« BOTW is Dead, Long Live BOTWPJM On The Ground »

AQCLU

ACLU expresses concern about the human cost of war, but neglects to mention nearly 3,000 American civilians whose civil rights were denied them in a purposeful war crime. The perpetrators of this crime have made no effort to make compensation. It quickly becomes clear ACLU is less concerned with protecting civilians than it is with bashing the troops.  ACLU also may have some factual problems:    

• Banning photographers on U.S. military bases from covering the arrival of caskets containing the remains of U.S. soldiers killed overseas;
• Paying Iraqi journalists to write positive accounts of the U.S. war effort;
• Inviting U.S. journalists to “embed” with military units but requiring them to submit their stories for pre-publication review;
• Erasing journalists’ footage of civilian deaths in Afghanistan; and
• Refusing to disclose statistics on civilian casualties.

Casket photo banning, old story.  Plenty of photos of returning caskets out there.  My newspaper recently photographed a returning casket at Hanscom Air Force Base.  They’ve also allowed cameras in frontline operating rooms for graphic images of severely traumatized GIs.

Paying Iraqi journos.  Old story.  Notice it doesn’t say “false accounts.” “Positive accounts” are hard to find when most of the press is cheering for the other side, and drawing checks from organizations that want them to do that. ACLU may want to look at the pervasive bias and distortion in press reports of the war and the Bush administration.  The AP is particularly bad … hey ACLU, an American press insitution founded on the premise of providing unbiased information to newspapers of all political stripes has lost its moral compass and is doing a grave disservice to the American public! 

Requiring pre-publication review of embed copy.  That’s a new one on me. Never heard of that.  No one ever asked me to submit copy for review, nor have I heard any of my embed friends complain about that. The only interference I’m aware has been isolated cases of overzealous nitwits who weren’t familiar with the embed regs or ignored them.  I’m not familiar with the erasing of footage incident, and ACLU doesn’t cite any material to support these claims, but it sounds like it might fall under the overzealous nitwit category. 

Refusing to disclose statistics on civilian casualties:  ACLU mentions 496 claims for compensation, but does not present any evidence that the U.S. military collects statistics on civilian casualties. 

Anyway, I agree with the ACLU that as a general principle, more information is always better.  I encourage ACLU’s Jameel Jaffer and Nasrina Bargzie to get to the bottom of who is killing all those civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan without even attempting to investigate and prosecute perpetrators, or compensate victims’ families.   I think we may well be into the tens of thousands of uncompensated civilian deaths in car bombings, summary executions, torture deaths, etc.

Also, not to quibble, but re that link at the end, the ACLU needs to work on its definition of torture.  They may want to look at the activities of the Iranian government, Al Qaeda, Iraq’s former Baathist regime, etc.

NYT: a total of $32 million paid out to civilians in thousands of claims.  Not clear why the ACLU’s summary doesn’t mention that. If 496 deaths is good, thousands must be better. Maybe the multi-million payout figure looks too big. A couple hundred here, a couple thousand there looks better. NYT, no friend of the war effort, also includes context. “Inadvertant.” “The Army does not target civilians. Sadly, however, the enemy’s tactics in Iraq and Afghanistan unnecessarily endanger innocent civilians.” That kind of thing.

Concurring Opinion appears to be upset that legal matters are dealt with in legal language. Apparently more flowery language is called for.

Captain’s Quarters: NAZCLU redux.  By the captain’s reckoning, the ACLU is bending over backwards in defense of rights that aren’t being violated. 

Topics: Iraq, media, military, Afghanistan

  Posted by Jules Crittenden at 9:08 am on Friday, April 13, 2007

5 Responses to “AQCLU”

1. The_Real_JeffS Says:
   April 13th, 2007 at 9:24 am

   Eh, the ACLU is one big toolbox, full of tools, and has been for some time. Unfortunately……they used to focus on real issues, once upon a time.

2. The Thunder Run Says:
   April 13th, 2007 at 10:31 am

   Web Reconnaissance for 04/13/2007

   A short recon of what�s out there that might draw your attention.

3. RebeccaH Says:
   April 13th, 2007 at 2:21 pm

   At the risk of being labeled Islamophobic or racist, are we supposed to accept without question that people with the names of Jameel Jaffer and Nasrina Bargzie are entirely objective? It would be enlightening to know the demographic makeup of the ACLU’s leadership these days.

4. Bill's Bites Says:
   April 13th, 2007 at 3:55 pm

   2007.04.13 Dem Perfidy // Islamism Delenda Est Roundup

   Updated from the top. Please treat this as a blog-within-a-blog, come back often, and scroll down till you hit something you saw on your last visit. AQCLU Rumors on Green Zone and Bridge Bombings In an Instant, a Junkyard of

5. davidp Says:
   April 13th, 2007 at 4:27 pm

   Was the “Erasing journalists’ footage of civilian deaths in Afghanistan” part of the accusation against the marine special forces unit that got taken out of Afghanistan for its response to an ambush? If so, one incident by a unit that’s acknowledged to have behaved inappropriately is “overzealous nitwit” not a policy instituted by the Defense Department.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.