Conservative commentators continue their war on the Constitution this week with increasingly shrill rhetoric of how our laws and civil liberties are endangering us. Fox News commentator Bill O’Reilly, however, achieved a remarkable low by declaring “I don’t care about the Constitution” on air in a discussion of Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision to try five detainees in New York.
I am always struck by anti-American rhetoric that comes from such figures. The Constitution is the very thing that defines who we are as a nation. It is the thing that we have sacrificed lives and treasure to protect. Yet, people like O’Reilly have little reluctance in trashing it. I am less surprised by Karl Rove, who has shown little personal commitment to the rule of law and barely escaped an indictment in the Plame matter. Rove declared that giving a fair trial to terror suspects is a “long-standing plot” by “left-wing lawyers who do not love America.” America, it seems, is something other than our values and founding documents. It is, I suppose, Fox News.
I have no delusion about O’Reilly, but I am still struck by the dismissive contempt shown this common article of faith between citizens, the Constitution. While we have considerable political, religious, and cultural differences, that document is something of a covenant of faith between us as citizens. One cannot love this country without loving that document. What is less is land and “lifestyle.” O’Reilly’s statement is every bit as offensive as those of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, whom I also denounced. Yet, it was met with acclaim rather than condemnation from conservative viewers.
All of those right-wing zanies claim to “love” the Constitution… until it’s inconvenient for them to do so.
Mr. Turley,
Your career seems to be based on the defense of America’s enemies. Any chance that you’ll defend a patriot one day? After all, there wouldn’t be such a thing as constitutional law without them.
My response to Swill-o?
I don’t care about fascists.
Why?
Because you have not learned to heed the call of Ezra Pound “to be men not destroyers”.
You have not learned the valueless nature of materialism.
You are not fully aware and, ergo, not fully human, but rather just another dumb animal stupid enough to run off a cliff.
Fascist and people who back them like O’Reilly are not just a stain upon the Constitution and this country’s history, but an offense to humankind. They don’t care about anything but themselves and it shows in their every action.
Slaves to their own ego and the idiotic delusion that money and what car you drive defines you as a person, blissfully ignorant that most people intuitively are capable of following Dr. King’s (and my grandfather’s) advice to judge people by the content of their character first even if they can be temporarily blinded by bullshit.
This is why corporations and fascism must be crushed. Fascists will kill the world so YOU can’t have it. Theirs is a mantra of greed.
People like Bill O’Reilly are nothing more than physically mature but emotionally disturbed and spoiled children.
And just like spoiled children, they will only be successful in ruining the party if We the [Adult and Awake] People don’t rise up and stop them by any means necessary. Much of this can be accomplished peacefully with persistence, but time is a luxury we are rapidly running out of and we cannot buy more. Our politicians of both parties are all graft swilling criminals and ultimately fascists because of the nature of campaign finance and lobby. This is why it’s not just the GOP that must go, but the whole two party system. Two choices are not a choice when both are malfunctioning and ultimately suicidal in their greedy myopic narcissistic pathologies and slavish devotion to the legal fiction that is a corporation. You could be richer than Croesus and not one more minute could you buy once the nukes start going off or the plague is released or the water had become poisonous or famine set in or some drug company pushes something into wide release that causes mass death or we all go sterile from synthetic hormones released into the environment or any of the many other ways some jackass will kill us all so “he can make a profit”. The sad part is they’ll kill us all with the help of our “elected” officials. The ones they bought.
There is going to be no other choice but violence before much longer. When the inequities become too large, the 1% will be destroyed by the rest of humanity. No amount of security will be able to protect them. They will not be able to buy enough loyalty to survive. Washington & K Street will have brought it upon themselves, all the while decrying “don’t hurt us” after DECADES of screwing with the collective We and our Constitutional and human rights. It will be too little, too late and exactly what they deserve.
I don’t care about fascists.
They all will eventually eat each other if they don’t kill the rest of us first.
I just think it’s time we helped them set the table.
Bon appetite.
Milo,
Questioning someone’s patriotism is cheap ass right-wing nonintellectual tactic used by trolls and propagandists.
You’ll have to do much than that not to get eaten alive around here.
Milo Divincenzo 1, November 18, 2009 at 7:26 am
Mr. Turley,
Your career seems to be based on the defense of America’s enemies. Any chance that you’ll defend a patriot one day? After all, there wouldn’t be such a thing as constitutional law without them.
*******************
Milo? Are you really Billy? Did you reincarnate?
Even enemies are entitled to a fair trial. Heck even Nuremberg was a fair gathering of the sort at the time. Would you want a relative of yours treated the way that we have treated these people? Think America, Cherokee, Oklahoma, North Carolina, Trail of Tears, infested blanket, property….you see the list could go on and on and this is just two tribes on one Nation. We have not gotten into the various bands that had been wiped out.
