Obama admin retains Bush position on rendition secrets

[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]

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?

[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 can't dispute the facts....

NAMBLA states that they are on an important, historic mission. They state that their mission is simple. Abolition of age of consent laws that classify sex with children as rape. NAMBLA is the North American Man/Boy Love Association.

Charles Jaynes, 25, reportedly viewed the group’s web site shortly before the killing of Jeffrey Curley, a 10 year old boy, slain in 1997. Jaynes also had in his possession some of NAMBLA’s publications. Also convicted in the killing was 24 year old Salvatore Sicari. Sicari, convicted of first degree murder, is serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole. Jaynes’ second degree murder and kidnapping convictions enable him to seek parole within the next 20 years. Was this a case of misunderstanding? Does this fit with NAMBLA’s philosophy of man/boy love that is non violent? Hardly. Prosecutors said Jaynes and Sicari were sexually obsessed with the boy, lured him from his Cambridge neighborhood with the promise of a new bike, and then smothered him with a gasoline soaked rag when he resisted their sexual advances. They then stuffed him into a concrete filled container and dumped it into a Maine river. Non violent? No. Loving? No.

The ACLU is a supporter of NAMBLA, representing the organization in the civil case related to the aforementioned murder. The ACLU is representing NAMBLA PRO BONO. Their official position: “In representing NAMBLA, the ACLU does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children. What we do advocate is robust freedom of speech. This lawsuit strikes at the heart of freedom of speech. The defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive.” I am repulsed. Repulsed by the idea that my children may not be able to say “…one Nation, under God” in school some future day .. thanks to the ACLU .. but this disgusting, vile organization is supported due to freedom of speech?

In February 2005, the FBI arrested three NAMBLA members at Harbor Island as they waited for a boat that undercover agents told them would sail to Ensenada for a sex retreat over Valentine’s Day with boys as young as 9. The FBI also arrested four additional NAMBLA members in a Los Angeles marina where they also planned to set sail to the same bogus retreat. These men are a cross section of people you and I might interact with regularly: a dentist, a special education teacher, a substitute teacher, a handyman, a flight attendant who is also a psychologist, a paper company employee and a personal trainer. How horrific to know that a number of these men had daily interactions with children! As noted in court papers, most of these men told the undercover agent they had been sexually involved with children historically, including boys they met on the Internet and others. Looking more closely at these men, at least one of the men is a member of NAMBLA’s national leadership, a second organized their national convention in 2004 and a third has been a NAMBLA member since the 1980s. Thank God these criminals have been discovered so no more boys are harmed.

So what of Charles Jaynes? The Boston Herald reports that Jaynes is now battling efforts by his victim’s mother to uncover whether NAMBLA is bankrolling Jaynes’ prison canteen. There were court affidavits from two inmates claiming Jaynes engages in sex acts in the prison without discipline, shows off his victim’s autopsy and has a fat canteen account courtesy of NAMBLA. While one of these inmates has now recanted their story, questions are still present about what NAMBLA is doing for Jaynes while he is in prison. I won’t link to NAMBLA’s disgusting site, but they do have a Prisoner Program for those convicted of pedophilia. The program on their website clearly states that they do not financially support prisoners, but provides instruction on what type of information should be sent to these criminals. Here’s what NAMBLA says about those incarcerated for, what they believe, are unfounded criminal acts: “Incarceration is a terrible thing. For a boy lover ground into the criminal justice system, it is an especially harrowing fate.” What about the fate of that 10 year old boy whose lifeless body was stuffed into a container and tossed away into the river?

http://www.stoptheaclu.com/archives/...-made-in-hell/

[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.

[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.

[TGRR]

World Net Daily.

[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.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by 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.

OK, so why is you don't have a problem applying the first ammendment differently to some people, but when it comes to the second ammemdment, it is sacrosanct for eveyone? Hipocrisy rears its ugly head...

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

OK, so why is you don't have a problem applying the first ammendment differently to some people, but when it comes to the second ammemdment, it is sacrosanct for eveyone? Hipocrisy rears its ugly head...

Nope. The Second Amendment only applies to legal US citizens who follow the law as currently written. If you use your right as an excuse to violate other peoples right you just may lose it. Another purpose of government.

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Nope. The Second Amendment only applies to legal US citizens who follow the law as currently written. If you use your right as an excuse to violate other peoples right you just may lose it. Another purpose of government.

So what part of what the UCLA defended violated the law?

[Griff]

?