This case (and other stories similar to it) so outraged prosecuting Colonel Vandeveld, a decorated American patriot, that he is now coordinating with the ACLU.

This story raises many questions. How well do most Americans really understand the degree of injustice perpetrated on innocent civilians in the name of the War On Terror? And at what point will all the bitter narrow-minded rightwingers out there realize that organizations such as the ACLU are necessary and patriotic in their fight to uphold the Constitution?

Damn straight, moder8! We need some organization willing to sue Boy Scouts for discriminating against pervs. How patriotic can they get? That really helps the cause become popular.

Diablo: If you just don't get it by now, there's really no point in even trying to explain it to you any more. Kind of sad actually.

I guess we will still be waiting Moder8.

Actually look at it this way.....

To the right the ACLU is evil and bad and should be disbanded right up until they need it.

Ask Rush. He knows that song and dance.

It never fails to amaze me. Post a humorous reply and see the humorless answering.
The point, moder8, is that while the ACLU sometimes does very good things, it also does boneheaded ones like suing the Boy Scouts. Now, if you want people on the side of helping labor, the poor and working families, does allying with radical positions like suing Boy Scouts on behalf of gays help the cause? Does defending Nazi marches through Jewish neighborhoods help?
I really don't think so and my side has lost too many elections because of this sort of nonsense distorting the image of Democrats.

it also does boneheaded ones like suing the Boy Scouts.

Why is it boneheaded?

Discrimination is discrimination. They defend everyone's rights including the people you find "icky".

It is boneheaded because it alienates voters from more important issues like the poor, labor and working families. It makes them vote for Bushes and Reagan.
And gays are not "icky" to me. I find them hilarious.

It is boneheaded because it alienates voters from more important issues

Actually people like you who frame issues as, "ACLU wants pervs teaching the Boy Scouts" whilst knowing the circumstances of the case are much different than the hyperbolic labels you apply, alienate voters.

Most people can ponder more than one issue at a time, but like you, they just don't care to.

Again, another person who loses sight of purpose and focuses on procedure because of his training makes a rush to judgment.

You are aware that in society there are deaths in construction accidents, there are deaths in traffic accidents, there are iatrogenic illnesses, and there are untoward occurrences in many activities. The functioning of society is not maintained without "collateral damage." This person, innocent or guilty, has fallen into the cracks that exist in the functioning of society. These imputations of innocence aside which I shall hypothetically accept for reasons of this discussion (but which are probably untrue), do not negate the fact that society must continue to function so that with all of its flaws, life goes on - and such situations occur. Is the boy innocent? It doesn't matter. It is not an outrage, it is an incident of the operation of the system.

With someone as intemperate as you moder8, you find provocations everywhere that would cause you to shut down the operation of society or compromise society's effectiveness to prevent harm to its members. You certainly are not moderate moder8, but have a great deal of animus and cannot abide ideas different from your own. You reply with expletives rather than dealing with the subject being discussed. The authoritarian mentality is the obverse side of the anti-establishment position which you have chosen. You're on the cusp, but don't realize it. Good luck. People such as you are needed to provide something to oppose.

I read the article and find no support for the conclusion that the accused is innocent. How that concept was introduced as conclusive is not explained. The "boy" was on the battlefield. Americans were killed by a grneade. The Afghans questioned him and he acknowledged throwing the grenade. What was he doing on the battlefield? Was he there to play a game of hopscotch? These convoluted dismissals of circumstantial evidence are beyond sanity. And the fact that "a lawyer," who is immersed in process was aggrieved by the military tribunal procedures is somehow converted in the minds of lefties as connoting "innocence?" What about the circumstantial evidence regarding his presence on the battlefield and with weapons? Er, ah, just a coincidence.

The story does not address the circumstances. No information is delineated is it? What a bunch of distorted misleading unadulterated crap. But what would you expect from a Bob Herbert. It is replete with negatives pregnant in a sense. Good grief.

#10 | Posted by r8rh8r at 2009-06-30 01:05 PM

Actually people like you who frame issues as, "ACLU wants pervs teaching the Boy Scouts" whilst knowing the circumstances of the case are much different than the hyperbolic labels you apply, alienate voters. (Bolding added.)

#11 | Posted by Johnson at 2009-06-30 01:12 PM

And if it was your child, you would feel the same way?

A 12 year old grabs a gun and shoots a man causing destruction to his family network...and how do we handle that within our societal laws?

Johnson has missed the mark by a long long ways but nothing is new, it seems he constantly doesn't think through his arguments.

Gays and boyscouts wasn't about gays, it was about equal rights but afraid the shallow posters can't seem to grasp what the ACLU is all about.

Want equal rights....have to accept good with the bad for that is the price of freedom.

It's no fun being a kid in Afganastan. People keep strapping you with suicide bomb belts and jamming a AK-47 in your hands and make you shoot people.

"Actually people like you who frame issues as, "ACLU wants pervs teaching the Boy Scouts" whilst knowing the circumstances of the case are much different than the hyperbolic labels you apply, alienate voters. "

When did I frame the issue that way? I never wrote those words as you pretend to quote me. Tell the truth. When did I write the words you put in quotes as if I had written them?
The Boy Scouts in my state while defending against this nut lawsuit provided compelling evidence that, to protect boys, they had rejected about 1,500 people from service who applied for scout leadership positions and had been identified as predators.
Now comes the obligatory "Oh, gay males are not all child predators" talking point. The fact is, this organization is a TARGET for predators, just like the YMCA and virtually every religious sect has learned. Any hint of a sexual problem is reason for them to reject applicants even if your milieu poo-poos it. THEY have to pay the settlement money, you don't. They have legitimate concerns beyond your talking points.
So again, antagonizing groups like Scout families in the name of avant garde weirdo issues steals votes from the Democrats, who are plain stupid for letting perverts pretend legitimacy.
Kids need protection. Some, not all, gay males like young stuff. Got it yet?
I want my party back. The Party that used to represent labor, working families and realistic civil rights.

These imputations of innocence aside which I shall hypothetically accept for reasons of this discussion (but which are probably untrue), do not negate the fact that society must continue to function so that with all of its flaws, life goes on - and such situations occur. Is the boy innocent? It doesn't matter. It is not an outrage, it is an incident of the operation of the system.

Why, Johnson, could you please pass the grey poupon?

You are one pseudo-intellectual blowhard fuck, Johnson. I don't think anyone on this blog says so much while saying so little.

jpw... on thing johnson has said and will always stick to him is that he supports ethnic cleansing.

that enough negates any reason to ever read what he says.

as far as this boy

it doesn't matter how guilty he might be or innocent

he was tortured.

torture is, and should be if it isnt, just as illegal as throwing a grenade at a soldier durring a wartime situation.

the kid is a P.O.W.

and should be treated with the rules set forth in regards to prisoners of war.