Talk:Center for Constitutional Rights

ECLC
ECLC is mentioned nowhere in the text, the abbreviation is not explained and there is not link to an explanation. so what about is this? early childhood learning community, as google's 1st hit suggests? - without this information this trivia is rather useless IMO. ¨¨¨¨ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.130.1.143 (talk) 00:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, this is just inaccurate.Shayanakadidal (talk) 04:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Structure
Shouldn't the Table of Contents be closer to the top? Yes, solved by adding the heading Introduction. Otto 20:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Can the next person who tries to do global edits on this article please take a look at the way it looked in June 2007 when I finished a major revise? I've tried to add back some of the periodization in the Intro, but I fear the ineluctable tide of the "laundry list" seems to overwhelm everything on Wikipedia. IT'S SUPPOSED TO LOOK LIKE AN ENCYCLOPEDIA ENTRY, not a list of your favorite things. Thx.Shayanakadidal (talk) 04:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Left Wing POV
I question the neutrality of this article. Just because an organization defends constitutional rights does not mean that it is left-wing. Most conservatives also value the rights of the constitution.
 * I don't see where it says left-wing. Maybe it's been taken out since this comment. Clarify? LockeShocke 03:19, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Your reasoning that "because an organization defends constitutional rights does not mean that it is left-wing," LockeShock, is solid but the Center for Constitutional Rights happens pretty clearly to be on the far-left end of the U.S. political spectrum. See. Whether being left-wing is a good thing or not is up to you, but it's definitely left-wing (at least in the U.S. sense of the term). Syntacticus 18:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I added left wing back to the description of CCR since it seems accurate and matches some of the many descriptions of left wing. There is no inherent contradiction between being left wing and claiming to, or actually supporting constitutional rights.Kevinp2 21:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. This is indeed a nice and entertaining source. If we base the article on this source, or just the first paragraph, we could re-write the lead of the article as: "The CCR is a barbaric terrorist, aggressive, anti-american ultraleftist law firm, aiming at destroying the USA in cooperation with their Islamic fascist friends." Nice, eh? Bertilvidet 10:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Quadpus wiped out the additional information that I provided without any explanation. From comparing the edits, he(?) seems to wish to hide the fact that CCR meets any reasonable definition of left-wing. Please don't erase information without providing an explanation. If you feel that the article needs balance, you can ADD the balance, not remove information that you don't like people to read. Kevinp2 03:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

To call CCR "left-wing" is POV, the opinion of the author. CCR is a non-partisan NGO. Otto 07:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, left-wing is in the criticism section, which is acceptable to me.Kevinp2 18:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, First of all, calling something "Left-wing" or "Right-wing" is NOT POV. For instance, to say that Pres. Bush is on the "right-wing" is not POV, it's a statement of fact. Just like saying that former Pres. Clintion is on the "left-wing". Furthermore, saying that an orginization is on the left/right-wing is not POV. For instance, to say that the ELF (environmental liberation front) is on the "left-wing" is a statement of fact and is not POV. Otto..just because an orginization states on its website that they are "Non-partisan" does not mean that they are, in fact, non-partisan. For instance, since you seem to be a left leaner...I'll use an example that will hit close to home. Fox News claims that they are "fair and balanced". By your logic, people should take this statement "as is" and not question it. Now, judging by the massive ammount or rancor on the Fox News wiki page...its "fair and balanced" claim is in dispute. Is this POV? NO! It's fact. Just like here...saying that a factual statement calling the CCR "left-wing" is POV is simply incorrect. CCR IS left-wing...regardless of what they say on their website. Chairman Meow 17:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Chairman I admit that there is some reason in your argument. My POV about how to edit an encyclopedia is to circumvent political judgment as far as reasonable. If I am not knowledgeable about CCR, I don't like it if the first thing I read about it is that CCR is so-and-so left/right. If the article starts like that I am not reading what I want to know and that is: what is CCR doing and why. Leave the judgements to the critics paragraph. --Otto 20:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

For the record, "non-partisan" does not mean "politically centrist." An organization may legitimately be described as left-wing and non-partisan. Indeed, may left-leaning Americans with a "civil libertarian" bent (i.e., the ACLU CCR crowd) are not particularly fond of the Dems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.37.161 (talk) 02:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Mark Levin
The text of the Wikipedia page was copied by User:Loveletter from http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6148 or a a mirror of it.

