Young Turks: O'Reilly Gives Obama A Warning, Cenk Rips It Apart

[CherylK]

Run time: 07:06 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwHjvsR5VW0   Posted on YouTube: January 08, 2010 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: January 08, 2010 By DU Member: CherylK Views on DU: 2058

 
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,582393,00.html

Vote TYT everyday through 1/15/10 @ streamy.org: http://tinyurl.com/ycwk6cv

Follow us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/theyoungturks

Check Out TYT Interviews http://www.youtube.com/user/TYTInterviews

Watch more at http://www.theyoungturks.com

[jgraz]

1. Bill-O is such a freaking clown.

It's almost impossible to watch the guy.

[suede1]

2. K&R!!

[Rhiannon12866]

3. Thank you! K&R!

And I voted, too. :D

[ScottLand]

4. What an egomaniac.

Bill-O, I don't think you should give him another chance. Now what? Does Bill-O have an army?

[stuart68]

5. Pretty new (obviously)

so I need a little education. I don't know this guy but have a pretty strong opinion on the trials. He says the underwear guy needed to be on a list - he was (we were just asleep - just like the guy who wanted another kiss in Newark, the guard was away from his location). he says the option to the criminal trial is to shoot them - not really, we could do the military trial. Seems like he is off base, but what am I missing ?

[Celtic Merlin]

6. What you're missing . . .

Cenk (the guy calling Bill O'Reilly an asshole) is a pretty good, progressive commentator. He runs a daily webcast which covers the news and current events from a progressive point of view. Watch some of his stuff that's posted here on DU. You'll get to know him better. He's a good man. I don't always agree with him, but he's got a good grasp of the issues.

The Thunderwear Bomber was not on any of the "no-fly" lists or he'd have been at least stopped if not picked up. He wasn't even on the high-priority terror watch lists. He WAS on an internal list of potential extremists, but not any of the lists that our airport security people could see and use.

Cenk was saying that Bill-O the Clown's assessment of our options in dealing with terrorists is wrong. Cenk was criticizing Bill-O's conflation of "drone bombs" with "civil rights". O'Reilly's point was that since we summarily execute terrorists in Pakistan with drones, why should we treat ANY terrorist - even the ones in our custody - any better than that. O'Reilly was bitching up a storm over the extension of civil rights (like a lawyer who understands our criminal laws and criminal justice system AND a trial before a judge and a jury) to terrorism suspects. O'Reilly doesn't want to do that. He wants them to be tortured in Gitmo and then jailed or executed without trial. Cenk was making the point that we are NOT like Iran, we are NOT like Saudi Arabia, we DO NOT summarily execute terrorists in our custody. Rather, we extend basic civil rights to our prisoners - even the crotch bomber - because THAT is the way that America operates. The phrase, "Equal Protection Under The Law" is meaningless if it isn't applied to everybody.

The Supreme Court of the United States of America has already ruled on the "military trial" idea. They ruled that the right to a writ of Habeas Corpus cannot be denied terror suspects in our custody. This pissed off the Bush administration, but it IS the way that America operates. Since at that point they have access to American civil courts, you can't deny them a jury trial either. Habeas has been around since - oh, I dunno - some time around the days of the Magna Carta? It has been considered one of the most basic and unalienable rights of ANY prisoner for over 500 years. Even Bush couldn't deny that right to a prisoner, though he tried like Hell to do so and it worked for two or three years until the SCOTUS got around to smacking that idea down. Hence, military trials are no longer an option and that is a good thing. Honestly it is.

So there you have it. That's what ya missed. Please feel free to pose any questions and please take this entire comment in the informative and friendly way that it was intended. Had I been speaking these words, there'd have been no terse tone of voice used. I'd have been speaking to you as though you were a friend who had missed a little something and needed to be brought up to date. Welcome to DU.

Celtic Merlin
Carlinist

[stuart68]

7. hmm....

I guess I didn't read a lot of that into the rant, especially the part where O'Reilly wants them tortured and prisoned without trial or summarily executed.

