Bill OReily

[MrSinatra]

he did nothing of the sort... let me fill you in...

NO COUNTRY has ever given "rights" equal to that of their own citizens during a war, NEVER, anytime during all of history.

the military should be doing tribunals. and imo, a lot of these people should be shot as per the geneva convention, which states that anyone not in uniform is a spy, and subject to execution.

i think its great you are so concerned about the rights of people who want to kill you, but the constitution is not a suicide pact.

[Ken92081]

he did nothing of the sort... let me fill you in...
NO COUNTRY has ever given "rights" equal to that of their own citizens during a war, NEVER, anytime during all of history.

If he did "nothing of the sort" then why didnt he do this on American soil instead of in Guantanamo? Because according to the Constitution, no matter WHO you are, the second you step foot on our soil, you are subject to our protections.

i think its great you are so concerned about the rights of people who want to kill you, but the constitution is not a suicide pact.

So amend the Constitution. Look, if there were an amendment saying "We will allow Jack Bauer to do whatever he had to do to stop terrorist activities from happening" fine I'm all for it because it's what the people will have wanted. But I do not believe in taking what makes us better than everyone else and shooting them down the f bomb toilet just because some people need the illusion of safety. Like I said, you want rendition? You want torture for these assholes? Fine, then lets get it right, but dont break the law and tell me its ok, because once you break one law, you can break any. You can find any s bomb reason to suspend any of the rights guarnateed by our Constitution.

[MrSinatra]

he did nothing of the sort... let me fill you in...
NO COUNTRY has ever given "rights" equal to that of their own citizens during a war, NEVER, anytime during all of history.

If he did "nothing of the sort" then why didnt he do this on American soil instead of in Guantanamo? Because according to the Constitution, no matter WHO you are, the second you step foot on our soil, you are subject to our protections.

WRONG. cite something, ANYTHING, that supports that "legal analysis."

he didn't bring them here for very good reasons, such as safety, do you want terrorists in your local prison? quite foolish if so.

secondly, its a military matter as they as military prisoners, and that was the safest place to house them.

third, he probably did want to avoid ACLU loons who would sue (as they have anyway) but who would have less of an argument if they were never in a state.

i think its great you are so concerned about the rights of people who want to kill you, but the constitution is not a suicide pact.

So amend the Constitution. Look, if there were an amendment saying "We will allow Jack Bauer to do whatever he had to do to stop terrorist activities from happening" fine I'm all for it because it's what the people will have wanted. But I do not believe in taking what makes us better than everyone else and shooting them down the f bomb toilet just because some people need the illusion of safety. Like I said, you want rendition? You want torture for these assholes? Fine, then lets get it right, but dont break the law and tell me its ok, because once you break one law, you can break any. You can find any s bomb reason to suspend any of the rights guarnateed by our Constitution.

i don't need to amend the constitution b/c nothing thats been done was unconstitutional.

[Ken92081]

he did nothing of the sort... let me fill you in...
NO COUNTRY has ever given "rights" equal to that of their own citizens during a war, NEVER, anytime during all of history.

If he did "nothing of the sort" then why didnt he do this on American soil instead of in Guantanamo? Because according to the Constitution, no matter WHO you are, the second you step foot on our soil, you are subject to our protections.

WRONG. cite something, ANYTHING, that supports that "legal analysis."

he didn't bring them here for very good reasons, such as safety, do you want terrorists in your local prison? quite foolish if so.

secondly, its a military matter as they as military prisoners, and that was the safest place to house them.

third, he probably did want to avoid ACLU loons who would sue (as they have anyway) but who would have less of an argument if they were never in a state.

i think its great you are so concerned about the rights of people who want to kill you, but the constitution is not a suicide pact.

