O'Reilly Upset Over 9/11 Trials: 'I Don't Care About The Constitution!'

The man has no morals. He tauts his self-righteous bloatchiness all over television, bullies his interviewees instead of engaging and challenging them? Wow, I'm even impressed by his audacity, that he's not figuretively 'burned at the stake' by the mainstream media.

Oh wait, I'm not, this is what passes for normal news around here.

The counterpoint is that the 'liberal' (and I loathe the word in this context) media would probably while lambasting him wouldn't tell him 'he's Un-American' because its his right to say these things.

it's becoming more and more obvious with these so called GOP "pundits" and even "candidates" that we are going to have to educate the majority of Americans in mental health issues and personality disorders in particular

"The Constitution isn't here, your here, don't be a pinhead."

He was looking for a "personal feelings" rather than the legal/constitutional truth.

The reason being, the assumed modus operandi of people on fox is anger, disgust, and hate.

Reason is alien to them.

Mr. O'Reilly was bullying the judge. A man who has devoted his career to the law is not going to offer an 'opinion' on the law, he is going to rely on it to form his perspectives on events.

In this case, the law dates back to the Magna Carta, from which our founders developed the notion of due process, which is the keystone of our legal system. This document, embodied in our Constitution, reads, "no free man shall be seized, or imprisoned, or disseised, or outlawed, or exiled or injured in any way except by the lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land." (Magna Carta Libertatum, 1215). Our founders didn't invent this idea, they borrowed from legal ideas in place for centuries and, in my opinion, improved upon them.

In this case, Mr. Napolitano is relying on Article III, section 2 of the US Constitution. "The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed."

Hence, New York, where the crimes were committeed, is the venue. Mr. O'Really, in his zeal to force an opinion from the judge, disregards this, to his shame.

I argued the legality of these trials on another thread, to no avail of course as the "dittoheads" do not want to hear it.....a trial in Federal Court is the proper venue for these criminals as opposed to a military tribunal (and I've been arguing that since about 2003) - as an attorney.

As for the Judge, he perplexes me....he is 100% right about this, but 100% wrong in "opining" about the consitutionality of the healthcare reform legislation being proposed in Congress.....But he's a Libertarian (a walking, Constitutional oxymoron).

O'Reilly is the true pinhead and he proves it once again in this case - you don't bring on your "senior legal analyst" to talk about his "feelings" - you bring him on for LEGAL ANALYSIS...the problem is that O'Reilly didn't like the answer given to him and he could not accept the truth, facts and LAW.

BH123:

Why have trials when we could have lynch mobs?
Why have elections when we could have a coronation?

BH123 would have us turn America into a radical religous group ready to torture and kill without due process. Don't be afraid of doing things the AMERICAN way! Having due process is the only way to protect ourselves from a dictator who accuses his political opponents on false evidence, then kills them over it to shut them up and eradicate the rivalry. A president could use this power to take over another nation for their raw materials, causing the death of your family when they're sent off to a phony war! A president could also use this power to enrich himself through an alliance with a godless corporation like Halliburton, KBR, or Xe (formerly known as Black Water). If you fight the system that protects us from such monstrosities, you allow us to become a potent monopolistic monstrosity equalled only by the monstosity of terrorism.

Besides, why try these individuals in military court, when they were not military personnel? They were civilians who did a criminal act against the United States, plain and simple. I suggest that you and O'really... study up on the Constitution, and also on what makes us different from the terrorists, rather than trying to make us more and more like them.

Supreme court justices don't use "personal feelings" instead of just the straight up way it is?? give me a break.

hmmm... what's your point? That military judges don't use "personal feelings"?

Or that a judge, regardless of their location, strives to use his training to make an objective conclusion.....

I would side with the latter.

And lest we forget, I'll bet 99% of us posters, talk-show hosts and bloggers are NOT trained in weighing legal issues objectively as much as a judge. Remember that before any of us are oblivious to how we are the pot calling the kettle black.