“Your career seems to be based on the defense of America’s enemies. Any chance that you’ll defend a patriot one day?”
‘Patriotism is the willingness to kill and be killed for trivial reasons.’– Bertrand Russell
The true nature of the neoCon oozes out. Gonzales called our Supreme Law “quaint” …
They have become corrupt by having no clue about the wise nature of our nation.
We are a wise people who understand that power corrupts, who designed a constitution that could grow with us as we grow in civil liberty wisdom, and who spread power out so that its corrupting influence would not be too much for those serving the people to handle.
The neoCon realm among us eschew the wisdom clinging instead to the toxins of power that have utterly corrupted them.
http://powertoxins.blogspot.com/2009/11/greatest-source-of-power-toxins.html
“is a cheap”
“much better than”
Thankfully, I can resume coffee soon.
Nal,
If you are caffeine dependent for your excellent editing skills, I suggest you look to another Turlee for a kidney. While the liver is still available, don’t forget it comes with a caveat.
MIlo:
“Your career seems to be based on the defense of America’s enemies.”
*************
America’s enemies are those who would tear down its institutions and values. The most insidious do so for profit rather than misguided principle. Patriots aren’t those who talk tough or stupidly, but those who speak out against the fools and charlatans who think what makes our country great is force of arms rather than force of law. Once you accurately define the terms you’ll see just what kind of man Professor Turley is and just how foolish your remarks truly are.
Mespo,
Artfully stated…..
O’Reilly’s words, again, were taken out of context. The two gentlemen were talking about terrorism, not the Constitution. Of course, think what you want … Professor Turley wrote it, so it must be true. Now, that’s smart … no matter how you look at it.
Jeremiah Wright is a Patriot in comparison to Bill O’Reilley. Equating the two is bogus, imo.
If one says they don’t care about the Constitution, context is irrelevant.
“O’Reilly’s words, again, were taken out of context. The two gentlemen were talking about terrorism, not the Constitution. Of course, think what you want … Professor Turley wrote it, so it must be true. Now, that’s smart … no matter how you look at it.”
Out of context, John? I think not.
Here’s a direct transcript of the exchange between Bill-O and Fox’s News’ very own legal analyst, Judge Andrew Napolitano:
Napolitano: ‘There was no declaration of war.’
BO: ‘All right, so because there was no declaration of war, you say that any terror-and it fits the bill, right? Surely 9/11 gits the bill of a terrorist act…’
Napolitano: ‘But it is not I who is saying it. It is the Constitution that is saying it.’
BO: ‘I DON’T CARE ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION.’
Napolitano: ‘I do.’
BO: ‘The Constitution isn’t here. You’re here. Don’t be a pinhead.’
Was the subject of conversation terrorism? Most surely. Was the comment taken ‘out of context’? Absolutely not. By his own admission, in his own words, Bill-O does not care about the Constitution or what it says. But you say it was taken out of context, so that must be true. Now, that’s smart… no matter how you look at it.
what did you(pl) think about what Judge Napolitano said?
He is a civil libertarian and someone who appears to follow the Constitution.
I think O’Rielly was asking for the Judge’s personal opinion and not the Constitutional law. He could have posed it differently though, if he meant it anoter way it was an egregious statement.
Definitely a cartoon theme to today’s posts: Tweety, Shrek, Xenu, and Bill O’Reilly.
Well, at least someone on the right has finally admitted it. Conservatives’ contempt for the Constitution has been well documented, but rarely so openly vocally.
Obviouly, Dick Cheney and Alberto Gonzales don’t care much for the Constitution either given their acceptance of torture, illegal searches and siezures, Gitmo, suspension of posse comitatas and habeus corpus, but they never came out and said it. I also remember Newt Gingrich a couple of years ago declaring freedom of speech may have to be curtailed, that we have too much freedom.
But, make no mistake, this is mostly political theater. If Obama/Holder can successfully prosecute these terrorists in New York City when Bush was too afraid to do it, it’ll score incredibly powerful political points just before the 2010 elections.
“I think O’Rielly was asking for the Judge’s personal opinion and not the Constitutional law.”
And the Judge’s response was that it didn’t matter what his personal opinion was; the Constitution has the final say in this country(for now, anyway).
“But, make no mistake, this is mostly political theater. If Obama/Holder can successfully prosecute these terrorists in New York City when Bush was too afraid to do it, it’ll score incredibly powerful political points just before the 2010 elections.”
*GASP!* You’re suggesting that there are blatantly political reasons behind this???? LOL!!!!!!
Flipkid:
The Judges personal opinion dosent matter as a matter of law, of course it dosent.
The Judge did not want to opine on this issue.
