![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
weswilsonSo there was this lame cartoon in the political cartoons community and it started a debate about the ACLU. The right wingers tend to paint the ACLU as some super-liberal organization with a desire to make NAMBLA the goal of society... and that kind of generalization disturbs me. Here's a couple of comments I made in the discussion, and I'd like some feedback.
Note: These are replies to individual comments, and are not a continuous thread...
I think this little interaction demonstrates why some of the arguments that you present sit a little off with me.
It would be great if life were simple enough to say, "We can't let child rapists go free!" and then do everything in our power to prevent it. The problem is that absolutist philosphies about decisive action often overlap. We also have philosophies that say, "Innocent people shouldn't have their privacy invaded by the goverment!", "Innocent until proven guilty!", and "Everyone deserves a fair trial!" With all these absolutist elements in place, the blacks and whites interfere with one another and form areas of grey... and it is the job of our legal system to interpret these grey areas... not demand the blacks and whites.
I agree that sometimes these grey areas interfere in a manner that makes a particular black areas too white. I agree that sometimes this whited-out black ends up escaping justice. But this is part of the trouble with inventing a JUST society... and whenever you create something new, you're going to end up with a garbage can full of failed attempts. I'm sure you'll call me some kind of hippie idealist, but it's inherant to any complex system that bugs will creep in and sift out the cracks. Computer programs have to go through an entire debugging process, and so does our system of laws... it's part of the process.
So when you present things like, "seeking to get terrorists free by suing the government for "illegally" wiretapping them using the NSA program,", I see half a dozen other blacks and white issues that muddle THIS black and white issue and make it a big grey... Because when you say "terrorist", I think "innocent until proven guilty" and assume SUSPECTED terrorist. When you put "illegally" in quotes to emphasize your distain for our legal system, I think "due process" and expect our goverment to use legal means to perform surveilance. I'm an American... these are the simple truths I was raised to revere and respect. So it's not just liberals who think your arguments are a bit off... it's people who love what America stands for... and are willing to die for more black-and-white idealisms besides, "We should catch and punish all terrorists."
This does not mean I don't respect the idealism you have presented here... it just means there is more than one that complicate the issue. And reducing a complex equation by removing most of the variables might give you an ANSWER, just not to the original question.
I don't necessarily agree with everything they've done either, but I recognise the good ideal they stand for and the evil they are trying to oppose. I think that's where I end up parting ways with most of the anti-ACLU pundits, so I'd like to pose a question.
If the goal is to fight for neutral civil liberties and to defend against the majority's dominant push to remove civil liberties which they find offensive, isn't it logical that you'd end up being offensive to the majority?
I mean, isn't it logical that civil liberties which the majority of citizens find ACCEPTABLE would be defended less often? There are hundreds of christian defense funds who are eager to fight the goverment for their civil liberties, so why is it surprising that the ACLU would end up fighting fewer of those cases, and more of those that no one else would take?
Note: These are replies to individual comments, and are not a continuous thread...
I think this little interaction demonstrates why some of the arguments that you present sit a little off with me.
It would be great if life were simple enough to say, "We can't let child rapists go free!" and then do everything in our power to prevent it. The problem is that absolutist philosphies about decisive action often overlap. We also have philosophies that say, "Innocent people shouldn't have their privacy invaded by the goverment!", "Innocent until proven guilty!", and "Everyone deserves a fair trial!" With all these absolutist elements in place, the blacks and whites interfere with one another and form areas of grey... and it is the job of our legal system to interpret these grey areas... not demand the blacks and whites.
I agree that sometimes these grey areas interfere in a manner that makes a particular black areas too white. I agree that sometimes this whited-out black ends up escaping justice. But this is part of the trouble with inventing a JUST society... and whenever you create something new, you're going to end up with a garbage can full of failed attempts. I'm sure you'll call me some kind of hippie idealist, but it's inherant to any complex system that bugs will creep in and sift out the cracks. Computer programs have to go through an entire debugging process, and so does our system of laws... it's part of the process.
So when you present things like, "seeking to get terrorists free by suing the government for "illegally" wiretapping them using the NSA program,", I see half a dozen other blacks and white issues that muddle THIS black and white issue and make it a big grey... Because when you say "terrorist", I think "innocent until proven guilty" and assume SUSPECTED terrorist. When you put "illegally" in quotes to emphasize your distain for our legal system, I think "due process" and expect our goverment to use legal means to perform surveilance. I'm an American... these are the simple truths I was raised to revere and respect. So it's not just liberals who think your arguments are a bit off... it's people who love what America stands for... and are willing to die for more black-and-white idealisms besides, "We should catch and punish all terrorists."
This does not mean I don't respect the idealism you have presented here... it just means there is more than one that complicate the issue. And reducing a complex equation by removing most of the variables might give you an ANSWER, just not to the original question.
I don't necessarily agree with everything they've done either, but I recognise the good ideal they stand for and the evil they are trying to oppose. I think that's where I end up parting ways with most of the anti-ACLU pundits, so I'd like to pose a question.
If the goal is to fight for neutral civil liberties and to defend against the majority's dominant push to remove civil liberties which they find offensive, isn't it logical that you'd end up being offensive to the majority?
I mean, isn't it logical that civil liberties which the majority of citizens find ACCEPTABLE would be defended less often? There are hundreds of christian defense funds who are eager to fight the goverment for their civil liberties, so why is it surprising that the ACLU would end up fighting fewer of those cases, and more of those that no one else would take?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-02-06 07:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-06 11:02 pm (UTC)I agree with you. Good comments.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-07 04:23 am (UTC)