These criminals, as we all may recall, were not called "Prisoners of War" by Bush and his cronies, as a conniving way to allow them to get thier sadistic jollies out on them by stacking them naked and torturing them. Now they suddenly ARE Prisoners of War that have to go to military tribunals? Give ME a break.

I say Amen to Holder. America is back on the right track now.

wow jimiracle you completely missed the point.
guess thats what happens when you butt into a convo without knowing who im talking to.

Wow un! You really love these murdering thugs, eh? Perhaps you can should move to Afghanistan or maybe Somalia and live with them.

No thanks, Afghanistan and Somalia are too small government for me. I like big brother giving me roads and police. WTF are you talking about anyway? What 'murdering thugs' did I show support for?

How funny I see this response after I just got done arguing with a guy about why Communism doesn't work.

Wow un! You really love these murdering thugs, eh? Perhaps you can should move to Afghanistan or maybe Somalia and live with them.

Wow BH123! You really hate the USA, don't you? If you don't like doing things the AMERICAN way, the CORRECT way, then maybe YOU should go to Somalia or Afghanistan, where you can torture and kill all you want. Anyone who says the following: "Terrorists have no rights. Torture them to death is the right thing to do." is NO American.

Why are you afraid of doing things the AMERICAN WAY? Are you going to let the terrorists win by turning America into just another radical religious movement that kills with no conscience?

Why are you afraid of doing things the AMERICAN WAY

?

Because BH and O'Reilly dream of being a Republican dictatorship.

jmiracle:
who said this?

Terrorists have no rights. Torture them to death is the right thing to do

I would disagree if they said it to, but i do think you are trying to spin this and it's not looking good.

you may realize that many of the posts have been deleted, oh bringer of the "truth".

Congratulations! You get the "D'oH!" award!

This award has no monetary value and is not considered to bring any prestige.

Yeah ji"miracle" you are too funny (not).
Yes, i also see some of your comments deleted! congrats. That shows how much monetary value and prestige your comments have! LOLOLOL

In this case O'Reilly's not just 'pursuing' a view, he's using a bullying/name calling tactic. O'Reilly a person who has been in television for more then a few years, he knows better, or knows how to work the interviewees to say things more or less to his liking.

I will agree that if this comes out as a not guilty Obama will take a political hit. However, that is better then having this person be in judicial limbo, with the possiblity to find him guilty (which is more then likely even with the thrown out evidence) and sent away for the rest of his life.

If the verdict does not comply with American opinion, then Obama, via Holder, will pay a steep price.

I don't know about that. Remember the O.J. Simpson trial?I don't recall heads rolling.

Anyway it is fortunate that we do not try people based on public opinion but on facts and the rule of law. I suspect the prosecution may be hamstrung by the willful and ignorant actions of the previous administration in collecting evidence by illegal means, i.e. "torture."

dizzy1

Did The President forget that the 9-11 attacks included THE FREAKIN PENTAGON???!!! how much more military do you get???!!

They suspect that the plane that went down in Pennsylvania was heading wither for the Capitol of the White House... two out of three are civilian targets. How about we send one of the suspects to be summarily executed by the military, 'k?

Actually all three can be argued to be military targets as all three have a role to play in the deployment of our forces.

The President is the Commander in Chief, thus his place of business, the White House, could be construed to be a legitimate target, especially if we are limiting targets to only those of military value (which always includes the military itself)

The grounds for the Congress are a bit weaker, but it would come down to two facts, 1) Congress directs and controls many aspects of the military from size, funding, structure, and its very existence. 2) (and the better point) these are government workers performing government services. A war is either a war between the peoples of varying nations, or at least one between the governments of those nations. Thus there may be an argument justifying the targeting of the US legislative body.

Of course if they were limiting themselves to military targets is it still terrorism? Since those two places could have been directing the conduct of the war they aren't really noncombatants. Or it can be argued they are ancillary combatants by controlling the actual combatants.

Just some thoughts.

Jake-413451

Of course if they were limiting themselves to military targets is it still terrorism? Since those two places could have been directing the conduct of the war they aren't really noncombatants. Or it can be argued they are ancillary combatants by controlling the actual combatants.