Both the right and left appear to be infected with unreasoning fear. Fear certainly surrounds us thanks to our “news” organizations and the govt. which appears to control them. Of course there are also real reasons to be afraid. Interestingly, those issues are seldom addressed by either the news or the govt (ie: increasing starvation and homelessness). There is no rational link between terrorism and the destruction of the Constitution. It is wholly made up, constantly hyped and presto, many people believe in the link.
Bill is basically saying he’s found yellow cake in the Constitution. He’s lying. Democracies can’t function with so many lies. It’s important to say he’s a liar and a coward. That’s what he and everyone like him is.
rcampbell:
I beg to differ, most conservatives I know have a healthy respect for the Constitution. I think I can make a fairly good case that Bush was not a true conservative.
A true conservative would have kicked the living sh . . . out of Saudi Arabia and Iran and eradicated the Taliban and Al Qaeda after 9/11. A true conservative would never have bailed out AIG or the other banks, a true conservative would never have increased medicare/medicaid payments, a true conservative would have given people more than a measly $600 in tax rebates (money I might add that is theirs to begin with). A true conservative would have told Alan Greenspan and Henry Paulson to go f . . . themselves.
There are many on the left that have contempt for the Constitution as well and use it to further their own agendas. Neither side of the political spectrum has a monopoly on truth, justice and the American way.
Byron,
It is my contention that true conservatism left our government’s walls long ago.
Wonder why Iran needs the shit kicked out of them? That is a very interesting comment coming from a “conservative”. Just what have they done to deserve such a wrath? Did they invade Iraq or something?
Let me let you in on a little truth: the two party system is a sham to keep people fighting amongst themselves, as these assholes ravage and steal us blind.
And most of America seems to enjoy this.
flipkid:
I will assume that is sarcasm? Actually Obama is taking a chance, he may not see it as political calculus but it is. I give him credit for having the balls to do this, if this is something more than just a show trial. If it works out he wins, if it doesnt or something goes wrong he is SOL politically.
If there were some sort of an attack in New York or KSM was found not guilty or given a light sentence there would be political hell to pay. So probably the fix is in and KSM is having his day in Kangaroo Kourt for our benefit. Call me cynical but most politicians are full of sh . . ., and out for themselves, Obama is no different.
Byron,
Neither side has a monopoly on bad guys. But if you want to look at whose hand was on the tiller to set the course to destroy the Constitution, the right wins. Hands down. And it started with Reagan and his ghost president George I (may he burn in Hell). The leftist who don’t care about the Constitution don’t want it to go away, just leave them alone to be criminals like the GOP too. The neocon right, not conservatives in the traditional sense like you or FFLEO, were the driving force behind crap like the Patriot Act and pimping for Bush to illegally invade a country that didn’t attacks us. Both sides have/are villains. The current system only encourages criminals, the otherwise ethically compromised and those willing to do what they are told by their paymasters instead of the citizen constituents they actually work for. But one side is far, far more culpable for the current state of affairs because they DID cause it. The other is far, far more culpable for the continued erosion of rights because they are spineless weasels who would have to bury some of their own in order to bury Bush and they won’t/don’t want to/can’t get off the corporate teat either (just like a good junkie). One gets the blame for crashing the car. The other gets the blame for setting it on fire. Two guilty “parties”, but both afflicted by the same K Street graft that likes to play both ends against the middle.
But you take offense at people attacking the right as if they were attacking traditional conservatives when (let’s be honest) 90% of the time they just are using inaccurate terminology to define the enemies within the system. They usually mean Neocons even if they themselves do not make the word association. I will stipulate that educating people on the difference between traditional conservatives and the bad guys is key, but by your own admission, the Neocons do not represent you. Why should you care enough to defend them even in the slightest? Educate, sure, but don’t defend. The far right is fascism. The far left is communism. Maybe now you’ll see why economically, I’m more of a socialist than you. Extreme polarites are inherently destructive.
Yes, Byron, that was sarcasm.
And while I will allow that all politicians are “the same” in some respects, their ideologies could not be more diverse. And I find my beliefs much closer to those “typical politicians” on the left than the “typical politicians” on the right. So there.
Bman:
In my opinion Saudi Arabia is the banker to radical/fundamentalist Islam and Iran is the intellectual God Father. You disrupt the stream of cash and ideas and the movement folds.
I agree with your assessment, their are very few true conservatives and even fewer true liberals. I have more in common with Jack Kennedy and Harry Truman than I do with George Bush II (actually when all is said and done I wish he had not been president, he was not a conservative and did harm to conservatives as a philosophical movement). I have nothing in common with Richard Nixon or Lyndon Johnson. And even less in common with Bush I.
Most who claim to be conservative today, such as Sarah Palin irritate me for different reasons than they irritate you but irritate me non the less.
Actually to tell you the truth, there are probably only a few issues where you and I disagree. My most fundamental issue is economic and political freedom. I don’t think you can have one without the other. Current day conservatives want to take away political freedom and current day liberals want to take away economic freedom.
