O'Reilly gets a lesson on the Constitution

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Jillian. You are right in one instance. The Bush administration should have taken care of all of these guys long ago.

As for your little bit about their RIGHTS. These people are trying to kill us. They are TERRORISTS. They would kill you and your whole family, your neighbors anyone. They wouldn't bat an eye while doing it. So I don't think their RIGHTS bother me at all. If it were up to me I would get any and all info out of them that I could and then execute the whole lot of them. Anyone who doesn't think thats fair or right, well you can just kiss my ass.

There are murderers here in America that wouldn't bat an eye at killing someone, but they have rights under our judicial system just as anybody else that commits a crime.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

O'Reilly had Krauthammer on last night and asked him about it.

He's no dummy and according to him the administration could just as easily trie these guys in a military court. Either or. They are not covered by the Geneva Convention. He said he could see the Judges point of view also but couldn't see why Holder and Obama wanted to give these guys a platform. Was a very interesting discussion.

no. krauthammer isn't a "dummy". but he is an idealogue and his opinions, to which he's entitled, aren't necessarily correct as a matter of law.

why didn't the blind sheikh get a military tribunal?

answer: because he wasn't held in gitmo and denied charges or any trial.

if they wanted to give these guys a military trial, they had all of the bush administration to do so.

they didn't. and they were wrong in the first instance

The Supreme Court is wrong? You are aware it APPROVED military tribunals?

 

[Navy1960]

"It is observable that the power of exclusive legislation (which is jurisdiction) is united with cession of territory, which is to be the free act of the states. It is difficult to compare the two sections together, without feeling a conviction, not to be strengthened by any commentary on them, that, in describing the judicial power, the framers of our constitution had not in view any cession of territory; or, which is essentially the same, of general jurisdiction," 3 Wheat., at 388.

Thus, in Bevans, the Court established a principle that federal jurisdiction extends only over the areas wherein it possesses the power of exclusive legislation, and this is a principle incorporated into all subsequent decisions regarding the extent of federal jurisdiction. To hold otherwise would destroy the purpose, intent and meaning of the entire U.S. Constitution.

#TL08: U.S. Federal Jurisdiction

The USA PATRIOT Act and legislation implementing treaties on terrorist bombings and on financing terrorism enlarge the extent of federal extraterritorial criminal jurisdiction. The USA PATRIOT Act's contributions involve credit cards, money laundering, and the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States. Congress has enacted laws proscribing various common law crimes such as murder, robbery, or sexual assaults when committed within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, i.e., when committed aboard an American vessel or within a federal enclave. Whether federal enclaves in other countries are included within the special territorial jurisdiction of the United States is a question that divides the lower courts. The Act provides that the overseas establishments of federal governmental entities and residences of their staffs are within the special territorial jurisdiction of the United States for purposes of crimes committed by or against U.S. nationals.
https://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/1499

After the terrorist acts of September 11, 2001, President George W. Bush
authorized the creation of military tribunals to try individuals who gave assistance
to the attacks on New York City and Washington, D.C. The military order issued by
President Bush closely traced the model established by President Franklin D.
Roosevelt, who appointed a military tribunal in 1942 to try eight German saboteurs.
In Ex parte Quirin (1942), the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the jurisdiction
of Roosevelt’s tribunal.

The
Constitution vests in Congress the power to “constitute Tribunals inferior to the
supreme Court,” to “make rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and
naval Forces,” and to “define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high
Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations.” By enacting Articles of War,
Congress defined not only the procedures but also the punishments to be applied to
the field of military law.
http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL32458.pdf

§ 2441. War crimes

(a) Offense.— Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.
(b) Circumstances.— The circumstances referred to in subsection (a) are that the person committing such war crime or the victim of such war crime is a member of the Armed Forces of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act).
US CODE: Title 18,2441. War crimes

There is plenty of past instances throughout this nations history where individuals that have commited acts such as KSM has have been tried and "executed" by Military tribunals. This talk about how bringing them to trial will show the world the American Justice system fails to recognize this nations history in such matters as these. This nation has even put it's own citizens to death as a result of a Military Tribunals dating back to the civil war. Further if the acts committed by those who plotted, planned, and carried out such acts, are not acts committed on the high seas then I don't know what is. The bottom line here, is the decision to bring these scum to NY has little if anything to do with bringing this to a conclusion and has more to do with, what some want the world to think of us rather than justice. If this were about justice at all then the Justice department would have listened to the majority of the family members here and never considered this move.

 

[Claudette]

Yes Kevin. American criminals are entitled to a trial under our Judicial system in our courts. Terrorists are not. These dirtbags aren't even covered by the Geneva convention. Kinda hard to figure where you think they should all be tried in our court system.

