The Wide Awakes » ACLU and the Wive’s of Terrorists

1/29/2006

U.S. forces in at least two cases have detained wives of suspected insurgents in Iraq in an attempt to pressure the men into surrendering, documents obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union confirm.

“This is not an acceptable tactic,” ACLU lawyer Amrit Singh said Friday.

In one instance, members of a military task force seized a mother of three young children “in order to leverage” her husband’s surrender, according to an account by a civilian Defense Intelligence Agency officer.

In the other, an e-mail exchange includes a U.S. military officer asking, “Have you tacked a note on the door and challenged him to come get his wife?”

Paul Boyce, an Army spokesman at the Pentagon, said: “It’s very hard, obviously, from some of these documents to determine what, if anything, actually happened….

“When you see an individual e-mail note, it’s oftentimes very confusing to figure out how that particular case fits into an overall, larger puzzle.”

In Baghdad, Lt. Col. Barry Johnson said that only Iraqis who pose an “imperative threat” are held in long-term U.S.-run detention facilities.

The documents are among hundreds the Pentagon has released periodically under court order to meet an ACLU request under the Freedom of Information Act.

Now I will never claim that I am an expert on the legalities on this subject. But I do know that we are engaged in a new kind of war. Traditional thinking needs to be tossed out of the window and we should be concentrating on prosecuting this war to a successful conclusion.

If I am not mistaken, the ACLU is the organization which wants the US to have policies which are reactive and not proactive. We should treat attacks on our nation as criminal acts not warfare. Well using this type of thinking, if we were looking for murderers, wouldn’t we question at length the family and friends of the suspected murderers? Wouldn’t we monitor phone calls originating from the home as well as those coming in? Wouldn’t we follow family members and friends to see who they are having contact with? Wouldn’t we then follow up by following those people as well? If need be wouldn’t we also detain a family member of someone we suspected in a crime who may not be a willing participant? Wouldn’t we put these family members in protective custody?

The ACLU is opposed to the United States protecting itself. Why? Because they are at the heart of the movement of globalization. A world dominated and ruled by lawyers. Having international courts deciding everything from how to heat a home in Krakow Poland to controlling smog in Los Angeles California.

The American Civil Liberties Union wishes to remove any programs designed to protect the national identity of the United States. The ACLU wishes to destroy the United States as we know it. They want a single world government where all peoples are guaranteed a home, work, food, and all the other basic necessities of life. They envision a world where no religion exist. Because religion is an obstacle to world wide Communism.

Here is the complete truth people. Now pay attention, you may be quizzed on it later. We are at war. In war people die. In war bad things happen to good people. In war property gets destroyed. In war actions must be implemented which would never be permitted unless we were at war. So it is time for these snot nosed fantasy land liberals to get their heads out of their proverbial rumps and start thinking about the people who need to be protected. That would be the people of the United States. The people who were brutally attacked without warning.

We are engaged with an enemy who has no problem with killing their own people. They kill women and children because it is easy for them. They kill women and children who have no dog in the fight because they know lining up opposite us on an open battlefield would result in their deaths.

They started this fight. They flew 3 airplanes into 3 buildings killing over 3,000 innocent, non-combatants. So if we ruffle a few feathers by holding a couple of wives of insurgents for questioning in an attempt to locate their terrorist husbands, I don’t rightly care.

On an off remark, it makes me wonder if ABC’s Bob Woodruff used this technique to capture the ones that blew him up today. The one incident of an email hold no evidential water, and the other incident, the woman was released after two days. I’m not understanding what the ACLU’s problem is. Even if we would have imprisoned the wives of the insurgents permanently, what would be the problem? If you are aiding and abetting a terrorist, it doesn’t matter what sex you are, or how many children you have.

I see how the left spin it now. We have one incident of a woman being questioned for two days and released, absolutely no evidence of abuse, and one email, again providing no evidence, and the left and even a few who claim conservatism jump onto the Geneva Conventions violations.

Said Jay777 @ 8:26 pm | Permalink

2 Comments »

Hmmmm, most of this looks awful familiar… I wonder why?

Comment by Gribbit — 1/30/2006 @ 2:14 am

“But I do know that we are engaged in a new kind of war”.

“Traditional thinking needs to be tossed out of the window”

“We can’t be bothered with little things like civil and human rights, it’s war!”

OK, the last one was mine.

Perpetual war is a great excuse for anything. You may, however, recall this memorable exchange:

Wife Arrest him!
More For what?
Wife He’s dangerous!
Roper For all we know he’s a spy!
Daughter Father, that man’s bad!
More There’s no law against that!
Roper There is, God’s law!
More Then let God arrest him!
Wife While you talk he’s gone!
More And go he should, if he were the Devil himself, until he broke the law!
Roper So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
More Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
More Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat?

This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down (and you’re just the man to do it!), do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?

Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!

Comment by grumpy old fart — 1/30/2006 @ 9:55 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

M	T	W	T	F	S	S
« Dec				Feb »
						1
2	3	4	5	6	7	8
9	10	11	12	13	14	15
16	17	18	19	20	21	22
23	24	25	26	27	28	29
30	31