What does this mean?
Iran is the intellectual God Father
If taking out countries because they fund rogue regimes or whatever it is you are saying they fund, then America would have long ago been totally demolished and done away with.
The hypocrisy of our country stifles me.
The very basic matter of Iran has everything to do with their disdain for Israel’s war crimes and aggression. Until the Zionist agenda is done away with, they have every right to be concerned about them.
I agree with you about Saudi Arabia, but only to a degree that mimics the standard “official” story that these very neocon crooks cooked up: that they were the sole perpetrators of 9/11.
I don’t believe that for a second.
There’s nothing like a good rant by Buddha about “Swill-o” to get one primed for the day.
Here’s my rhyming rant about Bill:
Bill O.
Bill O., Bill O., Bill O’Reilly
Thinks he’s savvy, brilliant, wily…
Thinks his TV program rocks
‘Cause he’s the ratings king at Fox!
He’s a blowhard; he’s dogmatic.
His verbal cancer’s metastatic!
Bill O. likes to sputter, rant—
But when he’s wrong, he won’t recant.
Bill’s his own best adulator.
He’s a pompous bloviator…
A smarmy, smug intimidator…
A nasty, vile expectorator
Of speech that’s meant to anger, rile.
He’s one great big bag of bile!!!
And here’s an excerpt from a poem John Cleese wrote about Bill O. and read on Countdown some time ago:
Bill O’Reilly’s No Spin Zone is rated highly
by his own beloved mother,
but no other.
Except that Bill for all his faults
still has one skill, a skill of sort:
He can amuse a true dull ox,
the dullest crayon in the box,
the kind of ox that watches Fox.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27507774
“A true conservative would have kicked the living sh . . . out of Saudi Arabia and Iran and eradicated the Taliban and Al Qaeda after 9/11″.
Is that supposed to be something to be proud of? So, real conservatives are even MORE prone to senseless use of military force than fake ones? That’s a pretty stunning admission. Iran and Saudi Arabia immediately after 9/11? Wow!
“A true conservative would never have bailed out AIG or the other banks….”
Therefore, a true conservative would have allowed the US and potentially the world economy to collapse under the weight of the failed US conservative economic agenda which brought it to the point of collapse in the first place? Another quite telling admission. But, I think it must have just killed Bush inside to bail out AIG, etal. I believe that, as a real conservative, he wanted to let the clock run out and make this someone else’s problem. It’s either that or recognizing McCain wasn’t going to win, they deliberately added $750B to the debt over a weekend. Their political calculus and cynicism told them that such a move would make health care reform and other Obama initiatives more difficult. That’s not real conservatism?
“a true conservative would never have increased medicare/medicaid payments….”
I’ll agree that a complete disregard for the American people is a hallmark of true conservatism.
“a true conservative would have given people more than a measly $600 in tax rebates (money I might add that is theirs to begin with)”.
The conservatives fought this idea, put forward by Congressional DEMOCRATS, tooth and nail.
Bman:
The intellectual root, in my opinion, for Islamic totalitarianism is Iran.
I certainly dont disagree with your assessment that 9/11 was an excuse for Neocones to aid Israel. The real destabilizers in the Mid-East, in my opinion, are Saudi Arabia and Iran for the reasons I stated above.
In my opinion America should get out of global politics and concern ourselves with our own corner of the world while we get our house in order. Stop aid to countries and withdraw our military bases and work to improve our own lot for awhile. Let someone else pick up the tab for a change.
rc,
In re Saudi Arabia
Attacking the country that supplied both the manpower and the money for 9/11 is in no way inappropriate. On the contrary, that would have been the sensible thing to do 1) because it’s fair to destroy those who would destroy you and 2) they did it. We didn’t attack Saudi Arabia simply and solely because Bush was in bed with the bastards. There are only two countries we should be occupying. Iraq is neither of them. Attacking Iraq was the work of fascists. They are RINO’s – Republicans In Name Only.
Byron,
I’m interested in your logic that Saudi Arabia and Iran are the problems, when it is Israel and America who are invading other countries.
This should prove interesting.
Byron,
Iran?
Did you forget the theological flavor that the Saudi theocracy represents? Their entire goal is not just Islamic domination over the West, but over EVERYTHING. They are insane zelots. This does not forgive Iran for their despotic actions but THEY DIDN’T ATTACK US EVEN BY PROXY ON 9/11. What you are saying is dangerously close to The Bush Doctrine of “preemptive” war – absolute bullshit. You want to call Iran bad guys, you bet. Their government sucks and I hope their people rise up and slay them, but let’s call the major shit disturbers as they really are and not omit anyone. Especially the Saudi fundies who DID attack us.