As I said. Shoot em all. End of problem.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Yes Kevin. American criminals are entitled to a trial under our Judicial system in our courts. Terrorists are not. These dirtbags aren't even covered by the Geneva convention. Kinda hard to figure where you think they should all be tried in our court system.

As I said. Shoot em all. End of problem.

Our government doesn't have the right to just kill anybody it wants without a trial.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Yes Kevin. American criminals are entitled to a trial under our Judicial system in our courts. Terrorists are not. These dirtbags aren't even covered by the Geneva convention. Kinda hard to figure where you think they should all be tried in our court system.

As I said. Shoot em all. End of problem.

Our government doesn't have the right to just kill anybody it wants without a trial.

In your opinion should those that are captured on the battlefield be given constitutional rights?

 

[GWV5903]

Yes Kevin. American criminals are entitled to a trial under our Judicial system in our courts. Terrorists are not. These dirtbags aren't even covered by the Geneva convention. Kinda hard to figure where you think they should all be tried in our court system.

As I said. Shoot em all. End of problem.

Our government doesn't have the right to just kill anybody it wants without a trial.

Correct, but the debate is a Military Tribunal vs. a Criminal Trial....O'Reilly respectfully disagreed with Napolitano.....BTW so does most of America.....

A Military Tribunal is the correct way to handle this, but no surprise the Obama Administration made another horrendous decision, is anyone really surprised by this????

 

[Claudette]

So right GW. The Military tribunal is a slam dunk. The guy has already said he would plead guilty. For the life of me I cannot figure why Ol'BO and that Moron Holder want a show trial with possibility of aquittal?

Must say Holder couldn't answer L. Graham in the Senate hearing either. Whatta guy. Just think. He's our AG.

 

[PoliticalChic]

[youtube]5eBrfql3pnU[/youtube]

Because KSM has admitted to the crime O'Reilly doesn't think a trial is necessary. Is that how our justice system really works there Bill? Notice the Judge laughs at O'Reilly when he tells him not to be a pinhead, but that's because the Judge knows who was really being a pinhead.

Although this discussion has evolved into the question of KSM's rights, the OP has not been addressed in that it doesn't seem as if O'Reilly was actually dispensing with the Constitution.

This is a fine example of lack of context.

Although I did not see the show, I viewed the video that you provided, and while O'Reilly said what you OP'ed about, the context was along the following lines:

"Judge, don't bring the Constitution into the discussion here, just tell me what your personal opinion is of KSM and what you'd like to happen to him"."

O'Reilly seemed as though he was trying to get the judge to say what a dog KSM is
...similar to several of the opinions in this thread.

 

[uscitizen]

Ahh the problems of undeclared wars and avoiding the Geneve Convention rules...

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Yes Kevin. American criminals are entitled to a trial under our Judicial system in our courts. Terrorists are not. These dirtbags aren't even covered by the Geneva convention. Kinda hard to figure where you think they should all be tried in our court system.

As I said. Shoot em all. End of problem.

Our government doesn't have the right to just kill anybody it wants without a trial.

In your opinion should those that are captured on the battlefield be given constitutional rights?

Yes. What constitutional right do we have to torture and detain people indefinitely without a trial?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Yes Kevin. American criminals are entitled to a trial under our Judicial system in our courts. Terrorists are not. These dirtbags aren't even covered by the Geneva convention. Kinda hard to figure where you think they should all be tried in our court system.

As I said. Shoot em all. End of problem.

Our government doesn't have the right to just kill anybody it wants without a trial.

Correct, but the debate is a Military Tribunal vs. a Criminal Trial....O'Reilly respectfully disagreed with Napolitano.....BTW so does most of America.....

A Military Tribunal is the correct way to handle this, but no surprise the Obama Administration made another horrendous decision, is anyone really surprised by this????

A military tribunal would simply be a kangaroo court where the government will simply do whatever it wants. Even in these civilian trials you get the idea from the higher ups that a verdict of "not guilty" is unacceptable, so I'm not sure that these are going to be anything more than a show trial either.

And I don't think O'Reilly calling the Judge a pinhead was very respectful, personally.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

[youtube]5eBrfql3pnU[/youtube]

Because KSM has admitted to the crime O'Reilly doesn't think a trial is necessary. Is that how our justice system really works there Bill? Notice the Judge laughs at O'Reilly when he tells him not to be a pinhead, but that's because the Judge knows who was really being a pinhead.

Although this discussion has evolved into the question of KSM's rights, the OP has not been addressed in that it doesn't seem as if O'Reilly was actually dispensing with the Constitution.

This is a fine example of lack of context.

Although I did not see the show, I viewed the video that you provided, and while O'Reilly said what you OP'ed about, the context was along the following lines:

"Judge, don't bring the Constitution into the discussion here, just tell me what your personal opinion is of KSM and what you'd like to happen to him"."