Just some thoughts.

And I think that's the reason the attack on the Pentagon gets much less remembrance compared to the World Trade Center. That, and the death toll.

And I think that's the reason the attack on the Pentagon gets much less remembrance compared to the World Trade Center. That, and the death toll.

That and the fact that all videos and pictures of the attack have been seized and hidden away by the government for reasons yet unclear which of course has led to endless conspiracy speculations.

Aside from that, for those of you defending the decision to try Guantanamo detainees in U.S. Federal courts, which part of U.S. law or the constitution applies to Afghans picked up IN Afghanistan for crimes committed IN Afghanistan? It seems to me these are enemy combatants, picked up off battlefields or arrested and turned over by foreign authorities. Under which code are these people being tried. We have three jurisdictions of courts in this country, municipal, state and federal and this doesn't seem to be in the realm of jurisdiction for any of them.

So Mike by what you are saying they will be tried in NY and then released by the supreme court because this procedure is un-constitutional.

I think you need to contact all of those prosecutors and let them in on this bit of information, because I am sure they didn't know this. Or if they do and they are released because of this then it will be Obama's fault, because he is a muslim extremist who had this planned all along...(/sarcastic) And all these prosecutors sure didn't study the constitution to well when they got their law degree....(roll eyes)

I didn't say the procedure was un-constitutional, I asked questions which you apparently cannot answer. You're fighting so heavily for the constitution to be applied to people who aren't citizens and have never been here and who's crimes were committed in other countries as an act of war. It seems to me, a military court is the proper venue.

The location of the procedure doesn't really bother me but rather which laws are being applied in the trial. If you're going to gove them constitutional protection are you then going to give them FULL constitutional protection? Do you think their 4th amendment rights were protected in Pakistan or Afghanistan or Iraq?

The aren't criminals arrested by police on a street in Manhattan. They were taken from foreign battlefields or arrested by foreign governments. To date, terrorists tried in our countries federal courts have all been terrorists who commited crimes on our soil. This is not the case here. If you don't see where there may be potential problems either applying U.S. law to these cases or applying international law in a federal court then you are blind. I don't think it's too much to ask for American's to know what the procedure is going to be.

If we were simply talking about holding prisoners on foreign soil, and then turning them over to authorities or military tribunals then I could see your point.

However, it was stated from the ruling of the Supreme Court, is that Guantanamo Bay is while the sovereign territory of Cuba through a lease agreement, the United States is "indefinite and at the discretion of the United States. What matters is the unchallenged and indefinite control that the Untied States has long exercised over Guantanamo Bay ... extending "implied protection" of the United States." (Quote by Judge Kennedy, Rasul v. Bush)

Also, Justice Kennedy states "Indefinite detention without trial or other proceedings present altogether different considerations. It allows friends and foes alike to remain in detention. It suggest a weaker case of military necessity and much greater alignment with the traditional function of habeas corpus."

The full ruling can be found here.

With that said, yes, you are giving them full constitutional protection since the prisoners are being transported from Guantanamo Bay, who have been there for an extended period of time. Also from the language that is placed in that was in that decision, "friends and foes" there is a proclamation that some that are at Guantanamo Bay may actually be innocent of crimes that are charged against them.

This should have never gotten in tangled mess that it has become, but now we are stuck with dealing with the consequence of trying to place people in judicial (whether national or international) limbo.

Mike:

The Constitution applies to how our courts administer justice. Justice is blind as to who is standing before it - citizen or non-citizen.

We don't have 2 systems of justice in this country.

I'm aware of what the constitution applies to AND aware of what it does NOT apply to. The constitution and U.S. law do NOT apply to foreign countries which is where these people committed the crimes they are accused of.

Again if you want to apply the constitution and U.S. law, so be it. They will probably walk if not for that U.S. law doesn't apply in Afghanistan, Iraq, or Pakistan then for the fact that 4th amendment rights were most assuredly violated as well as Miranda rights.