B-man,
I can’t speak to Byron’s logic, but America wouldn’t be invading anyone other than the Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan (Men+$+Training Facilities) if the Saudis didn’t own Bush and Cheney outright. As soon as we found out all but one of the highjackers was Saudi? You bet we should have kicked their ass. All the way flat. When someone attacks you, that’s what you’re SUPPOSED to do. The Israel issue is another problem all together. They have also used PACs to subvert our system and are allowed to maintain AIPAC despite being busted for harboring Israeli spies on multiple occasions – an act which should merit expelling their ambassadors and shutting down any Israeli based/funded lobby. Two discrete but tangentially related problems.
rcampbell:
given that Iran and Saudi Arabia are what drives radical Islam I think that would have been a good strategy. And also when you fight a war you fight it, you dont screw around. FDR understood that concept and so did Harry Truman.
Prior to the bailouts the market was working to consolidate and work out the problems, the bailout prolonged the problem and it is probably going to be years before this recession is over because of government stimulus. My guess is that we would not have had a financial collapse without the $750 billion, most of which appears to have gone to other things and that we would be well on our way to recovery. But since Keynes still carries the day we are going to have another 10 year recession/depression. Hopefully the second time around we will learn the lesson we should have learned in the 1930′s-Government doesn’t stimulate a single thing and John Maynard is a third rate economist at best.
I suggest you get out of the market and buy copious quantities of gold and silver. Inflation hasn’t even hit yet, but it is coming. A government cant spend like it has with no consequences.
Byron,
You missed the central lesson of the Depression: Unregulated markets led to exactly what we were in then and lead to exactly where we find ourselves now. The only difference now is the crime is too complicated for the average joe to truly appreciate the scale. We had 50 years of prosperity after the Depression because of the safeguards put in place by FDR and subsequent war spending. The last 35 yeas have been spent by the fascist elements in our system in efforts to remove and roll back as much of that regulation as possible.
Government’s role in business IS NOT stimulation. It’s regulation and enforcement whether business likes it or not. That’s what governments role was traditionally and should be again. That’s governments role in business unless it’s a truly fascist state, in which case, the pols take their orders from corporations.
I dare say the last characterization is a more accurate representation of what We the People actually have today.
“When I mention these rights of an alien, I must be understood of alien friends only, or such whose countries are in peace with ours; for alien-enemies have no rights, no privileges, unless by the king’s special favor, during the time of war.” -Blackstone
Only U.S. Citizens, or those visiting this country, who accept temporary allegiance to this country, should receive the protections afforded by our Constitution on those who do.
The precedent being set is a very dangerous one. Countries will no longer wage war against us. Instead, well-funded organizations, like Al Qaeda, will be secretly endorsed by our enemies. They will be afforded the full protections of the Geneva Convention and the U.S. Constitution while not bound to either.
At least Jeremiah Wright served in the armed forces not like all of the chicken hawks on the right
Byron
I find your arguments quite unpersuasive especially in light of the history you try to rewrite, the facts you ignore and the last 30 years of dominance of the conservative brand (daily promotion of self-serving greed) showing itself a complete, utter and abject failure. That movement had it’s chance, it didn’t work.
I wish Congress would reenact the The Glass-Steagall Act. I guess that’s wishful thinking. Too many people serving in Congress-both Democrats and Republicans–get large campaign donations from the folks on Wall Street. These folks may even be using bailout money to lobby our Representatives and Senators.
BIL to nal: “While the liver is still available, don’t forget it comes with a caveat.”
One wonders if that offer comes with a side of Fava beans?
———-
rcampbell: “But, make no mistake, this is mostly political theater. If Obama/Holder can successfully prosecute these terrorists in New York City when Bush was too afraid to do it, it’ll score incredibly powerful political points just before the 2010 elections.”
—
The trials are interesting on a level that has nothing to do with Obama’s political stake in it or the superficial political considerations discussed in the MSM IMO. Unless there is concrete evidence gathered before they were tortured that can convict them, the judge is going to be put into a position of having to allow evidence tainted by torture or having to suppress that evidence.
In the case of KSM, that he was tortured is not in question. Just how close the justice system is going to come to allowing proof gained with torture to be presented in court is going to be interesting and precedent setting. If proof elicited under torture gets in with the blessing of the judge it will legitimize the use of torture as a means of evidence gathering and wed our justice system to it.
Considering how degraded Americans rights have become thanks to the new methods of information and evidence gathering (against American citizens) post 9-11, I fear that torture will become just another tool for Federal law enforcement to use against American citizens in any case that can be brought under the national security umbrella.
I am though amused at some of the rhetoric being used against using the criminal justice system for KSM and the others. I have been watching the talking heads and their guests arguing the point and at least Rudy Giuliani and Jim Webb weighed in with the gem that these guys are “war criminals” and for that reason should be tried by a military court.
Right, except they’re not; if they were war criminals they would have been prisoners of war and we would have had to follow the Geneva conventions on the treatment of POW’s. I’ve been watching Olbermann and Maddow to see if they would make an issue of those statements or rationale but it must have slid under the radar.