''WARNING to Mark Levin, who read this article on his radio program: Please don't use Wikipedia is a reference source, because it's relatively unreliable when compared to real encyclopedias. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia.'' --2004-12-29T22:45Z 23:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

No, no, no. Wikipedia is indeed an encyclopedia [], but it's not a printed encyclopedia that is carved in stone. It is useful for some things, but not for others. Everything in it should be taken "cum grano salis," but at the same time that doesn't mean it is necessarily inaccurate. Syntacticus 18:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Aim
CCR states that it is aimed to protect and advance the rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, not that it "purports" to do so. To state that just because their litigation is not appreciated is POV. Otto 19:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Outdated link from criticism section
The link in the criticism section no longer works. As an aside, I think it's a bit absurd to feature such clearly radical criticism. To say that the CCR is left-wing might be accurate; to say that it's the "terrorist legal defense team" is absurd. Perhaps someone can dig up a source who does not claim it's un-American or partisan to believe that all defendants deserve legal representation. This may seen POV on my part, to say that this view is too radical to deserve citation as a valid "criticism," but I just think it sounds a bit wing-nutty. There must be someone there who has a more meaningful criticism of the CCR than "OMGWTF! They defend terrurists! LOL!" S. Ugarte 15:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Suspected Terrorists v. Men and Boys
To say they are suspected terrorists without citation makes it seem as thought the whole world things they are 'terrorists'. I looked around for hours trying to find any charging documents from the USGOV. Of course there are none (took me a while to realize that I already knew that). The men and boys held there have for the most part not been charged with anything. I think like it to read "men and boys, detained under President Bushs military order -- http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/11/20011113-27.html " I think men and boys is NOT irrelevant it simply provides MORE information. People don't think children are detained at the base and they are. I also think it is harder to see a 10 year old as a dangerous terrorist, and this reveals the nature of the detentions. Chris Williams 5:16est, September 6, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.84.217.250 (talk) 21:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * So, to be clear, you weren't asking that we cite a source for the description, you were complaining that most of these fascists had not been formally charged with crimes. What you seem to be missing is where it says that they must be charged at all. (This is a war, after all, and criminal charges aren't required to lock up enemy combatants.) The Supreme Court has not said that criminal charges are required. You might find this interesting.
 * The phrase "boys and men" is irrelevant, and struck me as an attempt to humanize them while at the same time hiding the cause for holding them. Even if it could be relevant, there aren't that many "boys" that it's worth mentioning in the introductory paragraph. But there are fewer than you'd think, as international law defines a child soldier as someone under 15. And to the extent that there were a few kids under 15 at GTMO, the criticism should go to the fascists who recruited them. I don't think CCR has criticized the fascists for doing this.
 * -- Randy2063 22:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Who is a facist? I think you should look up that term. So the 10 year olds are fascists? I am not complaining I am telling you that you need to cite you sources. Especially since you version of the page implies that it is the US Government that is calling them "suspected terrorists". So if they are 'enemy combatants' then call them that. I would say that according to the US Administration they are 'enemy combatants'. What is the cause for holding them? Is it something you made up? Something you heard on TV? Where is you term "suspected terrorist" coming from? Hmm, I don't know if you actually know how many boys are at gitmo. International law uses a bifurcated classification system for defining child soldiers some instruments use 18 and some use 15. But who recruited these kids? I mean you are convicting someone who has never been charged or even accused of anything. It is irrelevant if CCR has not criticized the 'facist' for doing anything, that just sounds like sour apples on your part that they don't support you political agenda. Chris Williams 12:37est, September 7, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.45.155 (talk) 04:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The word "fascist" has been used broadly like this since the 1930s. (Communists didn't like uttering the term "national socialism" so they stretched "fascism" to cover them all.) Orwell wrote disapprovingly of its use as a political epithet, but he said it works well for regimes like that of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. It's a little late to start backtracking now, particularly when it applies so well nowadays.


