A C L U likes
Making bush look terrible
But not pervsion

excuse the haiku but ace started it

The A C L U
is filled with socialist crap
and see pervs as pure

The devil made me do it! And do it badly!

ACLU = All Criminals Love Us

To be fair, we should also show the pictures from when Saddam ran the prison. I would be in favor of that. Compare and decide from all the pictures.

Releasing the pictures will result in far more deaths.

A result the ACLU seems really happy with.

Thanks Ace.

Appreciate it so much, I got dragged away from the puter all day to shop for Halloween.

I can get you Halloween at wholesale.

Really? Is there a Wholesale near me?

The pimping on this is taking on the odor of a 5-day old fish. We've ventured WAY beyond "news" now.

Arrrghh - Bush's approval is up 5 points. Quick, we'd better trot out another round of AG to tamp that down before it gets out of control. Getting another 20-30 troops, and probably a couple hundred Iraqis, killed is well worth the human cost.

So what is the wholesale rate on paying someone to scream..... Get a job and buy your own damn candy!

ACLfuckU
Support our whores, screw our troops?
Die ACLU

Yea, die and buy your own damn candy at retail, you lousy ACLU fuckers!

So what is the wholesale rate on paying someone to scream.....

If its someone I lothe, I'll stick an ice pick in their ass for free. That usually generates a good healthy scream.

I've wondered before why the further humiliation of the Abu Ghraib prisoners themselves is of no concern to the media outlets that publish their photos. I would imagine that anyone mistreated in a humiliating way would want the mistreatment to end and the perpetrators to be punished, and maybe would like it publicized that there had been mistreatment, but would not want photos of himself being humiliated to be widely seen. In an honor-shame culture, such publicized humiliation could have serious consequences. Now, the ACLU makes it clear that they think about the humiliation that publishing photos would cause to American johns, but they express no concern about the humiliation that their actions would cause Iraqis. Why is that?

Hey great blog! I see you also do a radio show - here's one you'll really like! Check out the podcast - it's the full show you can listen to!

http://therightperspectivepodcastblog.blogspot.com

Maybe I'm mistaken, but isn't the point of putting someone in prison to punish them? Part of that punishment would logically include at least some humiliation. The MSM doesn't think so, at least not for terrorists.

I think I can provide some clarity here. Just bear with me...

The Delaware Pros and Johns that the ACLU are fighting for= Americans.

The people depicted being humiliated in the Abu Ghraib photos = brown-skinned third world types.

Ergo, ACLU = teh racists!!1!

I'm no fan of the ACLU, but come on guys. The ACLU is attempting to defend people's "civil liberties" here. That is to say, it seems reasonable to assume that the prostitutes don't want their photos released, but the terrorists (ahem, I mean, detainees) do want their photos released. There is no hypocrisy here. I'm not saying that I think the ACLU is right about the photos of the terrorists (d'oh, there I go again, detainees). But there is nothing hypocritical about this.

In fact, the ACLU is being remarkably consistent in their opposition to both the release of prostitute photos AND the public notification provisions of Megan's Law.

Like I said, I'm no big fan of the ACLU, but there's no paradox here.

Time H. is right in one respect. If it is something that will a) hurt the US effort or b) abet criminal activity (which also hurts the US) the ACLU is for it. Just think of a position on any issue. Will it promote or impede the US civilization? If it impedes then the ACLU will support it. A long time ago they used to do good work. But that was a long time ago.

ACLU Sues City of New Orleans for Failure to Provide Wheelchair Access to Looters

but the terrorists (ahem, I mean, detainees) do want their photos released.

The ACLU should obtain legal releases from these "images and likenesses" and offer the subjects payment for same if they're to be presented in public.

These people aren't "public figures" and still retain any rights of privacy.

Just one small point that should be borne in mind: the prisoners who were mistreated by Lyndie England and her playmates were not arrested for terrorist activities: they were common criminals. There was no question of "making them talk" or anything like that; the guards were just out to have some vicious fun and nothing more.

The ACLU's point is obvious, of course: if it weakens the war effort and endangers Americans lives abroad, they're all for it, rights be damned.

Another haiku for the ACLU:

Stalinist Civ Libs
Jail all Trotsky's followers:
"Free speech" means "our script."

*E.g., Radical Son by David Horowitz. Elaborations on demand.

I'm impressed with your article. I'm looking forward to your next blog.

New
Castle County Prossie Pix

I'm guessing they got to John B. Sorowice after he'd successfully concluded his transaction.

Give me your poor, your hungry, your criminals. ACLU will protect them no matter what the cost