You have to admit, it is a good question, why do we simply lob a bomb on a village and say that is good, and then take ones that are too stupid to pull off their objective and give them all the rights of a US citizen. Cenk says we do not have troops in Pakistan - yeah, right. He says we drop a bomb on them because they are not in custody. Huh ? We have the technology to literally listen in to their conversations from the air and we can't drop a guy in to snatch them and bring them back for trial ? That just does not hold water. It is clear Obama (as well as others) want it both ways. Drop a bomb to appease the right, schedule a trial to appease the left. My real beef is that if we believe in the justice system why did Holder ASSURE us of a conviction and Obama say he "looks forward to their conviction and execution" ? The boss of all bosses just declared the verdict. Let's drop a bomb on 'em and move along. True belief in our justice system and true conviction would have pissed off too many people - it would have had Obama say that the process is entrusted to the judicial system, and while I have an opinion, we'll just have to wait for the verdict. You might believe OJ is guilty, but the FACT is he was found not guilty, and by definition, he is innocent of the charges brought against him.

For my part, I want them tried, but not in civillian court. HOWEVER, since our fearless leaders, Clinton, Bush(s) and Obama as well as the clowns in congress refuse to explicitly declare war, this is the only option we have.

[Celtic Merlin]

12. Part of this idea involves believing in the Constitution.

And whether it applies to everyone on American soil.

Listen to O'Reilly's rant critically. As in, "with a critical ear" instead of "with a sympathetic ear".

Lob a bomb at a terrorist in a foreign land? That's legal. They're not in the USA and we know that they're bad guys. One gets into the USA through whatever means - including when we bring them here - and at that point, the Constitution applies. Therein lies the difference.

We can't drop a guy in to snatch al Qaeda leaders (and/or Taliban leaders) and bring them back for trial. We physically can't do that. Because getting everybody back OUT isn't easy - especially if you want them all out alive. Their friends are usually heavily armed and would probably try to prevent a successful escape. Mr. Scott can't transport them out. There aren't boots (enough or at all) on the ground to fight them out. A chopper wouldn't make it in, let alone out. Dunno how you expect to kidnap a major terrorist leader. Listening in - that's a different matter altogether. Sound travels much more easily than do human beings.

And yes we DO believe in the justice system. Holder's opinion that we can expect a conviction is no stretch in this case. There's evidence galore and witnesses galore and he's probably alot more familiar with the case than are either of us plus he's a lawyer. I didn't hear the president speak the "conviction and execution" line, but let's agree that he did. So what? He's a lawyer too. He's likely been briefed on this and is confident that this guy is on his way to a room with a needle in it. That's faith in the justice system, though it's faith that it will convict a man who is unquestionably guilty of the crime with which he's been charged. Obama "declared" no verdict. He expressed an expectation, nothing more. Personally, I'd rather see the guy given Life Without Parole and when he finally dies of old age, feed his ground-up corpse to pigs and then bury the pig shit they make of him in an unmarked grave on the prison grounds. He'll of course be informed of what will become of his body when he dies and considering the Muslim convictions about swine, it should horrify him sufficiently for the balance of his life. Not that it would be possible, but I'm being open about my opinion on this.

I believe OJ to be guilty of two murders. Most of America believes that. Our belief doesn't make him guilty, only the criminal acts he committed make him guilty. Acquitted of the charges against him means that he won't be punished for his crime. It doesn't (in my opinion) mean that he's innocent. It means that the jury found there wasn't enough evidence to convict the man, so returned with a verdict of "Not Guilty". And if "Burning Nutsack Guy" gets off, then he goes home to whence he came. Such is our justice system.

Why do you want terrorists tried in some court OTHER than civilian court? Are military tribunals so stacked against the defendant that a conviction is inevitable? Aren't civilian courts fair enough or do you feel that they are more fair than we should be?

Presidents cannot declare war. Constitutionally, they are incapable of doing so. Only Congress may ratify a Declaration of War. They may also pass the buck, abdicate their responsibilities, and simply hand the president an authorization to inflict military force wherever he sees fit to do so. Which is (again, in my opinion) a limp-dicked thing to do.

I look forward to your reply and to the answers to the questions that I've posed here.

Sincerely,
Celtic Merlin
Carlinist

PS: I got your follow-up. We're good.

[stuart68]

13. Let me cherry pick

I don't have time to hit them all, but here goes:

First - I do listen critically, not sure what led you to believe it was sympathetic.