I think we are being treated to govt. propaganda here. We didn’t get a change in govt., we got a change in logo. Bill is a sorry excuse for a human being but his beliefs are not at odds with either Obama or the Congressional “leadership”. There’s the bottom line. They all use the Constitution for toilet paper and they all believe the same things.
This is theater to keep the left hating the right while forgetting to watch their own leadership. Fox news works for the ruling elite. They would never and do not now oppose them. If the govt. can incite people to hate each other, we won’t realize that many of us disagree with both Bill and Obama. We won’t unite to restore our rights because we fail to see who’s really taking them away.
Milo Divincenzo
Mr. Turley,
Your career seems to be based on the defense of America’s enemies. Any chance that you’ll defend a patriot one day? After all, there wouldn’t be such a thing as constitutional law without them.
=================================================================
One need look no further than the words of Milo to illustrate how badly our education system has failed so many of our citizens.
I constantly hear well-meaning educators talk about the number of ways we are failing to educate our inner-city children and I agree with most of what they say. However, the emerging plethora of supposedly educated adult conservatives, tea-baggers, deathers and birthers, uttering nonsensical words about the Constitution and patriots, and believing every lie, no matter how far fetched, uttered by a talking head on television and radio indicates that our education system has been failing students for years. So much ignorance and the incapacity to apply critical reasoning to arrive at rational conclusions is a threat to the survival of any democracy.
An individual can hold any number of degrees and still be poorly educated.
The easiest way to defend the constitution against blow hard pundits is to quiz them on the topic.
They tend to, to paraphrase Bob Dylan, criticize what the don’t understand.
“O’Reilly’s words, again, were taken out of context. The two gentlemen were talking about terrorism, not the Constitution. Of course, think what you want … Professor Turley wrote it, so it must be true. Now, that’s smart … no matter how you look at it.”
I DON’T CARE ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION. His words. He said it. Play the “taken out of context card” on the Limbaugh show. That excuse doesn’t fly every time a conservative talk show host gets busted for something they said, on tape.
The quote wasn’t taken out of context. O’Reilly said I don’t care about the Constitution….” What was implied (the context of the sentance) was “I don’t care what the Constitution says… about how these acts and defendants should be treated, I want you, Mr. Napolitano, (who is usually a realable legal hand puppet for Fox’s slant including regarding torture) to agree with ME.” Not out of context at all.
Paully,
War by proxy is not new, but your claims of Geneva Convention treatment of actual terrorist is pure nonsense. They would have to be overtly operators of the state in question for the GC to apply and a direct acknowledgement by some like the Saudis that they are attacking us would get them turned into a fine radioactive dust.
rcampbell:
I am not trying to persuade you. Your belief system has been developed over many years based on life experiences. At your age you should know what you know and why you know it. My 1 or 2 paragraphs cant compete nor were they meant to.
BIL,
The GC provided protections to prisoners of war. Those protections are granted by the sovereign (in our case, the United States).
Prisoners of war are not citizens or subjects of the country who has captured them. As Blackstone points out, they have no rights, except those which are granted by the sovereign. Those rights provided for by the GC are not equal to the rights of a citizen or subject.
What we have done is to grant rights, normally reserved for those who demonstrate allegiance to this country, to those who are deserving of none. By granting these rights, we perpetuate non-state sanctioned acts of war.
Is our “living” Constitution not capable of recognizing non-state sanctioned acts of war?
Paully,
Prisoners of war are defined as enemy combatants of signatory states fighting under the flag and orders of a recognized state. GC eligible soldiers must have conducted operations according to the laws and customs of war. This requires that they:
1) be part of a chain of command,
2) wear a uniform and
3) bear arms openly.
Thus, irregular military, terrorists and spies are excluded. This is not equally applied by all member states either. Guerrillas and mercenaries may not wear a uniform or carry arms openly, yet are typically granted POW status if captured. Period. Their native citizenship is irrelevant. Their actions on behalf of a foreign power is relevant. A trial on American soil for crimes committed against Americans held in accordance with the Due Process provided Constitutionally is the best way to demonstrate the superiority of the American system. Because these actors are not officially state sanctioned, the GC is inappropriate and so are military tribunals. Civilian criminal process should be applied. Since civilian criminal process is the appropriate venue, you seem to suggest that they should get show trials and the rights YOU want to let them have instead of what they are guaranteed by the Constitution TO PREVENT ABUSES.
You want show trials, Paully. Which means you don’t give a damn about the truth. Civilian trials give the best chance for us to cripple these criminals because they are open and fair and when not fair, they are subject to multiple levels of appeal. At some point, people will start rolling over on their bosses.
But you?