Tell me where the federal court system has jurisdiction in international law or tell me how you're going to mount a case for prosecution under U.S. law. I don't think it's too much to ask and no one is saying.

I'm not going to rehash what I said because it covers what you ask, it gave where federal jurisdiction does apply to prisoners of Guantanamo Bay. If you disagree with it so be it, you have your right to do so.

Subject matter jurisdiction for a criminal act (blowing up buiidings) would lie in the jurisdiction where the crime occurred.

Lower Manhattan sounds about right for that.

The aren't criminals arrested by police on a street in Manhattan. They were taken from foreign battlefields or arrested by foreign governments. To date, terrorists tried in our countries federal courts have all been terrorists who commited crimes on our soil. This is not the case here. If you don't see where there may be potential problems either applying U.S. law to these cases or applying international law in a federal court then you are blind. I don't think it's too much to ask for American's to know what the procedure is going to be.

Shhh, Mike don't tell Manuel Noriega. He seems to be both a convicted criminal and a prisoner of war.

Noriega, who was captured in Panama by U.S. military forces, completed his prison sentence for drug trafficking and money laundering in September 2007 but remains imprisoned until the courts can decide where he should go.

I don't think it's unreasonable to call an 18th century document that originally counted human beings as fractions of human beings and didn't explicitly outlaw slavery "imperfect." - Obama

Wow... you don't know much about history, do you, "mike of the north".

You accuse Obama of saying something "stupid" about the Constitution, yet he's right. There was a time when black people were only considered to be 3/5 of a person by the Supreme Court, who used the Constitution to frame this travesty of social injustice. He isn't saying anything stupid, but you are.

And of this:

Tell me where the federal court system has jurisdiction in international law or tell me how you're going to mount a case for prosecution under U.S. law. I don't think it's too much to ask and no one is saying.

Isn't it obvious? These men were civilians who committed a criminal act against the United States, damaging the Pentagon and destroying the WTC. They were not military men who attacked us in war. They were crazy, radical, religious civilians.

Why are you so afraid of doing things the American way? Military courts were never meant to be the priority, only the necessary arbitrator in war situations to further investigate an issue that can't be practically sent to other courts.

Perhaps the military court could have convened much earlier, to be able to sort out the innocents that were taken to Guatanomo and tortured, before they were found to be innocent and released, but to use them now when we have the evidence and the time to do this right is just skirting the issue of what military tribunals were actually meant for - emergency situations in war-time conditions.

Besides, ever hear of Watergate? Ever hear of "Wagging the Dog"?

Military courts have prime potential for misuse and abuse. They can be used to cover up lies and deciet perpetrated against the people of the United States by the President of the United States! A dictator wanna-be (like Bush, who on 3 separate occasions 'joked' by saying "A dictatorship would sure be a hell of a lot easier - as long as I'm the dictator") could destroy his political rivals through lies, start wars, and kill the rival to shut him up forever! Or a dictator could lie us into war just to steal money through an alliance with godless corporations like Halliburton, KBR and Xe (formerly known as Black Water), and then cover up the lies in clandestine military tribunals.

So if you can't accept the Constitution or due process, and if you can't accept the American way.... you're no American. In fact, you're not much better than the terrorists to push America towards being more like them.

Why would anyone want to give these fanatics credibility by raising them to the level of honorable soldiers? KSM said that he would plead guilty at a military tribunal and accept immediate execution. Of course he would. That would legitimatize his cause. It would immediately raise him to the status of a soldier and make him a martyr. This insane criminal doesn't deserve the honor of a military tribunal. Try him as the common criminal that he is.

He's not a common criminal though. Do common criminals usually mastermind a plan to crash planes into buildings killing 3000 people? No.

jimiracle

The constitution didn't say blacks were 3/5 human, the supreme court did. That was the common belief in our society at the time. Is it wrong? Yes, but it's not a fault of the constitution. Nothing in the constitution had to be changed to give blacks equal protection, only a new supreme court opinion and interpretation was needed. The stupidity is in the fact that he quoted the constitution as counting blacks as fractions of human beings and it never did.

luckydog,

The case against Manuel Noriega was an interesting one and I admit I had to do some reading to refresh my memory. The prosecution though had a LOT of problems due to the nature of the case. He was prosecuted primarily on circustantial evidence and witness testimony, most drug dealers they gave deals to.

