no major media icons selected to guide the sheeple care about the constitution. Bill Oreilly is an idiot but rather and idiot with an opinion than the zombie hosts of cnn who dont even understand the words they're reading off the teleprompter. You can tell by the look in their eyes that their minds are completely blank.
Respect his opinion my ass! He talked over him, didn't let him explains things from his point of view and pretended like everything he sai didn't matter like he knows more things them him.
@vzerby This is what Bill O'Reilly gets paid for. He's not suppost to be taken serious, he's just an entertainer. That's the only reason why he acts the way he acts.
you dont have to be read your mirandas after an arrest. officers are only required to inform you of them before they start to question you after the arrest. if you admit to the crime before they question you they have no reason to read them to you unless they intend to question you about another crime.
The irony of Bill Oh'really calling anyone a pinhead is giggleworthy. The guy has blinders of hate on and is unable to see anyhting other then the path too his own venagence. He is the lead Pinhead of the pack.
Uh.. really Bill? I think you are the pinhead. I believe you know nothing about the Constitution therfore you care nothing about it. Just another example of how Asshole O'Reilly is a whore for the lamestream media.
Nobody declared war on anybody; they were terrorists and should be tried where the crime was committed. Why does it make so much difference where these people are tried?
Without any guiding ethical principles, O'Reilly is nothing more than a simple minded tool of whoever agreed with him last. Or... paid for his last latté.
Have you noticed that in all the videos that B.O.R. is in , there is never a kind word for him. You would think that after awhile the Pinhead would catch on, and change his attitude. Nope, he gets payed big $ to be a Jackass, and he doesn't even have to stand in an Outhouse while it is being turned completely upside-down!
the constitution, the truth, Bill O is a care free douchebag if the day comes that they round up corrupt journalists i hope they will forget the constitution too
well he wasn't dismissing the constitution, only trying to get the guests personal opinion. He just didn't seem to understand that the guest's opinion was to uphold the constitution. Military was not involved in 9/11 so why would it be dealt with in military court? Why wouldn't anyone want the city that was attacked to get the vengeance?
B.O.R. Yeah the name says it all doesn't it. Not only is billie o' reilly a complete idiot but also a bore, just abbreviate his name, here, look : Bill O'REilly ! Get it?
And yes I agree with all of You folks who said he is a piece of shit ! I would say , to take this a step closer to the truth, BillOreilly is TurdFungus !
O'Reilly is the pinhead here. I think everyone who is invited onto his show should tell him to stick it that we are not coming on to be interrupted and talked over. Just put the know it all jackass out of business. I despise Barney Frank but he and Ann Coulter are the only two people I have ever seen that won't let him get away with it. One rude SOB
Bail outs, Fake derivatives, Printing fiat currency Endless wars Looting of Fed programs Less government Remove sanctions Real free trade Restore America's human rights Ron Paul 2012 !!
Bill is the great pragmatist he claims to be."I don't care about the constitution....the constitution isn't here".The constitution should only be followed when it agrees with him and dismissed at his whim.Funny if he thinks that the constitution is divinely inspired that he would so easily forsake it.
feel free to leave oreilly I think you have made many millions off of that constitution.....go to china and run your mouth,,,, thats why i quit watching your BS years ago.......LOL....mr know it all
Conclusion: I think Bill O'Reilly learned a lot about the US Constitution today and he doesn't like it and should be jailed (or at least fired) for speaking against it...
i love how when O'Reilly is confronted with things that require knowledge like the constitution of our country, he resorts to the "pinhead" insult as a defense against his ignorance.. I also love how Napolitano just laughed at him and wasn't bothered at all that Bill O'Reilly thinks he's a pinhead.
HEY MR. NAPOLITANO!! how dare you use the constitution to prove me wrong! i am an American and an on duty clown for FOX NEWS! The constitution is nonwhitstanding when it doesn't support my racist beliefs!!!
Dear Bill. you are beyond your time-slot. You ask questions, then if it isn't what you want to see or hear and you knew which way the conversation was going, you loudly interupt wth unfounded allegetions and calling them names at times. Do you not understand your not making sense at all. Like a child your argue with people have checked the facts before bringing it to attention for all to see. You shouldnt make snappy judgements based on your version of the Bible in your head. Open your mind!
