Waterboarding....torture?

[dapoes]

If someone is being prosecuted the ACLU is going to step in. That is their function. With Ms America, she was not being prosecuted, merely picked on. There were not civil or constitutional rights at stake for the ACLU to be concerned with.

Go learn what "friend-of-the-court brief" or "on behalf" means in relation to legal proceedings before citing things you know absolutely nothing about.

 

[dapoes]

You berated Garfield in reference to the ACLU acting when there were no lawsuits. Then you posted that statement above saying he has no understanding of the terms " friend-of-the-court brief" or "on behalf"...

Hey genius, a friend of the court brief is a legal document filed in support of an existing case. If they filed those, there had to be case to support. :eye:

I sure hope you are pretty.

Nope you are wrong once again. "Friend-of-the-court brief" literally, friend of the court. A person with strong interest in or views on the subject matter of an action, but not a party to the action, may petition the court for permission to file a brief, ostensibly on behalf of a party but actually to suggest a rationale consistent with its own views.

 

[tech2101]

Nope you are wrong once again. "Friend-of-the-court brief" literally, friend of the court. A person with strong interest in or views on the subject matter of an action, but not a party to the action, may petition the court for permission to file a brief, ostensibly on behalf of a party but actually to suggest a rationale consistent with its own views.

Do you know what an "action" is?

 

[Freedom4all]

The Brandenburg decision is the definitive ruling on free spech at this moment. I provided the salient points along with the history.

So now you attack Garfield. The ACLU filed an Amicus brief, just as you yourself could as a citizen of the United States. Instead of actually taking the time to express your views where they would have impact, you choose to attack posters on an internet blog.

Why does it bother you so that some people take the time and expense to defend their Liberty in a lawful manner? Everyone has right conferred on them not by the USC but rather by God Himself.

How can defending an organization like NAMBLA make any sense whatsoever? Whats next, defending people who like farm animals? :huh:

 

[dapoes]

Do you know what an "action" is?

Go read his examples, there were no court actions except maybe for one, prior to the ACLU sticking their nose in.

Ask him why he didn't include the ACLU defense for NAMBLA baby rapers as an example.

 

[tech2101]

How can defending an organization like NAMBLA make any sense whatsoever? Whats next, defending people who like farm animals? :huh:

I would defend your right to speak out as you have here.

It is quite obvious you would not defend those with whom you disagree.

 

[Garfield1966]

Dap,

Did you even even read the last paragraph of your post? So exactly what laws dd NAMBLA break that the DA's missed and you discovered?

Can't connect the dot's? Would you like to revisit the 401k discussion or various others that you have screwed the pooch on? Please, you have a hard tome connecting 1 dot, much less numerous dots.

 

[tech2101]

Go read his examples, there were no court actions except maybe for one, prior to the ACLU sticking their nose in.

Ask him why he didn't include the ACLU defense for NAMBLA baby rapers as an example.

Nice try. Now answer the question.

Never mind. Just put away the shovel. You have dug a deep enough hole.

Good night.

 

[dapoes]

Dap,

Did you even even read the last paragraph of your post? So exactly what laws dd NAMBLA break that the DA's missed and you discovered?

Can't connect the dot's? Would you like to revisit the 401k discussion or various others that you have screwed the pooch on? Please, you have a hard tome connecting 1 dot, much less numerous dots.

Feel free to take comfort in defending those who should have no defense.

 

[Freedom4all]

Feel free to take comfort in defending those who should have no defense.

Those who's intent is to harm our youth, should not be defended via organizations that further their cause.

 

[dapoes]

Those who's intent is to harm our youth, should not be defended via organizations that further their cause.

Nope, but then again, people shouldn't take pity on terrorists hell bent to destroy them either.

But they still do. :huh:

 

[Garfield1966]

Your lack of understanding about US law is truly dumbfounding.

 

[dapoes]

Your lack of understanding about US law is truly dumbfounding.

Why is that? Because I choose not take comfort in an institution (ACLU) that defends baby rapers? :huh:

 

[Garfield1966]

Why is that? Because I choose not take comfort in an institution (ACLU) that defends baby rapers? :huh:

No, because you are angry at the food sever about the quality of the food instead of the chef.

 

[Garfield1966]

Try this. Try writing a law that prohibits the rights of one group but allows the rights of others that still abides buy the 14th amendment.