My problem with this case is that I fear there are too many issues and 'technicalities' for this case to go wrong. I am a full believer in the constitution and the protections it offers but these guys are not citizens and are accused of crimes committed on U.S. soil when they weren't even here. Do to the nature of the investigation (military, not law enforcement) I'd suggest a military or international court would be the best place to try them. If you're going to invoke constitutional protection for these people you run the risk of evedence not being admissable for 4th amendment violations. I'm sure the military didn't knock on their caves with a search warrant. I'd be almost certain that 5th amendment rights were violated as well. Do you think they had attorneys present while they were being interogated or waterboarded? Who will sit on the jury and how will they get a fair trial? I hope more than anyone else that I'm wrong but I think trying them in civilian courts is a horrible idea that could very well end badly and humiliating the country.

The constitution didn't say blacks were 3/5 human...

Actually, it did.

Article 1, Section 2, line 3:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

-------------

Nothing in the constitution had to be changed to give blacks equal protection

Actually, it did:

Amendment XIII, Section 1:

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Mike, if you are going to cite the Constitution, you might want to learn what is in it:

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/articles1-7.html

What the constitution states is that slaves were counted as 3/5ths, not blacks. While it's true that most slaves were blacks, not all blacks were slaves and free blacks in the north were counted as whole. There were white slaves in the colonies before there were black slaves. White slaves were counted as 3/5ths also.

The amendment abolishing slavery as well is not what gave them equal protection. Even after slavery was abolished they still didn't have equal protection. Equal protection came when societal attitude changed and the interpretations of the constitution changed. It wasn't the constitution that had to change, it was the interpretations of it. Remember, there were white slaves too, as well as slaves of other races.

Remember, there were white slaves too, as well as slaves of other races.

Two cases:

• "fully white", with only white ancestors, including the first generation, usually kidnapped from Europe
• "partly white", either from interbreeding of black and "fully white" slaves or by white masters out of black slave women

I have not found any numbers for either case, but it seems that from a situation where all slaves were "fully white" (before the beginning of the slave trade from Africa), the "fully whites" were gradually blended into the black population. While there were certainly "quarteroons" who appeared white, I doubt that any "fully white" remained by the end of the Civil War.

Most of the white slaves were criminals who were bound to slavery to repay their debts to their victims. They were slaves for life and their children were also bound to be slaves. many others were infact children abducted from england. After we won independance from Britain, they sen't their criminals to Austrailia. This ended MOST of the white slave trade to America but certainly not all.

The point is though that Obama's comment that the constitution regarded blacks as 3/5's IS a stupid comment as it clearly states that slaves, not blacks were counted as 3/5 and history has shown that slaves were not just 'black', especially at the time the cosntitution was written and rattified.

If you read a little more into American slavery you find there were many black slave owners who owned both black AND white slaves as well. Our education systems likes to paint a different picture of Rich white men and enslaved oppressed black men, women and children making them rich when in fact neither slavery, nor slave ownership, were limited to black or white.

If you read a little more into American slavery you find there were many black slave owners who owned both black AND white slaves as well.

Could you give me a reference? I'd like to reads up a bit on this.

http://americancivilwar.com/authors/black_slaveowners.htm

http://www.blackinformant.com/uncategorized/more-buried-history-black-slave-owners-in-the-us

http://www.uwec.edu/Geography/Ivogeler/w188/south/charles/charles3.htm

I'm certain you could have Googled it but I'm feeling generous so here's a few. I'll throw in a couple on White Slaves too, just for good measure.

http://www.electricscotland.com/history/other/white_slavery.htm

http://www.revisionisthistory.org/forgottenslaves.html

He's not a common criminal though.