So amend the Constitution. Look, if there were an amendment saying "We will allow Jack Bauer to do whatever he had to do to stop terrorist activities from happening" fine I'm all for it because it's what the people will have wanted. But I do not believe in taking what makes us better than everyone else and shooting them down the f bomb toilet just because some people need the illusion of safety. Like I said, you want rendition? You want torture for these assholes? Fine, then lets get it right, but dont break the law and tell me its ok, because once you break one law, you can break any. You can find any s bomb reason to suspend any of the rights guarnateed by our Constitution.

i don't need to amend the constitution b/c nothing thats been done was unconstitutional.

http://www.amazon.com/Nation-Sheep-Andr ... 1595550976


you all like books, read that. It's a book by someone who actually gives a s bomb about the constitution

[WeaponOfMassInstruction]

The first problem with your analysis is that you can cite no one dominant definition of "torture". Since there is no prevailing legal definition- interesting that it shares that distinction with "pornography", no?- you are forced into latching onto a more-than-somewhat malleable definition to make your case while those, like myself, who disagree with you can latch onto another more-than-malleable- but substantially different- definition to make our case. You can choose to define "torture" as anything more intrusive than a raised voice; I can choose to define it as anything that causes multiple organ failures. Because there is no single prevailing legal definition, both are equally valid.

Who's fault is that?

Congress.

Congress had the ability to establish a single legal standard...but they did not do so. Not when controlled by Republicans and not when controlled by Democrats. As to the 'why?', I should imagine that their concerns were more about power and the retention of power than they were with settling the debate. Beating their collective chests about how the evil Bush Administration was torturing these poor people who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time (and carrying weapons....but let's ignore that) before Cheney and Rumsfeld descended from black helicopters and grabbed them from their peaceful desert homes became somewhat of a cottage industry for Democrats, who scored major political points by denouncing the practice even as they offered no solutions (as they rarely, if ever, do). Republicans, because they collectively lack stones, failed to stand up to the Democrats and allowed them to disingenuously frame the argument, probably out of fear of losing their Congressional seats. I'd have had a good deal more respect for them if they stood on principal and lost than to abrogate principal and keep their seats.

Secondly, you seem to be totally consumed with extending to non-citizens the rights formerly accorded only to United States citizens or, in times of war, to formally-recognized prisoners of war. There have been court cases, at SCOTUS level (ex parte Milligan, Eisentrager among others), that recognize the legitimacy of military tribunals and enemy combatants. Treaties the US has signed clearly recognize different classification of persons captured under arms, with correspondingly different rights to be accorded to the different groups. If you read the actual court decisions and the text of the treaties, you'll very quickly learn that we have, if anything, treated these people better than the law requires....and far better than they have treated our prisoners.

Lastly, as Mr. S pointed out, our Constitution is not a suicide pact (thank you Justice Jackson). You suggested a book for me/us to read; let me return the favor- America Alone by Mark Steyn.

Did you know that there is a movement in England by so-called 'moderate Muslims' to force Shar'ria Law on non-Muslim British subjects- via the British parliamentary and elective system? Steyn points out that Muslim politicians are running for office from majority-Muslim districts and then working to replace British Common Law with Sha'ria, even if that means essentially disenfranchising non-Muslims in the process. Some are very open about their ultimate goal of phasing out ALL Common Law and replacing it with Sha'ria indistinguishable from that in Tehran. And it's all legal because they are working from within the framework of the law- making British Common Law a suicide pact. We cannot and must not allow that to happen here.

[Big_Willie_Styles]

and again, no examples.

You mean you want me to find transcripts of him saying such things? Have you not watched or listened to Bill?

I watch him much more often than you do. And he's the #1 name in news for a reason, troll.

[ArielShaul]

Bill is the worst TV anchor -- except for all others! Broadcast networks should be beating O'Reilly, but they are too busy misreporting and propagandizing.
Occasionally he does get a bit shallow, like when he dismissively read a letter explaining that Santa Claus, Sinter Klaus, originated from a Norse idol and is not appropriate for any monotheistic holiday. It was correct and to the point, but did not fit his agenda.
His strength is is guest list, which includes retired military and intelligence, and the top leaders of liberal and conservative advocacy groups. Getting the news right, commenting, and making it interesting is what draws the biggest audience and the most sponsors. Bill is leading Fox News to domination because the administration is asking the LameStream media to lie and they are obediently marching off the cliff.

[Japanklet]

Hello, Ariel!

Welcome to the board! I've been reading your posts, and they are very interesting. I'm looking forward to hearing your views in some of the other discussions.

Japanklet

[rapidforum321]

Well said...he deserves this..

[hanifan]

and you base that conclusion on what?

your opinion is not fact.

i agree with you... is not based on facts