You just want to give the terrorists another recruitment tool and hide behind your jingoism. Yeah. Let’s not just set up torture prisons like Gitmo and Baghram. Let’s make secretive military farce trials too that have rules of evidence that are biased toward the military, are not open and deny rights. Why go to the trouble of actually PROVING their guilt? It’s so much easier just to kill them all and not ask any questions. Because of your delusional interpretation of what the function of civilian courts are for and the Rights related to found in the Constitution. Those constraints, called Due Process, are there for EVERYONE’S protection. Not just who YOU pick and choose. This includes non-citizen criminals. Putting a terrorist on trial in a civilian criminal court is no different than putting someone on trail for murder or other crimes they commit here or against our citizens abroad by a citizen of a foreign country. That happens, duh, just about every day. But you want show trails. Nothing that could indicate the true movers behind 9/11 so we can bring them to justice too.
You got that going for you. Which is nice.
Or are you afraid of who they’ll roll over on?
That is unless you also want a military tribunal for Roman Polanski too. In which case you’d just be simply nuts.
Paully: “Is our “living” Constitution not capable of recognizing non-state sanctioned acts of war?”
The Constitution does not recognize declarations of war against gerund forms of verbs; e.g. a war on terrorism.
Please further note that an authorization for use of military force and the twisting rhetoric and the constitution like taffy also does not constitute a state of war.
To put it another way, you’re not empowered to change the laws of physics simply because the ball didn’t happen to bounce your way.
I’m reminded again of (now Senator) Al Franken’s characterization of many on the political right: 4 year olds. It’s an amazingly useful framework for understanding this stuff. In the case of BillO, his 4 year old whining, “I’m scared! They’re bad! I don’t care about the rules! Hit them!” In the case of (self blog promoting) Milo, he’s similarly exhibiting child-level moral reasoning, “Always punish bad people! Good people are always good! Only say bad things about bad people!” (You’ll learn from his blog that enforcing the Establishment Clause is “anti-Christian” and enforcing the Constitution as a whole, as the ACLU does, is “anti-American.” Also, any impingement on the “free market” is Socialism. (Just don’t ask him to actually define Socialism, or if he’s ever met an actual Socialist…) Quelle suprise.)
How can a foreigner, without stepping foot on U.S. soil, be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?
The answer to the Polanski question is easy. He is charged with committing a crime while on U.S. soil. As long as the country in which he resides agrees to extradite him, he should be tried in the jurisdiction in which he is accused of committing the crime.
The country of origin is irrelevant. A legal visitor to the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States while on our soil (except for ambassadors). The visitor has temporary allegiance. In exchange, the protections (rights) afforded citizens are bestowed upon the visitor.
BobEsq:
can we even declare war on non-state actors? Or would we declare war on Afghanistan as a means to get Al Qaeda? But then how do we justify a declared war on Afghanistan if we did not declare war on Saudi Arabia as well? This is all very confusing to the layman.
And what about uniforms? Do they have to be “real” uniforms? The North Vietnamese wore “black pajamas”.
Paulie,
And you miss the point. As usual. But since you have such a woodie for situs:
Where was the 9/11 attack carried out? Here. That gives the courts subject matter jurisdiction.
Were all the actors involved here at the time? No. It involved Saudi money and manpower utilizing training camps in Afghanistan. Not all the responsible parties were on the planes.
Can they still be gotten? Most certainly.
Even thought they never entered the country there is always conspiracy and aiding and abetting. All you need is a valid charge (easy) and getting them here (physical jurisdiction). There being here for the time and at the situs of the attack(s) is irrelevant.
Enjoy choking on your own illogic.
“Their being”
Byron,
Read my answer to Paulie in re uniforms. That should answer your question.
http://jonathanturley.org/2009/11/18/oreilly-i-dont-care-about-the-constitution/#comment-91332
Byron: “can we even declare war on non-state actors? Or would we declare war on Afghanistan as a means to get Al Qaeda? But then how do we justify a declared war on Afghanistan if we did not declare war on Saudi Arabia as well? This is all very confusing to the layman.”
If you take a step back from the ‘living constitution kool-aid’ and realize just how far the document has been stretched by both sides of the aisle in an attempt to fabricate a platform that does not exist within the purview of constitutional law and reason, i.e. a war on terror, you may find the experience quite centering.
We are not at war Byron. The 9/11 AUMF is not a declaration of war and the addition of wartime rhetoric regarding said authorization also does not create a state of war.
The United States has been using military force against undefined enemies in pursuit of an undefined objective; thereby leading to something closely resembling this:
Capt. Dobbs: You admit it!
Capt. Yossarian: I admit I’m being [attacked].
Capt. McWatt: Yeah? By whom?
Capt. Yossarian: By them!
Capt. Dobbs: But, who specifically is “them”?
Capt. Yossarian: Every one of them!
Capt. Dobbs: Every one of who?!
Capt. Yossarian: Every one of who do you think!