Yes, he is. He's not a soldier fighting on a battlefield and doesn't deserve the honor given to soldiers, he's a criminal that planned a criminal act.

Do common criminals usually mastermind a plan to crash planes into buildings killing 3000 people?

Apparently so, since this one did.

Mike,

Thank you.

Prophet,

Also - "War Criminals" or "soldiers" typically don't "mastermind a plan to crash planes into buildings killing 3000 people" either, but for some strange reason, Bush apologists are trying to put square pegs into triangle holes with these guys. The criminal code already exists, the crimes are codified, the Federal Courts have jurisdiction and they will carry out the appropriate justice - why all the complaining?

Bob,

Thank you as well. Our discussion made me do a little research and thinking to make my case. I appreciate being challenged.

Webslinger,
if you know me you know I'm not a "Bush apologist".
I didn't even like Bush.
Nice try.

Sure they are accused of participating in the 9/11 attacks but they weren't here, not subject to U.S. law. International law perhaps, but the U.S. Federal court isn not a typical juridictional avenue for international law.

If you want to apply the constitution to foreigners on foreign soil can you be sure that all of their rights were repected? Do you think we had search warrents? Were they given the right to an attorney during questioning? If you wan't to apply U.S. law I think we're in real trouble. If you're going to apply international law, what gives the federal court the jurisdiction?

Very good points. We've sort of painted ourselves into a corner on this one. Perhaps an international court would be the best idea. In any case, we need to come up with some way to deal with these people.

Mike,

As soon as officers of our government detained these people and transported them to US territory, our law applies. Rights accorded to individuals under our constitution apply to all people, not just citizens of the US, if they are detained by our government. This fact is why the Bush administration approved rendition for so many: transporting them back to their own nations, where trials and rights are considerably different from our own. It is Ceasar washing his hands.

Sure they are accused of participating in the 9/11 attacks but they weren't here

The crime occurred here and foreign conspirators to a crime that occurred here can be brought here and tried here under our judicial system.

I am proud of our excellent judicial system and I am proud that our troops and intelligence officers have been scouring the earth to bring these criminals to justice. Hopefully they will all rot away in a federal supermax for the rest of their lives just like the perpetrators of the 1993 WTC bombing.

Hopefully they will all rot away in a federal supermax for the rest of their lives just like the perpetrators of the 1993 WTC bombing.

I hope so too and I have nothing but the utmost respect for our military. The potential problems I'm seeing is that the gathering of eveidence and arrest of these individuals was done through international efforts and if we try to apply U.S. law rather than international law then there will surely be some prosecutorial issues regarding constitutional rights and others. Like I said earlier, I'm sure there have been numerous 4th amendment violations, 5th amendment violations and probably a few others.

That would also lend credence to claims made by terrorist recruiters trying to win converts to their cause.

"" many of the most vocal critics of the current plan (to try the accused in a Federal court) are of the mind that ANY trial is unwarranted and that the accused should simply be summarily found guilty and executed.""

and you base this comment on what, exactly? I think you are making it up...

Uh no. Here's one well-publicized example. Numerous similar comments have been made on NV.

IOKIYARW

???????????????

azerty!

KSM admitted to masterminding the attack on 9/11. He said more Americans will continue to die until they wipe us all out.

It's a terrible day when somone shoots a convenience store clerk for a couple hundred dollars. It's a terrible day when a drunk driver kills someone. Would you strip them of their rights, too, or are those murders not terrible enough?

Drunk driver should be looking at a really long prison sentence, possibly life.

And the theif should be looking at about the same thing.

Call me what you will, but there's NO excuse for deliberately hurting someone. The drunk made the choice to drink and drive, so they're an idiot, and the thief decided to shoot the clerk for money.

And i know if it was my family member they murdered, I want them dead too.

I didn't ask what their sentence should be. I asked whether they should be given a trial as the Constitution mandates, or if the Constitution should not apply to them.

No grrace, I thought Jatsu Sama was asking what sentence should be given to the criminals. My mistake Jatsu Sama.

So to clarify, for grrace's sake, I think that yes, they should be given trials as according to the Constitution. They are citizens (I'm assuming) and therefore have their rights.

This scum on trial in New York, however, is not in anyway shape or form a citizen to the United States. He is an enemy of the United States and furthermore not a uniformed fighter. He is a terrorist and in this one instance I agree with Bush (never thought I'd have to say that) for terrorists the Geneva Code should not apply, therefore, he does not deserve a trial.

But again, he's not a citizen and he's not a drunk driver, nor a convenience store thief. He's a terrorist who in the divine name of "Allah" (like all religious nuts from all factions) was told to destroy as many civilian lives as possible in one swift act of cruelty and violence.

To focus on grrace's comment: I know I'm not a scholar on the Constitution (no it's not a dig on Obama, I think it's really cool he has a diploma in it), but to compare a drunk driver to a terrorist is apples to oranges.

Yes the Constitution applies to "black people" they're citizens aren't they? And I have no idea what a "fernor" is (seriously what is that) but I guess it applies to them too.

Bill O'Reilly is a loudmouthed buffoon, and the Constitution matters, but for terrorists in unmarked uniforms with no clear battle lines in a war of espionage and suicide attacks, they fall into the "not-covered" category of Constitutional insurance.

Let Mohammad hang, and let it be soon!

So grrace, should I start attacking you for not replying within a 2 hour period? The same way you went after me? Ever heard of school? I love the vine, but I can't do it allday. Got to expand my education for a better future (brace for "omg you're our future ftw" jokes now).

Luminator,

Here is what the Constitution actually says:

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

These key sections do not use the word "citizen". They use "people" and "person". Clearly, the provisions apply to everyone within the sphere of American power, not just to citizens.

---

As incredible as it may seem, the Bush administration did not foresee that prisoners would be taken in the war against terror. The Bush administration made no preparations, installed no process for determining how prisoners should be managed.

There was no on-the-scene process for deciding who to keep and who to release -- a "sweep" picks up bystanders along with the bad guys -- so we still have prisoners who never did anything wrong -- if we are interested in "justice" these people should have some sort of recourse.

Most prisoners -- the ones who fought us on-site -- should have been declared POWs, so that they could be held "until the end of hostilities".That would have been perfectly conform to the Geneva Conventions, and would have permitted us to hold these bad guys indefinitely.

Any prisoners who had been involved in terrorist attacks on American (or other allied!) soil, with heavy potential criminal penalties, should have been automatically returned to that site for criminal charges.

But the Bush administration did not foresee that there would be prisoners... so now there is a "mess" to be cleaned up.

Most prisoners -- the ones who fought us on-site -- should have been declared POWs, so that they could be held "until the end of hostilities".That would have been perfectly conform to the Geneva Conventions, and would have permitted us to hold these bad guys indefinitely.

They don't apply to the geneva convention don't you understand? That applies to enemy soldiers under a nation's uniform. They use guerrilla tactics, and are usually independent soldiers.

and I don't see how the 4th and 5th amendment applies to another nation's citizens? can you explain this for me? "everyone within the sphere of american power" does not really explain it.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

"No person." Not "No citizen." The Constitution is a set of rules for the government, not a list of citizenship benefits.

Bringer,

Before I contend that a documents say "this" or says "that... I check! The people who wrote the Conventions were not stupid nor ignorant. They knew that throughout most of history, wars have been fought without uniforms. Most wars today are fought without uniforms, at least on one side... So here's what the Conventions actually say:

Art 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[
(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

(4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

(5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

So... there are several clauses that cover these people.

I hope that everyone understands that declaring our enemies to be POWs is in fact a very unkind act. A POW may be held until the end of hostilities -- that is to say, until al Qaeda surrenders. Or until Hell freezes over!

----------------

I don't see how the 4th and 5th amendment applies to another nation's citizens? can you explain this for me?

Sure! Our Founding Fathers wanted to be sure that human rights were understood to be a part of what it is to be a person. They did not want human rights to be an "gift" from the state (neither from the old king of England nor from the new American government) because the state can always take back something that it has given.

