the ACLU has been defending evil sence 1920

Most importantly the debate is not a debate of if the ACLU has never supported any good,(I am sure they have)it also is not a debate of if they are a completely liberal orginization either.The topic up for debate is simply this,"the ACLU has been defending evil sense 1920"So the debate actually is a debate of,is and has the ACLU been defending evil?So if you want,you can continue to ramble on about all the wonderful things"you think they have done"But it is not going to do you any good.The debate is not about that.Like I said it is a debate of,is the ACLU defending evil?So until you can disprove that statement you will not be winning any debates.With that being said,the question that must arise is,"What is evil?" Evil:In ethics, evil refers to intentional behavior,which does harm,is dishonest,or fails to honor agreements.In most cultures,evil is used to describe acts or thoughts which are contrary to an established religion,or which could bring about suffering and death—http://en.wikipedia.org... Now considering this newly released information,ask your self again has the ACLU been defending evil?Take for instance Fumiko Kimura a Japanese woman who drowned her kids in Santa Monica California after learning that her husband was having an affair with another woman.After slaying her offspring Fumiko attempted to commit suicide by drowning herself before she was arrested.As all criminals in the U.S. she was given a trial and a liberal lawyer represented by the ACLU.The lawyer claimed her actions could be justified by a Japanese tradition or custom called "oyako-shinju", which is a parent child suicide.The ACLU won the case & Kimura was sentenced one year in prison and probation.Today this child suffocating murderer is a free woman, just as free as you & me,able to go any ware & do anything.How is this fair when Andrea Yates drowned her 5 kids in a bathtub & is now serving the rest of her life behind bars?How was Justice served?What about the Innocent blooded children who were killed.The ACLU didn't stand for them.How civil is that? How good is that?I wish I could say it was a rare case of this madness but it wasn't.In October of 1997 Jeffrey Curley was playing just outside his house in Cambridge,Massachusetts when two young homosexual men approached him. Jeffrey had been looking for his bike for sometime now,after it had turned up missing.The two young men asked Jeffrey what he was looking for and suggested that they could help him find it.Jeffrey told them.The men proceeded to help little Jeff find his bike.What Jeffrey didn't know is that the two men had stolen his bike & were using it to lure him in.After pretending to look for his bike for a few minuets they offered to buy the young lad a new bike all he had to do was ride along with them to the store so he could pick one out.What did poor Jeffrey know?He was just an honest kid in a deceitful world.So he got in their car & went along for the ride.On the way to"the store"the two gay men offered Jeffrey money in exchange for sex after he refused the men stuffed a rag doused in gasoline down the Child's throat & suffocated him to death.Then they took his corps back to their apartment and sodomized it. They molested this poor kids dead body.They disgraced him.I am not going to get into details on how these two gay lovers raped this you man you can figure it out yourself. & when their lustful,homosexual,pedophile needs had been met they then dumped Jeffrey Curley's lifeless abused body into a nearby river. The Cambridge police found NAMBLA literature and a manual published by NAMBLA called"Rape and Escape"that,according to one eye witness,graphically details how pedophiles might lure,befriend,& rape a child,then avoid detection & prosecution.Charles Jaynes,One of the murderers was a member of this group called the NAMBLA which stands for the North American Man/Boy Love Association(an organization who, you guessed it advocates sex with under age children) Jeffrey's parents sued the NAMBLA for the part it played in their late sons death.Now I am sure you are thinking"what kind of person or organization in the right mind would defend such a sick scab on the face of society?"the ACLUthat's who.Free of charge too.The NAMBLA should have been put out of business & all of its members arrested after an incident like this but not as long as the ACLU has a breath in its body.They stood up for these pedophiles on the basis of freedom of speech.And the NAMBLA is still in business today handing out the same twisted literature that it gave to Charles Jaynes and his lover. John Roberts,executive director of the ACLU branch in Massachusetts had this to say about the case,"while we join with all others in deploring the heinous crimes committed against Jeffrey Curley,two people have been convicted of his murder & are serving life sentences." Ok stop right there.Don't you get a kick out of how the ACLU always offers such moving tribute to the victim?No one would ever know he was talking about the murder and rape of a 10year old boy.Is he suggesting that justice has been served?Bad guys are behind bars aren't they?NO!Not all of the bad guys are in jail the freaks in the NAMBLA are still running strong today. Roberts also went on to say"I think it is fair to say that most people disagree with NAMBLA and that many would find its publishing's offensive.Regardless of weather people agree with or abhor NAMBLA's views,holding the organization responsible for crimes committed by others who read their materials would gravely endanger important first amendment freedoms" Why don't you give that canned speech to Jeffrey,tell Jeffrey about being in a grave buried under ground,tell Jeffrey about loosing his precious freedom,tell Jeffrey about standing up for the NAMBLA or did you forget Jeffrey was tortured,raped & murdered at the hands of two adults who just happened to fill their minds with NAMBLA material? Here is the kicker,the ACLU requested that the judge put a gag order on the case.How amazingly ironic the ACLU,the self-appointed, self-righteous,high-&-mighty defenders of free speech(remember they defended NAMBLA on the grounds of free speech)would want to prohibit the grotesque details & truth of this trial from ever becoming heard by the public. Now I have heard it argued that,"You and I have no right to bar these people from having a relationship if they truly like each other.The ACLU came to NAMBLA's defense because they wanted to stand-up for the Constitutional rights of the members of NAMBLA.Rape is definitely NOT encouraged by NAMBLA.On their web site it states." "We condemn sexual abuse and all forms of coercion.Freely-chosen relationships differ from unwanted sex.Present laws, which focus only on the age of the participants, ignore the quality of their relationships.We know that differences in age do not preclude mutual,loving interaction between persons." Problem with this argument is,according to their web site they do not agree with rape but their pamphlets not only promote it but they give detailed directions on how to get away with it with out being caught.They DO support rape.Go back and read the police report they are a two faced company!Of course they aren't going to tell people on their web site they promote rape they would get in trouble for that,but to a member or a person as sick as Charles Jaynes they would gladly tell them that. Now I want you to be honest with me what do child murders & child rapists have in common?THEY ARE EVIL!How did I come to that conclusion?Go back and look at the definition of evil"does harm,is dishonest,","or which could bring about SUFFERING...AND...DEATH"I cant be 100%certain,but I would bet drowning and being raped brings about suffering not to mention death!Both cases the ACLU has defended.The truth of the matter is the ACLU has been defending evil!They have in the past and they continue to do so today!& these are just 2 cases that I had time to mention.