 * I did cite the source, and I acknowledged in an edit comment that I have my own problems with the word "suspected." Calling them "enemy combatants" is fitting. Dwelling on how many were child soldiers is not. The U.S. didn't capture them because of their age, nor did CCR defend them because of it. Moreover, articles on Nazis don't often describe them as "boys and men" even though plenty of child soldiers were recruited then. I don't see anything in the WP article on child soldiers to suggest that they're not subject to detention (or eligible for a trial) upon capture.


 * I'm more than familiar with youth locked up at GTMO. WP has an article on Minors detained in the global war on terror. A few of them pretend to be innocent, but that's par for the course. Their lawyers are more than happy to repeat it.


 * As for "convicting someone who has never been charged," that's not what's going on. It wasn't all that long ago that critics were claiming to care about the Geneva Conventions. Now they ignore the GCs and want civilian trials. Sour apples go both ways.


 * BTW: You really ought to sign in if you're going to stick around.
 * -- Randy2063 17:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong about the definition of fascism but that is not the point, because it was created in popularized in Italy. I did not call them child soldiers, in fact using that term involves an assumption. I won't explain it I will leave that to you to figure out. "Pretend[ing] to be innocent," is impossible because they can't be guilty or innocent, in a US or international legal sense because they have not been accused of anything. Regarding the GC, the GC always apply, as for domestic law it may or may not. Why is using the best argument in the legal arena get you all huffy? Thanks for the suggestion. But what would I bother? I am already wasting enough time on this as it is. Regarding the GC the US is clearly in violation of many articles, and if we were to apply US law I think we all know they are in violation there too. Seem win win to me either way pilgrim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.84.217.155 (talk) 22:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You've missed my point about the meaning of fascism. As I said, the use of the word was expanded in the 1930s. In other words, Nazis are not technically Fascists but it's become common call them that (with a small "f" to differentiate from Italian Fascism). Blame the communists. They're the ones who started the practice.


 * Returning back to the editing of the article, if you're inclined to nitpick on my use of the word "innocent" as though it was in the legal sense then you ought to be able to understand that the U.S. can hold these detainees as long as we like. Charged or uncharged. SCOTUS rejected Bush's position when they ruled that Common Article 3 applies, but they did not rule that GTMO needs to be closed or that the fascists need to be charged. If the U.S. is really "in violation of many articles" then those Justices have been waiting a long time to say so.
 * -- Randy2063 22:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

revert -- see talk
I reverted an edit with the edit summary [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Center_for_Constitutional_Rights&diff=prev&oldid=159326963 "people the US Government claims are" - this is tendentious. Terrorists do exist and some of them are suspected to be detained in Guantanamo] Yes, terrorists exist. And some are held in extrajudicial detention]] in Guantanamo. The wording I reverted implies that all the captives in Guantanamo are terrorist suspects. This is not true. Some were never suspected of being terrorists. Abdullah Mujahid On August 12 2007 Farah Stockman, writing in the Boston Globe used Mjuahid'd story to comment on the Bush administration's claim that Guantanamo captives had been apprehended "on the battlefield". Stockman described Mujahid as an early supporter during the overthrow of the Taliban, whose usefulness waned after their ouster, because he was illiterate, and was rumored to be corrupt. Stockman wrote:

Cheers! Geo Swan 22:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

typo?
should "his case marks the first instance of challenge to abortion statues being argued by women plaintiffs in terms of women’s right to choice rather than a doctor’s right to practice." read "his case marks the first instance of challenge to abortion statutes being argued by women plaintiffs in terms of women’s right to choice rather than a doctor’s right to practice." ? not sure cause I'm no lawyer...

NPOV
The article is hagiography without balancing points of view, such as THF (talk) 00:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Center for Constitutional Rights. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130620161331/http://www.globalexchange.org/news/global-exchange-human-rights-awards-ceremony-be-held-may-12-san-francisco to http://www.globalexchange.org/news/global-exchange-human-rights-awards-ceremony-be-held-may-12-san-francisco

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:27, 20 January 2018 (UTC)