Jefferson expressed this in the famous line from the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

So... the Constitution's Bill of Rights does not endow us. It defends rights that we already have. We already have those rights, because all people have them.

That is why the Constitution does not speak of "citizens", but of "people".

Obviously, the Constitution of the United States does not apply in parts of the world where the US is not in authority... but it does apply to all people in all places where the US is in authority. For example, the base at Guantanamo is held under a perpetual lease. The Supreme Court therefore ruled (Hamdan v Rumsfeld) that the Constitution applies there... to all people there...

Art 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[
(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.strong>em>

Coming from someone who has family that has been in irag and Afghanistan, as well as %90 of my old friends from High School having joined the Marines, and have told me time and time again about it:

a. They don't have a leader type commanding them in battle, they usually are random in a group of civilians. In Afghan it is a little more conventional than Iraq.
b. They usually are disguised as a civilian. In robes and hoods.
c. NOT carrying open weapons. Hiding weapons and attacking when unsuspected.
d. Taking their own POWs, and decapitating them, and later showing them to the nation's people. Engaging and using civilians of their own country as human shields.

They do not fall into that item.

(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

Obviously don't fall into this.

(4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

Umm, yeah. They recruit civilians into their organization, or use them for human shields. And they never have ID cards saying that they are volunteers for the organization. They don't fall into this.

(5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

Obviously not applied to them.

(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

They don't respect the laws and and customs of war. So they are Not covered by this present convention.

Bringer,

So we have men who

• don't have a leader type commanding them in battle,
• are random in a group of civilians,
• are "disguised" as a civilian. In robes and hoods.
• NOT carrying open weapons.

... but you know that they are the enemy...

How?

Remember... if you take prisoners who were in fact nothing more than innocent bystanders, then you will incite all the other innocent-bystander neighbors to join the enemy.

The Conventions' filter rules have a purpose: To prevent innocents from being swept up as POWs. That purpose should be our purpose!

The Conventions serve both sides in a conflict.

Yeah Bob you win you are right. I agree with you. I guess I was just pointing out how technically they aren't covered.

;-)

yup lol

Beverly:
very good voice of reason you are! :)

thanx :-)

oh my gaawd, not another truther....

damn those scientifically based, fact-loving morons!

might as well throw racist in there while your at it

nohandouts, you are in the middle of a liberal anti-O'Reilly frenzy. Logic and common sense are out of the picture. The have, once again, taken Bill out of context.

I would have to agree, it is out of context. When I was watching I didn't even notice anything was very, sure, it was poorly worded, but it didn't bother me when I watched it. What DID irritate me was Brit Hume saying that he could not find any viable opinion to doing it. I do see both sides, but Brit Hume is completely oblivious that there is an opposing side that does make some sense.

Also Brent, I've have seen both these "liberal anti-O'reilly frenzies" as well as the Conservative anti-Obama frenzies, both take everything out of context and completely discard any logic and common sense they might have. It disgusts me that when people become so extreme in any political views that they completely refuse to accept that there IS a possible solution that is not their own. Several civil wars throughout history have been started over much less, and I fear that we are heading toward a dangerous crossroads if we continue to have our leaders (government and press) pit the citizens so passionately against one another.

I don't see it will even possible to pick an impartial jury.

tyler,

More of your liberal, anti-free speech, eh?

I thought liberals took free speech to an extreme like ACLU vs. Skokie?

And by removing anti-O'Reilly rants, wouldn't that be more of a pro-conservative force?

Oh dear...

I'm beginning to notice a trend. The NVers whom I decide to ignore tend to get banned.

;-))))))))))))))))))))))))

Wow, now that's impressive! With that infomative post I feel smarter already.

Clinton left us in the black ...some people don't actually know what that means...

Every senior economist has already proved this.

In that case, a link should be easy to produce....

As a matter of fact, supplying a link really should be a reflex when tossing a grenade like this. After all, if a link is not supplied, a reader might just suppose that the poster is blowing smoke!

Oh... you're one of those...

Have a nice life.