Well, if you're too lazy to read, I can't help you out. I read or glanced over 4 or 5 of their supporting legal documents and press releases. This is the one that impressed me the most. But if you want to call the game on account of rain, that's fine by me. I have a legal matter myself that's coming up in the morning that I need to prepare for, anyhow. :p

Several of the documents ( just picked a few at random) mention hundreds of detainees in New Jersey alone.

Troublesome, but unrelated; they were detained before the Patriot Act was even passed.

In fact one could make an argument that the Patriot Act relieves the conditions that might require such broad brush behavior by the authorities.

Another swing perhaps?

OK, here's the exact page that gave the 3,000 - 5,000 number. Sorry that I didn't point you directly to it before. There's a lot of stuff on that site and I'm pretty tired at the moment. Now I really AM going to go do my own legal preparations. :dead:

Yes.

The few shreds of credibility they retained fluttered away in the wind generated by their defense of the child molesters.

They defended child molesters?!? Really? What was THAT all about? YUCK! I can't believe the ACLU would do that. Tell me more about the case. :worried:

Look at those names.......they must be guilty. :lol:

They defend rights. Other parts of society are most likely to let rights slide in the case of scum like child molesters, but if you let them slide in one place, that becomes precedent.

When the ACLU takes a case, it's not about the individual, but the point of law.

They defend rights. Other parts of society are most likely to let rights slide in the case of scum like child molesters, but if you let them slide in one place, that becomes our President. ;)

That too...

They certainly defend rights in general, but no one has the right to harm a child. Details, please. :eyebrow:

The story.

ACLU's statement where they say "defending child molesters doesn't mean we support child molesting."

Hmmmm... Yeah, so they are not actually defending child molester's per se. I think they bring up a very good point in their statement about each individual being accountable for his own actions. A person can't push responsibility off on Hostess Cup-cakes or the deranged writings of someone else and say "the devil made me do it."

I have a difficult time with the legitimacy of child porn in writing or pictures, however I do understand the slippery slope problem. Its not an easy question, but the ACLU was not defending people's right to molest children, Wolf.

Which is so obvious, it shouldn't need to be repeated for every case they take. But the fact that it shouldn't need to be repeated doesn't mean it doesn't need to be repeated.

Someone does X.
The government does Y, in response to X.

If the ACLU believes that Y is wrong, they take the case. X is irrelevant.

:lol: :lol: :lol: