The Logic of the ACLU

[ThatRobGuy]

Wow.

Then how do you explain this?

NICIC.gov: Gentle Justice: Analysis of Open Prison Systems in Finland: A Way to the Future?

Finland instituted an incredibly humane prison system and recidivism rates plummeted. Meanwhile our hardcore prison system that focuses more on punishment than rehabilitation just spits out criminals more hardened then when they went in.

I can believe that. I think the same would probably be true of most civilized nations in Europe where the people, as a whole, are more considerate of others.

Lets take the Crips & Bloods out of our prison system and put them in that prison in Finland and see how that works out.

As I mentioned in my other thread pertaining to gun control, it's hard to try to use stats from Canada and most of Europe and compare them to the US. It's a totally different mentality and environment. When I visit the family cabin up in Ontario, I still can't get over the fact that people leave their doors unlocked. We would never think of doing such a thing down here.

 

[The Nihilist]

I can believe that. I think the same would probably be true of most civilized nations in Europe where the people, as a whole, are more considerate of others.

Lets take the Crips & Bloods out of our prison system and put them in that prison in Finland and see how that works out.

As I mentioned in my other thread pertaining to gun control, it's hard to try to use stats from Canada and most of Europe and compare them to the US. It's a totally different mentality and environment. When I visit the family cabin up in Ontario, I still can't get over the fact that people leave their doors unlocked. We would never think of doing such a thing down here.

So what you're saying is that the reason you don't have sources or studies backing up your position is that there isn't good science to back up your position?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

No, and I don't think it is. What I do think is that you're an ignorance that is specifically peddled by foxnews.

For me to accept your out-of-hand dismissal of the ACLU's sites, I would have to accept your premise that they are dishonest and have an anti-christian agenda. Do you have any sources indicating that the ACLU doesn't help christians, or can you point to any cases in which the ACLU has opposed a christian's constitutionally guaranteed rights?

I'm not saying they're dishonest, I'm just saying that they don't tell the whole story on their website when it comes to their position on Christianity. I'm sure they've helped some Christian causes when it's been convenient for them.

All of the resources available about the ACLU's position are either from the ACLU "we love Christian and want to defend their rights" or from Christian sites calling them the "Anti-Christian Liberals Union" so there's no real unbiased reporting on the matter. But, in hearing how the rep who came to our college class (I mentioned him earlier) answered some questions from the audience, their position was quite clear. (Either that, or their management has a horrible screening process and hired a public speaker that in no way represents their mission).

A girl in the class who was Christian (or at least that's the impression I got) brought up a question along the lines of "Why does the ACLU fight to remove Christian symbols in the town square of a mostly-Christian town, but has never challenged any depictions of Buddha in public places in China-town areas of major cities?" which I though was an excellent question to which he replied "well, the Buddhists (Chinese) are a much less represented group and we're trying to protect groups like that from a forced Christian influence" which I though was a lame answer. Either visual depiction in public are okay, or they're not. Personally, I don't have any problem with any depictions. If there's something I don't like the look of, my neck works, I turn my head and look at something else.

Throughout his entire presention, the word Christianity was used with the terms "infringing", "forcing", "agenda", "theocracy" and "separation of church and state". But when they were referring to other religions, they were coupled with words like "tolerance", "tradition", "freedom", "expression", and "acceptance".

Like I said, it could just be that they hired a lousy rep. However, I've spoken to other people who had similar visits at their schools and they got the same vibe I did.

As I mentioned before, I'm not a Christian, and I would in no way want a Christian-rule theocracy (or a theocracy based on any other faith for that matter), but I do understand where a lot of Christians are coming from when they feel like the ACLU is targeting them in particular in matters of separation of church & state.

This ALCU could almost be it's own topic of discussion instead of just the prison matter...
Back to the matter of the treatment of prisoners, you are correct, they shouldn't be beaten or abused, but we can't make it such a nice place where it's no longer a deterrent to crime. Sorry, but conditions that are as good as the outside (just with an early bedtime) isn't a valid punishment or a hard criminal nor should the tax payers be paying for that. If someone doesn't want to live in the oppresive environment of a federal prison...I have a simple solution: Don't rob a bank, don't kill anyone, don't rape anyone, don't kidnap anyone, don't assault an officer of the law, don't commit arson, and don't blow anything up. If you're old enough to be tried as an adult, you're old enough to know better.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

So what you're saying is that the reason you don't have sources or studies backing up your position is that there isn't good science to back up your position?

There's no valid study that can compare the criminal mentality in the United States to that of Europe or Canada.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The layout of the cell block was based on medieval monasteries, a small space with a single bed and bare walls. In effect, every prisoner was placed into solitary confinement from the moment he arrived at the gates, until he served his time -- or died. We know now that extended enforced isolation can be a form of torture, and there are limits beyond which solitary becomes "cruel and unusual."

I've watched a few documentaries on the prison system, and while there is some abuse of the solitary confinement treatment (no system is perfect and there's always corruption), typically it's reserved for those who have commited a physical or sexual assault (or attempted to do so) against a CO or fellow inmate so it's actually for the protection of the others around them.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Well, as long as punishment is priority over public safety then yes, the purpose of prisons is to punish criminals.

ACLU probably disagrees with you over what should take precedence, though.

I'm sure they disagree with me on that. Don't get me wrong, I would love it if there were some way in our current situation in the US to completely solve crime and rehabilitate these folks with a brief timeout and a nice heart-to-heart chat and explain that they're wrong and teach them how to be a better person....but, I realize that it's a pipe dream and is never going to happen. We live in a society that's been corrupted by greed and selfishness so we're always going to have people who will care about their own interest over the interest of society as a whole (IE: drug dealers, thugs, gangbangers, thieves, and killers). It's sad to think about, but I don't think that mentality is going away anytime soon.

 

[The Nihilist]

I'm not saying they're dishonest, I'm just saying that they don't tell the whole story on their website when it comes to their position on Christianity. I'm sure they've helped some Christian causes when it's been convenient for them.

All of the resources available about the ACLU's position are either from the ACLU "we love Christian and want to defend their rights" or from Christian sites calling them the "Anti-Christian Liberals Union" so there's no real unbiased reporting on the matter. But, in hearing how the rep who came to our college class (I mentioned him earlier) answered some questions from the audience, their position was quite clear. (Either that, or their management has a horrible screening process and hired a public speaker that in no way represents their mission).

I didn't provide the ACLU's position on christianity. I provided cases in which the ACLU promoted religious freedom, for christians and members of other faiths. If you wish to be taken seriously, cite cases in which the ACLU has argued against religious freedom for christians or tried to deny them their constitutionally guaranteed rights.

A girl in the class who was Christian (or at least that's the impression I got) brought up a question along the lines of "Why does the ACLU fight to remove Christian symbols in the town square of a mostly-Christian town, but has never challenged any depictions of Buddha in public places in China-town areas of major cities?" which I though was an excellent question to which he replied "well, the Buddhists (Chinese) are a much less represented group and we're trying to protect groups like that from a forced Christian influence" which I though was a lame answer. Either visual depiction in public are okay, or they're not. Personally, I don't have any problem with any depictions. If there's something I don't like the look of, my neck works, I turn my head and look at something else.

Throughout his entire presention, the word Christianity was used with the terms "infringing", "forcing", "agenda", "theocracy" and "separation of church and state". But when they were referring to other religions, they were coupled with words like "tolerance", "tradition", "freedom", "expression", and "acceptance".

Like I said, it could just be that they hired a lousy rep. However, I've spoken to other people who had similar visits at their schools and they got the same vibe I did.

Do you know the difference between anecdotal evidence and data?

As I mentioned before, I'm not a Christian, and I would in no way want a Christian-rule theocracy (or a theocracy based on any other faith for that matter), but I do understand where a lot of Christians are coming from when they feel like the ACLU is targeting them in particular in matters of separation of church & state.

Again, please cite evidence if you wish to be taken seriously. I'm willing to consider the christian groups who hate the ACLU that you mentioned.

This ALCU could almost be it's own topic of discussion instead of just the prison matter...
Back to the matter of the treatment of prisoners, you are correct, they shouldn't be beaten or abused, but we can't make it such a nice place where it's no longer a deterrent to crime. Sorry, but conditions that are as good as the outside (just with an early bedtime) isn't a valid punishment or a hard criminal nor should the tax payers be paying for that. If someone doesn't want to live in the oppresive environment of a federal prison...I have a simple solution: Don't rob a bank, don't kill anyone, don't rape anyone, don't kidnap anyone, don't assault an officer of the law, don't commit arson, and don't blow anything up. If you're old enough to be tried as an adult, you're old enough to know better.

The links I cited previously show that harsher prison conditions do not reduce post-release crime, and may increase it. Your position does not hold water.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I didn't provide the ACLU's position on christianity. I provided cases in which the ACLU promoted religious freedom, for christians and members of other faiths. If you wish to be taken seriously, cite cases in which the ACLU has argued against religious freedom for christians or tried to deny them their constitutionally guaranteed rights.

Do you know the difference between anecdotal evidence and data?

Yes, everything we've posted thus far is anecdotal since opinions, incomplete stats, and personal stories aren't officcial data (whether they're posted by me on a message board or hosted on a fancy website)

Again, please cite evidence if you wish to be taken seriously. I'm willing to consider the christian groups who hate the ACLU that you mentioned.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Since a nativity scene, a cross, or a picture of Jesus in a school has absolutely nothing to do with Congress's law making process, but forced removal does infringe on the free excerise thereof in terms of trying to strongarm a local town hall on their decorating practices, is it cool if I post links to all of those stories where city halls and schools were made to take them down? When I google it there are thousands of articles on that.

Are far as sources referring to the anti-Christian favoritism (the ones that are Christian slanted that you said you'd be willing to consider:

Jailed Terror Suspect Helped ACLU Draft Schools' Anti-Christian Rules

SlantRight: ACLU Lobbied Anti-Christian Provision in Stimulus Bill

The links I cited previously show that harsher prison conditions do not reduce post-release crime, and may increase it. Your position does not hold water.

I read the study, and they even admit

Although small sample sizes mean that our estimates are not uniformly statistically significant

 

[AtheistVet]

I don't believe your first source and your second one cites Don Wildmon, who I have received numerous spam emails from and I believe to be a huge liar and distorter of the truth, and looking at the actual legal language, I can see nothing anti-christian about it.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I don't believe your first source and your second one cites Don Wildmon, who I have received numerous spam emails from and I believe to be a huge liar and distorter of the truth, and looking at the actual legal language, I can see nothing anti-christian about it.

I said before that I didn't want to post them, the Nihilist asked me to.

However, you failed to address the rest of the post where I provided the actual constitution text and explained why city hall decorations have nothing to do with Congress.

 

[Jro]

Here's some things that happen in prisons:

(2005)
"Michelle McCollum was in the first trimester of her pregnancy when she awaited trial in 2005 for possession of marijuana. She later pleaded guilty and was sentenced to probation.

McCollum blames unchecked violence and delayed medical care for the loss of her pregnancy. On August 21, 2005, she was attacked by two other inmates, she says in an affidavit filed in the lawsuit that recently found jail conditions unconstitutional.

Two inmates punched McCollum in the stomach repeatedly. After the attack, she and another inmate cried to guards for help. But McCollum writes that detention officers refused to bring her to the infirmary — even after she told them she was pregnant and injured."
Arpaio’s Jail Staff Cost Ambrett Spencer Her Baby, and She’s Not the Only One - Page 2 - News - Phoenix - Phoenix New Times

(2010)
"Among the named defendants in the lawsuit are the Walnut Grove Correctional Authority and the Geo Group, Inc., which is the second-largest private prison company in the country. The facility houses youth between the ages of 13 and 22 who have been tried and convicted as adults, more than two-thirds of whom are incarcerated for non-violent offenses...

The lawsuit describes a facility known for its culture of violence and corruption. Some prison staff exploit youth by selling drugs inside the facility or by entering into sexual relationships with them. Staff members savagely beat young prisoners who are handcuffed and defenseless, or spray them with chemicals when they are locked in their cells...

The lawsuit describes a facility known for its culture of violence and corruption. Some prison staff exploit youth by selling drugs inside the facility or by entering into sexual relationships with them. Staff members savagely beat young prisoners who are handcuffed and defenseless, or spray them with chemicals when they are locked in their cells...

According to the lawsuit, one young man was tied to his bunk for over 24 hours, brutally raped and sexually assaulted after prison staff failed to heed his pleas for protection. Other youth have suffered multiple stabbings and beatings, including one youth who will live with permanent brain damage as a result of an attack in which prison staff were entirely complicit..."
ACLU And Southern Poverty Law Center File Federal Lawsuit Challenging Inhumane Conditions At For-Profit Youth Prison | American Civil Liberties Union

Methinks we might want to stop this sort of business.

 

[OllieFranz]

I've watched a few documentaries on the prison system, and while there is some abuse of the solitary confinement treatment (no system is perfect and there's always corruption), typically it's reserved for those who have commited a physical or sexual assault (or attempted to do so) against a CO or fellow inmate so it's actually for the protection of the others around them.

I don't know what you read into my post, but your response only makes sense to me if I assume you are claiming that the Quakers were heartless sadists who deliberately set out to create a cruel prison system. I'd like to think that you are smarter than that.

On the other hand, if, like some ultra-conservatives I've known, you assume that the ACLU, and and the left in general, are agents of Satan, then it is possible that my calling the Quakers to the left of the ACLU on the issue of prison reform* may have hit a hot button and caused you to stop reading my post for sense and start scanning it for "keywords" taken out of context.

My point was that no matter what your philosophy of civil justice and the purpose of prisons, "common sense" without real data can lead to building a system which can get away from you and produce exactly the opposite effect from your intentions.

 

[The Nihilist]

I said before that I didn't want to post them, the Nihilist asked me to.

However, you failed to address the rest of the post where I provided the actual constitution text and explained why city hall decorations have nothing to do with Congress.

You know about the 14th Amendment, right?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I don't know what you read into my post, but your response only makes sense to me if I assume you are claiming that the Quakers were heartless sadists who deliberately set out to create a cruel prison system. I'd like to think that you are smarter than that.

On the other hand, if, like some ultra-conservatives I've known, you assume that the ACLU, and and the left in general, are agents of Satan, then it is possible that my calling the Quakers to the left of the ACLU on the issue of prison reform* may have hit a hot button and caused you to stop reading my post for sense and start scanning it for "keywords" taken out of context.

My point was that no matter what your philosophy of civil justice and the purpose of prisons, "common sense" without real data can lead to building a system which can get away from you and produce exactly the opposite effect from your intentions.

That's not what I meant at all. I also don't think the ACLU is an agent of Satan...because I don't believe in Satan.

Here's how it went:

You posted

The first prison to be called a "penitentiary" was in Philadephia, home of the Quakers. In terms of prison reform, they were to the left of the ACLU. Their Penitentiary was envisioned as a place where they had the peace and quiet to meditate on their lives, come to repentance.

The layout of the cell block was based on medieval monasteries, a small space with a single bed and bare walls. In effect, every prisoner was placed into solitary confinement from the moment he arrived at the gates, until he served his time -- or died. We know now that extended enforced isolation can be a form of torture, and there are limits beyond which solitary becomes "cruel and unusual."

To which I made my reply.

I've watched a few documentaries on the prison system, and while there is some abuse of the solitary confinement treatment (no system is perfect and there's always corruption), typically it's reserved for those who have commited a physical or sexual assault (or attempted to do so) against a CO or fellow inmate so it's actually for the protection of the others around them.

My reply was directed at the section I highlighted and had nothing to do with the Quakers, In fact I believe that I only actually quoted the 2nd block of text in my original reply to your post.

I was replying to part about the idea that solitary confinement is torture.

So, I'm not sure where you read into my post as an insult to the Quakers or the Left.

Are you sure that you're not the one who's "skimming for keywords" as you so nicely put it?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

You know about the 14th Amendment, right?

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Well, since sections 2, 3, 4, and 5 pertain to restrictions on voting & public office, public debt, and Congress's power to enforce, I'm assuming you're not referrring to those parts and you're referring to section 1. Which again, clearly states that the state & local lawmaking process isn't allowed to take away what's already been granted to the people by the federal government.

Again, a Nativity scene, a cross, and a Picture of Jesus have absolutely nothing to do with the lawmaking process or enforcing the laws so the ACLU suing local governments and forcing them to take them down has nothing to do with constitutional protection for any other group but does infringe on the folks who work there who wanted to put them in the lawn to express themselves.

 

[OllieFranz]

That's not what I meant at all. I also don't think the ACLU is an agent of Satan...because I don't believe in Satan.

Here's how it went:

You posted


To which I made my reply.



My reply was directed at the section I highlighted and had nothing to do with the Quakers, In fact I believe that I only actually quoted the 2nd block of text in my original reply to your post.

I was replying to part about the idea that solitary confinement is torture.

So, I'm not sure where you read into my post as an insult to the Quakers or the Left.

Are you sure that you're not the one who's "skimming for keywords" as you so nicely put it?

Yet you conveniently ignored the historical context of my post and even the phrases "we now know" and "extended, enforced" in the very sentence you underlined. I was not condemning all uses of solitary confinement, simply pointing out that in their quest for a more humane prison system, the Quakers failed, as does any prison reform based more on a gut reaction than on reliable data, no matter what philosophy is behind the reform attempt.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Yet you conveniently ignored the historical context of my post and even the phrases "we now know" and "extended, enforced" in the very sentence you underlined. I was not condemning all uses of solitary confinement, simply pointing out that in their quest for a more humane prison system, the Quakers failed, as does any prison reform based more on a gut reaction than on reliable data, no matter what philosophy is behind the reform attempt.

Yes, because "We know now that extended enforced isolation can be a form of torture, and there are limits beyond which solitary becomes "cruel and unusual." isn't a statement of fact, it's an opinion.

Cruel and unusual are ethical/moral terms based on an opinion. "Many think that it's cruel and unusual" would be the proper way of wording that since the interpratation of "cruel" would be different for different people so trying to enforce it as fact by a statement like "we know now" (as if it's a universally accepted fact) is a logical fallacy.

As I mentioned in one of my other posts, solitary confinement isn't used for rehabilitation of the criminal (in most cases, and yes I realize there will be articles citing instances where CO's have abused it, but that's on the individual and not the system itself and those CO's should be fired), it's commonly used to protect other inmates from that criminal if they are a threat to those around them.

 

[dies-l]

Prisoners' Rights - Recent Court Cases, Issues and Articles | American Civil Liberties Union

The ACLU is pushing for federal prisons to stop the use of solitary confinement, allowing criminals with life sentences to get out of prison once they're elderly, make sure that the punishments they receive don't conflict with their religious beliefs among many other things that they're pushing for to make prison less unpleasent for criminals.

Am I missing the whole point of prison?

Isn't it supposed to be a punishment?

If we're going to make it nice for them, I have some other ideas.

Instead of the weights out in the yard, we should use tax money to build an indoor, air conditioned, gym since making them bench press out in the heat would infringe on their rights.