Rights for those on US Soil - the Underwear bomber was NOT on US soil. He is not on US soil until he clears customs. He did NOT clear customs. What happens when a person walks across the border (legally) - they either clear customs or are sent back. No judge, no jury, no Constitutional rights. I'll give you the 911 bombers were on US soil when they started, but not the Nigerian. Gitmo is not US soil either, as far as I know.

Holder and Obama - I think you are giving them way to much slack. What ever happened to I cannot comment on a pendign investigation. No matter how good Holder is, he cannot guarantee a conviction, but he is the prosecutor. Obama should, if he believes in the constitution, should be of the mind "innocent until proven guilty" and he is not based on the statement. In reality, and we all know it, if for some bizarre reason they are found not guilty, they will be arrested on the way out to the parking lot and brought up onthe next set of charges. I think we actually pollute our system by doing this since we know there is NO WAY these guys will walk.

I have been in hi-tech military plants and seen the stuff they are buildign and will show with low level clearance. They can snatch pretty much anyone they want, in my opinion.

I do not believe the military court will be any less fair than th ecivilian, but it will protect some secrecy, and yes, allow for stronger interrogation.

You're right, the President cannot declare war, but Congress will do what he asks. He won't ask and they won't do it themselves.

[Celtic Merlin]

14. Your cherries have pits. :0)

First, some housekeeping:

I do listen critically, not sure what led you to believe it was sympathetic.

I was explaining a difference with an illustration, not implying anything about how you listen.

I'd have to check the airspace laws governing US airliner sovereignty and the status of passengers once the plane touches down. I'm betting that once the wheels start to roll on the runway, the Constitution applies. Check your sovereignty laws, the military base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba is considered to be the sovereign territory of the United States of America, as are most US military bases abroad. Some are located on land "leased" to the DoD for a nominal fee.

Regardless of the words spoken by Holder and Obama, this guy is toast in court. The American People appreciate the assurances of our elected officials that Justice will be served in cases like this one. No wrongs were committed by either man.

I'm thinking that if they really could kidnap terrorist leaders, they'd have done it a few times by now. Drones are as close as they've come. Kidnapping would be clean, surgical, and inexpensive. It would have been done by now.

Secrecy in an important legal proceeding is almost always a very bad thing. Yes, there are exceptions, but they are rare and can be invoked any time at the discretion of the presiding judge. And interrogations can be every bit as rigorous as military interrogations. FBI and CIA interrogators can be brought to bear on a civilian case when/if needed. Again, that Constitution thing I keep bringing up (with its supporting laws and legal case history) deny anything beyond a certain level of force - by any American, military or not.

[stuart68]

15. Got it

Interested in what you find on airspace. I know when I travel between countries (frequently), violating the US requirements is not illegal until you attempt to get thru customs (in violation). That is why you are in the sterile zone until you pass the customs agent. If the Constitution applies, then laws apply (I know the inverse is the argument for arresting the Nigerian as opposed to military intervention. My guess is that if you were a foreign citizen doing drugs on a flight to Detriot, you would simply be turned around at Customs, not arrested and tried in the US.

I do not think they capture terrorist leaders in large part due to the risk (as you mentioned), but more so because we don't have to - we can just drop a bomb on their heads.

Disagree on interrogation - and not referring to torture here.

Caveat - I am an amature, so mine is mostly perception.

[stuart68]

8. btw

no offense taken in any of your response - I think we have differing opinions here.

[W T F]

9. Bill O'Reilly is the kind of guy that jerks off to a picture of himself.

[Hulk]

10. bor is just one more pompous f*cktard...

What a "full-of-himself" idiot. Like his "proclamation" is going to mean shit to anybody but his geriatric, hate/fear filled audience would believe? Joke of jokes.

Go to hell...QUICKLY, bor, you ignorant slut.

[stuart68]

11. just curious

what do you think about the premise of another attack would be catastrophic ? forget who made the premise ...

[DRex]

17. What do you think about sentences?

Personally, I prefer them to nonsensical strings of words.

[DRex]

16. Wait, wait, wait....

they actually call this guy the "underwear bomber?"

Terrifying.