General Discussion

a2liberal

(1,524 posts)

70. You thought it was ok

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 08:05 PM

Jan 2012

the way his medical records were seized without the normal (contestable) subpoena process? Would you be ok with it if it was a Democratic host or politician? Or just because he's Rush Limbaugh he doesn't deserve privacy rights? Keep in mind that the ACLU is not a part of the Democratic Party...

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

108 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

He signed it. We�ll fight it. {ACLU} [View all] xchrom Jan 2012 OP

The same ACLU who applauded the Citizens United decision as a big win for free speech. TheWraith Jan 2012 #1

Yeah! The ACLU are the Bad Guys! bvar22 Jan 2012 #2

The ACLU, Greenwald, Taibbi, Olbermann....they're all eeeeevill!!!!111!!! Cali_Democrat Jan 2012 #3

No, you're on confused Libertarian Underground. frazzled Jan 2012 #8

Because only LIBERTARIANS care about social justice, right? EFerrari Jan 2012 #15

+1 Fearless Jan 2012 #93

Ditto! Wind Dancer Jan 2012 #45

Yeah! And if I vote for Obama in a state he has no chance of winning RiffRandell Jan 2012 #12

Today's enemy is the ACLU? n/t myrna minx Jan 2012 #6

Someone disagreeing with their position on something Dewey Finn Jan 2012 #18

It works upthread where they are smeared by association EFerrari Jan 2012 #20

No, it doesn't help anything. Dewey Finn Jan 2012 #26

No quarter is given for a difference of opinion. AtomicKitten Jan 2012 #41

You thought it was ok a2liberal Jan 2012 #70

A search warrant WAS obtained to seize his records. AtomicKitten Jan 2012 #74

Ok but a2liberal Jan 2012 #97

Seems no room for nuance with some, or complex views arely staircase Jan 2012 #83

Wrong. I showed you clearly exactly what you asked for. EFerrari Jan 2012 #63

I don't accept it Dewey Finn Jan 2012 #65

Today's show is brought to you by the letters A, C, L and U. EFerrari Jan 2012 #19

And here you're just reinforcing Dewey Finn Jan 2012 #29

And here you are missing the humor of my post EFerrari Jan 2012 #64

So "humor" Dewey Finn Jan 2012 #67

Heck, I think Obama will even tout this as a way for a repeal of some of it. FarLeftFist Jan 2012 #16

You know what we'll get then? treestar Jan 2012 #79

So you are against the "far left" and support indefinite detention? rhett o rick Jan 2012 #94

For the case to wind its way through the courts treestar Jan 2012 #103

"The far left is not for the rule of law - but for the rule of the far left. " Where do you come up rhett o rick Jan 2012 #104

If you have a problem with the ACLU DisgustipatedinCA Jan 2012 #35

You've been wrong before. RUMMYisFROSTED Jan 2012 #39

Are you clueless why they supported it? Read more. React less. Logical Jan 2012 #75

Well, they'll have to find a case of such detention occurring in order to challenge it frazzled Jan 2012 #4

The problem is that we just may never know who is being held or not Marrah_G Jan 2012 #9

All in the name of American freedom and democracy sad sally Jan 2012 #106

LOL sign the pledge. jaxx Jan 2012 #5

They say nothing about congress passing it tho. Nt DevonRex Jan 2012 #7

Which single member of Congress.. 99Forever Jan 2012 #11

They ran a whole campaign for people to contact Congress EFerrari Jan 2012 #21

Good to know. Nt DevonRex Jan 2012 #23

Yes ProSense Jan 2012 #28

Some of our Congress members listened suffragette Jan 2012 #32

Yes. When President Obama promised to VETO the bill, bvar22 Jan 2012 #84

Pres Obama signed it instead of sending it back. Now some hope that Congress will fix it. rhett o rick Jan 2012 #96

yes, they certainly did. nt arely staircase Jan 2012 #85

Oh, what does the ACLU know, anyway? gratuitous Jan 2012 #10

What would those libertarian repub Congress lovers know, anyway? EFerrari Jan 2012 #13

They ProSense Jan 2012 #14

You are right. The U.S. is not part of the world. Luminous Animal Jan 2012 #27

My bad ProSense Jan 2012 #31

Section 1021 obtains its scope from the 2001 AUMF. AtheistCrusader Jan 2012 #60

Wow, you never disappoint. Logical Jan 2012 #76

It doesn't contain a sweeping new anything treestar Jan 2012 #80

Whose side do you align with on this issue? The "far left" supports the rhett o rick Jan 2012 #95