Capt. Dobbs: I haven’t any idea!
Capt. Yossarian: Then how do you know they aren’t?!
Insert obligatory “1984″ quote here regarding claims to power via perpetual war…
Buddha:
what about German saboteurs during WWII? Did they get a civilian trial? What is the difference? Is it that we did not declare war?
And what if KSM actually goes free what then? I heard someone say that they have plenty to hold him on so that possibility is out of the question.
But if that is the case, why try him in the first place? All that is going to do is make us look Machiavellian and full of sh . . . Does this just come down to semantics and a non-declaration of war?
What about the future, how is this going to effect battlefield situations? Read them their rights? If the Taliban are not enemy combatants is the military Constitutionally able to read them their rights? What is that going to do to our ability to question them on the battlefield for strategic information? Wont that unnecessarily put our troops at risk?
Lots of questions that I don’t know the answers to.
???????????????
BobEsq:
then why did we not declare war? It seems like then we would not have all this foolishness.
But again my question, can you declare war on a non-state actor? As President could I declare war on the Taliban and Al Qaeda and would it be constitutional?
If you classify it as a police action then why are we using the military? Does Posse Comitatus apply to foreign countries in police actions?
If so then is this whole f. . . mess unconstitutional?
I am starting to think that some lawyers were working overtime to figure out a way to make all this happen and they were not thinking very hard about legal ramifications.
We always seem to step on our collective d . . . when we don’t declare war. It ought to be a matter of law that if you aren’t willing to declare war stay out the Bush’s.
Byron,
The difference is two-fold.
First, the declaration of war. KSM is not an officially a state agent although I personally have little doubt he takes his orders from Riyadh.
Second, we were already at war with Germany when they dropped saboteurs on our soil via U-boat and sneaked by Coast Guard passing as fishermen. The President ordered a military tribunal, but not because of the favorable law. It was for secrecy. He desperately wanted to hide that Nazis could penetrate our defense nets. The propriety of this was taken all the way to the S.Ct. and Ex Parte Quirin is not exactly the Courts finest hour, was regarded by later “an unhappy precedent” by Justice Frankfurter. What we would be doing with a military tribunal and KSM would be EXACTLY the same mistake FDR made.
As to your direct questions:
Q: And what if KSM actually goes free what then?
A: Not a chance if the evidence isn’t irrevocably corrupted by Bush using torture. IF he is found not guilty, Obama has already signaled he’s willing to violate the rights of some and detain them indefinitely no matter what a court says. One of the reasons he needs to be held to task.
Q: {W]hy try him in the first place?
A: To illustrate that the values the terrorist hate work in an open and fair manner and to prove their doubt beyond ANY reasonable doubt.
Q:All that is going to do is make us look Machiavellian and full of sh . . . Does this just come down to semantics and a non-declaration of war?
A: Yes. And you can thank Bush and the Neocons for creating this untenable position so they could make some money for themselves and their Saudi business partners (the reason Cheney should be swinging from a rope). But it doesn’t make us look as Machiavellian as if we held secret trials.
As to the future?
Because of the actions of the Bush Administration there is no certainty about anything involving how we conduct wars or how we treat captives or how our captives will be treated. He violated damn near every rule of war created to prevent abuses by other all signatory nations when he started torturing and indefinite detention in violation of not just treaties but our Constitution. He made sure every soldier in our Armed Forces are in much more personal peril than they have probably ever been in when it comes to risking torture themselves. But as for terrorists, unless a state is stupid enough to admit directly backing them? The GC does not apply. They are not soldiers so we don’t have to treat them as such. We can box them up and ship them back stateside for trial. As long as they are Mirandized before they are processed, it’s like booking any other murderer. And that’s what we should have been doing all along.
“prove their [guilt] beyond ANY reasonable doubt.”
Man, it’s been a loooooong day.
“I don’t care about the Constitution”.
You’d think that would be the end of his career, right there, at that moment, never to be seen again….
What career?
AY–
His career as the World’s Foremost Expert on Everything! Didn’t you know that if Bill O. says it’s true–it must be true?
Elaine:
you are wrong about that, he is the impetus behind all political actions taken by any elected official.
Swill-o is the reason the sun shines and sugar is sweet.
Just ask him.
Byron–
That’s right. He’s not just an expert–Bill O. is a master of all things. I wonder why he doesn’t run for president.
President?
Psfffft
Beneath the master.
Bill-0, The Grand Wizard of Odd! (KKK allusion intended)
Elaine:
My wife watches him and I laugh most of the time over the ridiculous things he says. He is, if nothing else, full of himself or sh . . . if you prefer. I guess if someone acts like he knows what he is doing, most will believe him.
Does that surprise anyone that he does not believe in the Constitution?
What IF they weren’t the ones who MasterMinded 911?
Marty Didier
Northbrook, IL