Since the usual sleeping accomodations might infringe on the rights of those who are claustrophobic, we'll revamp it so everyone has their own private room with their own TV set and since it'd be cruel to make someone eat a particular food they don't like the taste of (and in some cases infringe on their religious beliefs), we can create an entire menu where they can order what they like and have it brought to their private cell (since they might be tired and overworking is also cruel as the ACLU has informed us). I also think that we need to build an pool and remodel the outside so it doesn't look so drab, we can't embarass the people staying there since according to the ACLU people have right to not be mocked or made to look singled out when they're serving their sentence.

It will cost about $14million per prison (on top of the $300 per night for each inmate) and when the the whole project is done, each of the prisons will look like this.

Now, our criminals can live in dignity and peace without fear of judgment, punishment, or being made to feel uncomfortable.

Can you let me know specifically which rights you object to?

Allowing the elderly petition for parole? What's wrong with that? If their conduct in prison doesn't convince the parole board that they can reasonably safe in society, they stay in prison. If they can function in society without being a threat to themselves or others, why keep them in?

Religious freedom? Let me remind you of a little thing called the First Amendment. I would also point out that people who hold to a set of religious or philosophical principles tend not to be the people who are committing crime. Isn't this something that we would want to support?

Getting rid of the overuse of solitary confinement?

Each of these are a far cry from making prison comfortable and enjoyable.

 

[OllieFranz]

Yes, because "We know now that extended enforced isolation can be a form of torture, and there are limits beyond which solitary becomes "cruel and unusual." isn't a statement of fact, it's an opinion.

Cruel and unusual are ethical/moral terms based on an opinion. "Many think that it's cruel and unusual" would be the proper way of wording that since the interpratation of "cruel" would be different for different people so trying to enforce it as fact by a statement like "we know now" (as if it's a universally accepted fact) is a logical fallacy.

As I mentioned in one of my other posts, solitary confinement isn't used for rehabilitation of the criminal(in most cases, and yes I realize there will be articles citing instances where CO's have abused it, but that's on the individual and not the system itself and those CO's should be fired), it's commonly used to protect other inmates from that criminal if they are a threat to those around them.
(blue font mine)

"Solitary confinement isn't used for rehabilitation of the criminal" -- true enough today, but totally irrelevant to my post. When the penitentiary was built in Philadelphia, it was used for rehabilitation, and it was the primary treatment.

And since I neither advocated nor demonized today's use of solitary, beyond mentioning that it does not include extended enforced isolation because we now know that would be as detrimental as any other form of torture (and there is harrd data to back up that statement-- it is not a matter of opinion), you read your own prejudices into it seeing criticism of your ideals by way of condemning your goals when I did neither. Try re-reading my original post without preconceptions.

 

[The Nihilist]

Well, since sections 2, 3, 4, and 5 pertain to restrictions on voting & public office, public debt, and Congress's power to enforce, I'm assuming you're not referrring to those parts and you're referring to section 1. Which again, clearly states that the state & local lawmaking process isn't allowed to take away what's already been granted to the people by the federal government.

Again, a Nativity scene, a cross, and a Picture of Jesus have absolutely nothing to do with the lawmaking process or enforcing the laws so the ACLU suing local governments and forcing them to take them down has nothing to do with constitutional protection for any other group but does infringe on the folks who work there who wanted to put them in the lawn to express themselves.

Screw it. So far you've rejected 2 studies on the grounds that you disagree, you've rejected a list of court cases in which the ACLU defended christian religious freedom on the grounds that it was the ACLU listing them, and you've displayed a general ignorance about the workings of the US government. On the other hand, you've provided two links that provide questionable information and an anecdote about a lousy ACLU spokesperson, and no evidence that harsher prisons reduce recidivism. At this point, it seems that the reason you like harsh prisons is that you don't like criminals, and the reason you don't like the ACLU is just because you don't like the ACLU. I don't think you're going to be swayed by reason or evidence. I'm out, think what you want.