on the most egregious cases they have handled.

Likewise, when you have someone brainwashed to hate civil liberties, that person will distort facts, cite irrelevant or out of context cases, etc, to slam anyone who defends rights.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

In fact, Merc's reliable source and "facts" took the ACLU's association with NAMBLA in an related case completely out of context.

Wrong. Dress it up as you want it is still a pig.

ACLU defended this child molester's right to publish.

ACLU defends child-molester group
Asks judge to throw out lawsuit against NAMBLA for 10-year-old's murder

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: December 13, 2000
1:00 am Eastern


By Julie Foster
© 2009 WorldNetDaily.com




The American Civil Liberties Union has asked a judge to dismiss what it calls an "unconstitutional" lawsuit against a national pedophile organization being sued in a wrongful death case after two of the group's members brutally raped and murdered a 10-year-old boy.
The $200 million civil lawsuit, which charges the North American Man-Boy Love Association with wrongful death, was originally filed in Massachusetts Federal District Court on May 16.

As reported in WorldNetDaily, Salvatore Sicari and Charles Jaynes picked up fifth-grader Jeffrey Curley and took the boy to the Boston Public Library where Jaynes accessed NAMBLA's website. Later, the men attempted to sexually assault Curley, but the boy fought back. Attempting to restrain him, Jaynes gagged the 10-year-old with a gasoline-soaked rag, eventually killing him. The men put Jeffrey's body in a tub with concrete and threw it in a river.

According to Curley family attorney Larry Frisoli, Jaynes kept a diary in which he wrote that he turned to NAMBLA's website in order to gain psychological comfort for what he was about to do. The killer had been stalking Curley prior to the boy's murder and possessed various materials from the clandestine group.

The ACLU argues that the newsletters and other NAMBLA materials in Jaynes' possession, which contain ''photographs of boys of various ages and nude drawings of boys,'' are protected speech under the Constitution. The material does not ''urge, promote, advocate or even condone torture, mutilation or murder,'' ACLU attorneys wrote. ''Examination of the materials that have been identified by the plaintiffs will show that they simply do not advocate violation of the law,'' the dismissal motion states. ''But even if that were the case, speech is not deprived of the protection of the First Amendment simply because it advocates an unlawful act."

Both killers are now serving life sentences. The family filed the lawsuit against NAMBLA and the Internet service provider that hosted its site, arguing their son might still be alive were it not for the group and its website.

But the ACLU believes NAMBLA is being unconstitutionally ''sued for their ideas.'' According to court documents from the ACLU, the case raises ''profoundly important questions under the First Amendment,'' because NAMBLA is not being sued for making any particular statements, but simply for creating an ''environment'' that encourages sexual abuse.

''What they don't like is what NAMBLA stands for,'' said John Reinstein, legal director of the Massachusetts chapter of the ACLU. ''They don't like their ideas or the notion that someone else would have accepted them,'' he told the Boston Globe.

The Curleys won a $328 million wrongful death case against their son's killers earlier this year, but since both men are penniless, Frisoli called it largely a moral victory. WND reported in July that Frisoli was preparing a class-action lawsuit against NAMBLA. If NAMBLA loses the class-action suit, individuals and parents of children who were involved in sexual relationships with members will be able to collect damages.

According to Frisoli, NAMBLA has anywhere from 300 to 1,300 members, depending on which time period is selected for the lawsuit, translating to thousands of children that would constitute the class in the suit.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I am sorry. I do not find the ACLU as a credible source. Any group that supports child molesting men and their right to exploit children does not get my vote.

How is whether you find them credible relevant? They aren't a source that's saying there's an outcry, they are outcrying themselves. As the most prominent group in terms of outcrying against Bush's rendition program, they seemed the obvious group to check whether there was "no outcry" against Obama.

As for the non-sequitur about NAMBLA, of course they defended the right to publish. That's Amendment 1.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

How is whether you find them credible relevant? They aren't a source that's saying there's an outcry, they are outcrying themselves. As the most prominent group in terms of outcrying against Bush's rendition program, they seemed the obvious group to check whether there was "no outcry" against Obama.

As for the non-sequitur about NAMBLA, of course they defended the right to publish. That's Amendment 1.

So you defend them defending child molesters? WOW!

[TGRR]

World Net Daily.

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

So you defend them defending child molesters? WOW!

I think he's defending the first amendment.

Why do you hate the first amendment?

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Wrong. Dress it up as you want it is still a pig.

ACLU defended this child molester's right to publish.

That isn't what you said earlier. You said they defended NAMBLA's "right" to fuck children. That is not what your link says.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

So you defend them defending child molesters? WOW!

I support them defending the right to publish. That's Amendment 1.

[TheMercenary]

You don't draw the line at the sexual exploitation of children? Strange how on the one hand we defend their actions to publish, via the ACLU, and throw them in jail for viewing it: http://cellar.org/showpost.php?p=533631&postcount=1

There is a line in every sandbox.

[Happy Monkey]

I don't support their right to publish nude photos of children. Neither does the ACLU.

[TheMercenary]

Anyone or any organization which supports their existance in any form supports their activities by proxy.

[Happy Monkey]

And that proxy is the Constitution and the rule of law.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

And that proxy is the Constitution and the rule of law.

Not according to the FBI and various State and Federal LEO.

http://www.missingkids.com/missingki...US&PageId=1476