I support the Constitution treestar Jan 2012 #102

Do you believe the president should be able to arrest and detain Amerian rhett o rick Jan 2012 #105

Do you think the courts would rule in favor of that? treestar Jan 2012 #107

The years it takes to get thru the courts are very damaging to the individual rhett o rick Jan 2012 #108

I hope the ACLU DOES take the specific Section of the bill all the way to... Spazito Jan 2012 #17

And now that Obama signed it despite his promise to veto, so is he. nt EFerrari Jan 2012 #22

No, he is not... Spazito Jan 2012 #30

Yes, he is responsible. theaocp Jan 2012 #36

So it is not the substance of the bill that is the issue... Spazito Jan 2012 #37

Obama should still have vetoed the bill....like he said he would... truebrit71 Jan 2012 #40

Again, nothing but a 'pretty photo-op' which would change nothing... Spazito Jan 2012 #42

I think you are wrong. If he had used his bully pulpit to stand up for civil liberties, knowing... truebrit71 Jan 2012 #43

He did and does use the bully pulpit to stand up for civil liberties... Spazito Jan 2012 #50

So you're saying that a veto is pointless a2liberal Jan 2012 #71

You just have to look at the numbers... Spazito Jan 2012 #86

Obama's threat - NOT promise- to veto had nothing to do with civil liberties. plantwomyn Jan 2012 #98

LOL.. I'd love to see a judge's reaction when someone says in court.... Xicano Jan 2012 #57

wow, using nazi prosecutions as your example... Spazito Jan 2012 #61

Go ahead and go to court and say your signature on a document doesn't make you responsible for.... Xicano Jan 2012 #69

Here is how the U.S. system works.... Spazito Jan 2012 #73

Thanks! Bookmarking. proverbialwisdom Jan 2012 #90

He signed it. That was him, his signature on the document. EFerrari Jan 2012 #62

Okay n/t Spazito Jan 2012 #66

so what if it has to go back to congress if he vetoed it newspeak Jan 2012 #101

It was changed before he signed it. treestar Jan 2012 #82

du rec nt. cthulu2016 Jan 2012 #24

K&R Solly Mack Jan 2012 #25

K&R suffragette Jan 2012 #33

Thank god for the ACLU quinnox Jan 2012 #34

The bus is emptying out...everyone's under it Dreamer Tatum Jan 2012 #38

Although I don't always agree with them, I'm most thankful for the ACLU. Uncle Joe Jan 2012 #44

K&R Wind Dancer Jan 2012 #46

Coming soon to DU3, an onslaught of SPAM posts about the bad, bad ACLU Catherina Jan 2012 #47

New #OWS chant. SammyWinstonJack Jan 2012 #48

Murdoch? Really? WTF. proverbialwisdom Jan 2012 #87

Good. The ACLU can take it to the courts. K&R MineralMan Jan 2012 #49

It would be nice if they didn't ignore the role congress played in this. nt killbotfactory Jan 2012 #51

Congress could take a long walk off a short pier, if theaocp Jan 2012 #54

they had enough support for this bill to override a veto. nt killbotfactory Jan 2012 #55

So? theaocp Jan 2012 #56

Now even the ACLU is immune from attacks on Democratic Underground! What's next? Better Believe It Jan 2012 #52

You probably meant "not immune." But I applaud this move. Robb Jan 2012 #53

You're right. That's what I meant. Better Believe It Jan 2012 #88

No group is immune from being wrong at times. nt killbotfactory Jan 2012 #58

Good point! Of course the ACLU is wrong for defending the Constitution and our democratic rights! Better Believe It Jan 2012 #91

Er, why should they be? treestar Jan 2012 #81

Woot! quinn-the-innuit Jan 2012 #59

K&R I stand with the ACLU (n/t) a2liberal Jan 2012 #68

k&r jannyk Jan 2012 #72

I still like the ACLU. nt BlueIris Jan 2012 #77

Fine, that is a good thing treestar Jan 2012 #78

fight it! independentLiberal Jan 2012 #89

On Detainee Law: A Word, but Not the Last, From Obama............... Historic NY Jan 2012 #92

the ACLU disagrees with the President?? Treason! piratefish08 Jan 2012 #99

Just donated to the ACLU again _ed_ Jan 2012 #100