The ACLU in all of their glory

Thank God for the Religious Reich!

I keep on hearing about scandals in the government for which the ACLU levies a lawsuit. Things like Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, illegal wiretaps, that kind of thing. And people are usually pretty divided on whether the ACLU should be given a medal or be disbarred for their work. But lately it's been the worst, because they're being accused of giving "aid and comfort to the enemy" in the War on Terror by many on the right side of the aisle in an effort to silence them.

Don’t people realize that we need organizations like the ACLU? They serve as a watchdog agency to the government, trying to make sure that they don’t get out of hand. Sure, a lot of their crusades are asinine, but that’s just the nature of the beast. When people aren’t allowed to speak out against their government without fear of reproach or censure, society totters on the verge of fascism.

If what the government did was reprehensible and the ACLU is calling them on it, then let’s all agree that what the government did was reprehensible rather than make an issue out of the ACLU. Let’s stay on the topic–the actions of the government. Let’s ask the questions, (1) are the allegations true, and if so, (2) are the actions acceptable. Who cares if it was the ACLU or the Heritage Foundation who brought them to light?

The ACLU is not unpatriotic. Mark Twain (a fine, upstanding American by anyone’s reckoning) defined patriotism as something to the effect of “supporting your country always and supporting your government when they deserve it”. Groups such as the ACLU don’t scrutinize the policies of the American government because they hate America–far from it! They scrutinize the policies of the American government because they LOVE America! Alexander Hamilton (I think) said that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance, and watchdog groups believe this whole heartedly. The reason they are so up the American government’s collective arse and not doing the same thing to the governments of other, more atrocious regimes is because the governments of those other countries don’t represent THEM! They don’t care nearly as much about what is going on in Egypt or China or Germany because they’re American.

I roll my eyes every time the ACLU takes some idiot’s case who stuck his arm in a wood chipper and is now suing the company because he thinks that it’s because of racism. But the next time I hear about the ACLU defending some poor black guy who is pleading innocent for raping a white heiress and, while running from the police, shooting a cop in front of a dozen witnesses before being arrested on the scene, I’ll thank god for the ACLU. Not because I think that the guy should walk. (hopefully, the dozen witnesses and DNA evidence will make sure he rots for the rest of his life) But because there are still people out there who will represent anyone, and not for the money, but because they believe that everyone’s constitutionally protected freedoms and liberties are worth defending.

Here’s a bit right from their web site:

“The ACLU frequently defends the rights of free religious expression for all people. In Michigan, high school officials agreed to stop censoring religious yearbook entries after the ACLU intervened on behalf of a Christian student. In other states, the ACLU has supported the rights of students to distribute Christian literature at school. Recently, the ACLU of Indiana defended the First Amendment rights of a Baptist minister to preach his message on public streets.”

A critic of the ACLU named Mason, in an article that I can't seem to locate, said that “The ACLU are a bunch of sick people who fight for anything that’s anti-American, anything that’s dirty or vulgar, and they hate anything that’s respectable or decent.”

What doesn’t match up there?

Maureen Dowd

You know that you've made the big time when your 'blog is referenced so blatantly by a nationally syndicated op-ed columnist that it becomes the title of her piece. Maureen Dowd, in Truthout today, has an article appropriately titled W.'s Head in the Sand. Now, I know that I'm becoming influential here in the "blogosphere", and I know that some people are starting to take my opinions as gospel truth, but please, Ms. Dowd, although I appreciate the adoration, it's a bit much. I mean, as wonderful as it is that you admire and esteem me so highly, to name an article after my blog (to say nothing of the fruit baskets or flowers I keep getting from a certain "M.D.") seems a little bit--oh, how do I say this so as not to offend--"pandering to the powers that be", don't you think?