O'Reilly seemed as though he was trying to get the judge to say what a dog KSM is
...similar to several of the opinions in this thread.

That's why I did not title this thread the same as the video, I felt it was deceiving. However, O'Reilly needs to understand that some of us, such as the Judge, would rather see the Constitution upheld in all cases rather than the government ever abuse its authority.

 

[PoliticalChic]

[youtube]5eBrfql3pnU[/youtube]

Because KSM has admitted to the crime O'Reilly doesn't think a trial is necessary. Is that how our justice system really works there Bill? Notice the Judge laughs at O'Reilly when he tells him not to be a pinhead, but that's because the Judge knows who was really being a pinhead.

Although this discussion has evolved into the question of KSM's rights, the OP has not been addressed in that it doesn't seem as if O'Reilly was actually dispensing with the Constitution.

This is a fine example of lack of context.

Although I did not see the show, I viewed the video that you provided, and while O'Reilly said what you OP'ed about, the context was along the following lines:

"Judge, don't bring the Constitution into the discussion here, just tell me what your personal opinion is of KSM and what you'd like to happen to him"."

O'Reilly seemed as though he was trying to get the judge to say what a dog KSM is
...similar to several of the opinions in this thread.

That's why I did not title this thread the same as the video, I felt it was deceiving. However, O'Reilly needs to understand that some of us, such as the Judge, would rather see the Constitution upheld in all cases rather than the government ever abuse its authority.

Sadly, the abuse is constant and ongoing.

Anyone who believes in a 'living Constitution,' meaning other than strict constructionists, is doing just that.


1. How does AG Holder submit advice to the Executive that D.C., not a state, should get representation in the House?
"The Washington Post confirms that the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, "an elite unit that gives legal and constitutional advice to the executive branch," did issue an unpublished opinion earlier this year that the voting rights bill is unconstitutional. "
David Limbaugh : Holder's Injustice - Townhall.com


2. the White House attempt to strong arm investors in Chrysler to drop their contractual rights to be paid first in a bankruptcy. The White House demanded concessions and an abrogation of the contract, and have been directly threatened by the White House, if they didn’t give in.
This becomes a Constitutional issue, as Contract and Property rights should be sacrosanct. Lauria contends that as our government is composed of three independent branches, and the Executive is now taking over the role of the Judiciary.
News/Talk 760 WJR
White House Denies Charge By Attorney that Administration Threatened to Destroy Investment Firm's Reputation* - Political Punch

3. Article 1, section 6, paragraph 2: No Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office…or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time… [Senator Clinton became Sec’y of State]

4. Article 1, section 7, paragraph 3 Every order, resolution, or vote to which the concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him… [Signing statements aimed at modifying a bill’s intent. The President should either veto, or ‘faithfully execute.]

5. Article 1, section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; [Where do we find the power to tax AIG executives at 90%, or ‘level the playing field’ with extraordinary taxes against successful people, or redistribute wealth?]

6. Article 1, section 8, paragraph 4:” To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;” [uniform: put the squeeze on Chrysler bondholders, choose which companies would fail or get bailouts]

 

[GWV5903]

Our government doesn't have the right to just kill anybody it wants without a trial.

Correct, but the debate is a Military Tribunal vs. a Criminal Trial....O'Reilly respectfully disagreed with Napolitano.....BTW so does most of America.....

A Military Tribunal is the correct way to handle this, but no surprise the Obama Administration made another horrendous decision, is anyone really surprised by this????

A military tribunal would simply be a kangaroo court where the government will simply do whatever it wants. Even in these civilian trials you get the idea from the higher ups that a verdict of "not guilty" is unacceptable, so I'm not sure that these are going to be anything more than a show trial either.

And I don't think O'Reilly calling the Judge a pinhead was very respectful, personally.

We disagree on where the circus would be worst, and O'Reilly calls a lot of people a pinhead, and Napolitano was acting like a pinhead.....at the end he, O'Reilly said that he respected Napolitano's opinion.....big deal.....

Your point is O'Reilly received a lesson on the Constitution, this could be debated either way in regards to the KSM situation, the effect and intent of terrorism is no different than the effect and intent of previous wars, Napolitano is stating that we never declared war, how do you declare war on Muslim Extremist funded by country's who can not take on the powers that be with out being cowards? Are the effects any different? No, the outcome is actually much worse, innocent civilians are killed by cowards and all we have managed to do is point the finger at ourselves? How stupid can we get? The political rhetoric from the left about torture, lies about WMD and currently the build up & continuation in Afghanistan is nothing more than a clear sign of weakness.....It is sadly comical that Obama returns home from his Asian trip believing we are perceived better by the world, when in all reality they now know we have nothing more than a want to be world leader, not a POTUS.....

In short, he will make no lasting benefit for our interest or the worlds for that matter, he will become another failure, the same as Carter did.....