Sure, I know that there are those of you out there questioning whether or not this is really a nod up the food chain to yours truly, but lets look at a couple of quotes:

This week, the president presented a plan-like plan for "victory" in Iraq, which Scott McClellan rather pompously called the unclassified version of their super secret master plan. But there's no way to achieve victory from the plan even if there were a real plan. If this is what they're telling themselves in the Sit Room, we're in bigger trouble than we thought.

Could it be any more obvious? For quite some time now I have been pointing out the problems in the Bush administration that comes from their lack of a coherent vision of our policy in Iraq. And have I or have I not been saying that we're in bigger trouble than we thought? That's what I thought.

Or how about this gem of adoration that Miss Dowd tosses out so cavalierly:

The administration must realize it needs a real exit strategy... [c]urling up in a ball. Good National Strategy for Victory.

Haven't I been practically screaming that the administration needs a real exit strategy? And haven't I been making a case that the administration itself realizes it? And the entire "curling up in a ball" reference--doesn't that sound like just about every post I've had on the administration's response to every setback in Iraq?

Or how about this:

o...h... [Mr.] G...l...e...a...s...o...n... y...o...u...r... b...o...d...y... is... so... h...o...t... [I]... w...a...n...t... to take... y...o...u...r... l...u...s...t...y... l...o...i...n...s... and g...r...i...n...d... them... against... m...y...

and she goes on and on like this. I think that the message is clear, Miss Dowd, and I think that all of America is reading it, loud and clear. You ask the question, in your new book, "Are Men Necessary?" Well, Miss Dowd, when it comes to one man, I think we all know where your heart really lies.

Pace vs. Rummy

For those of you who have been living under a rock lately, there was an interesting little exchange between General Peter Pace (the Hero of this little story) and Donald Rumsfeld (the Comic Foil of the exchange). In a live press conference in which both Pace and Rummy were answering questions, Pace said that soldiers have a responsibility to stop abuse and torture when they see it happen, to which Rumsfeld replied that they didn't have the responsibility to stop it, but they did have the responsibility to report it.

Pace corrected our Right Honourable Secretary (as they would say in the British Parliament), reinforcing the message that yes, oh honorable soldier, you DO have a responsibility to attempt to stop it if possible. It's kind of--oh, what's the word--the law.

So what do we make of this exchange? Is there a schism in the ranks? Pace didn't get to where he is by standing up to Rummy, but now that he's where he is, he sure is making a name for himself with this one little exchange. But I don't think that it means Pace is going to break ranks and support Billary's 2008 presidential bid.

I have a lot of sympathy for Pace in the same way that I have a lot of sympathy for Powell. (Does anyone remember that name, or is it too much a blast from the past?) He's in a situation in which he has to play the political bullshit games, and he's being called upon to support the orders that come down from the top. He's about as good and honest a military leader as one can hope for (in my limited estimation), and he's doing his job to the best of his ability.

One thing he's NOT doing, however, is countermanding the law to which he is beholden. Military personell have a legal obligation to STOP if possible and REPORT absolutely any abuse or torture that they witness. When Rummy said that they didn't have the responsibility to stop abuse or torture, Pace corrected him, not because he wasn't toeing the party line, but because it was the truth about the law, and he wasn't going to go on record as having lied or misled anyone about it. He's no idiot.

Let's face it: our average soldier or marine is not exactly the sharpest cookie in the box. (and yes, that was intentional) They tend to be well trained in their MOS, and they rely on others who are well trained in their own to give them directions on how to do things that aren't directly related to what they do. When they hear an ex-culpa from the Secretary of Defense saying that they aren't accountable to take action that the LAW SAYS that they must, they are being misled. More importantly, they are being misled about taking an action that could land them in military prison with a dishonorable discharge. If Rumsfeld wants to confuse the average soldier or marine by publically making the claim that it's a big grey area, rather than stating unequivocably that they have a moral, legal, and ethical responsibility to move heaven and earth to stop violations of international law, he's doing his soldiers, OUR soldiers, a disservice.

Pace didn't let that happen.