@DontRepYourCity Yes, Bill O' is exactly as you describe. But Al is just as bad. That is why I made the analogy. Al Sharpton was the first media whore to jump on the Duke Lacrosse team when they were falsely accused of rape, but did you see any apology later? No. He just looks for media opportunities to scream "racism". I think Bill and Al are the same, they look for opportunities to fire up their audience with a perceived injustice of it all.
Wrong Bill and Napolitano Ron Paul hit the nail on the head when his said 9/11 was an act of piracy but the only reason it was not treated as act of piracy was because so many politicians bankers and despots have built their reputation on looting the national purse, providing funds to terrorists and populism.
Wrong Ron Paul hit the nail on the head when his said 9/11 was an act of piracy but the only reason it was not treated as act of piracy was because so many politicians bankers and despots have built their reputation on looting the national purse, providing funds to terrorists and populism.
I dont understand why ppl bother to go to his "show"???!!! he is just lying, exaggerating, is extremely rude and doesnt let the ppl finish a sentence when they dont agree with him! Just dont go there and this will show what a loser he is and the programm will be stopped! peace!
The "Terrorists" of 9-11 trained for several years in the UNITED STATES! So should we bomb ourselves? Oh I forgot, we did bomb ourselves on 9-11 as a pretext false flag operation to get us into these multiple wars.
The changes to the US and the world are discussed in "The Project for a New American Century" and the attack of 911 fits nicely with the "catalyzing event " spoken of. "Operation Northwoods" also discusses the usefulness of a "false flag" attack on the American people as a pretext to military action Al Queda might have planned 911, but the CIA and Mossad made sure there were no barriers to carrying out a successful terrorist attack. "Able Danger"is more evidence of US intelligence involvement.
O'Reilly cannot argue intelligently, nor does he allow others who can, to voice their views... he is, by his own definition, a "pinhead". Bill O'Reilly and Bill Maher need to debate... let's see who's a bigger hypocritical ass.
I'm no O'reilly fan but this is taken totally out of context. He was saying I don't care about the constitution because I want to hear what you think right now. Plus he is totally right. Going back to John Adams's quasi war and Thomas Jefferson's undeclared war against the barbary pirates a declaration has not been necessary for a conflict to be considered a war. He was captured in a foreign land as a combatant not following any of the rules of civilized nations. He has no rights. Period.
Everybody who thinks Bill is crazy, is stupid. "I don't care about the constitution" is TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT. He very much cares about the constitution and says the government currently is tearing it up. You guys are such losers for thinking he meant that.
@pj8guy He pretends to care about the constitution whenever it suits him. He was cheering along when the shrub was tearing the constitution a new one.
@pj8guy You sir are an idiot and a liar. Him saying he doesn't care about the constitution when his guest IS speaking about the constution does not translate to him playing devil's advocate for the government who is supposedly "tearing it up". He is doing the EXACT opposite and refusing to acknowledge the constitution and basically saying the constitution itself is BESIDES THE POINT in this case
This lawyer knows what he's talking about. O'Reilly is such an annoying and polarizing figure. What he says is always nonsensical stuff with no bearing on reality.
He wouldn't be allowed to lie the way he does on European TV. We have standards every television figure must meet. Freedom of speech shouldn't let you lie to the public.
@BloodskullMannoroth No, it can't. Defamation is a legal concept, so you can sue for telling a lie in the US. Incidentally, the passing of the Patriot Act sort of cracks that argument....
@Norwification Defamation isn't just a lie, when you get sued for Defamation you get sued for falsely accusing someone with intent to ruin their reputation, which is different from being restricted from making political arguments based on what could be lies. If the government could decide if your political views are lies and punish you for them then there is the possibility that they will eventually misuse that power.
I didn't understand what you meant when you referenced the Patriot Act.
@BloodskullMannoroth Rightly enough. The point is that it's not "the government" as in the party in power that decides whether or not something constitutes a lie. It's a committee. Committees are used for a lot of stuff in politics, including parliamentary/congress formed judiciaries.
The key argument is that a democracy cannot fully operate if the population is not being told the truth by an outlet they rely on for the truth. Voters cannot form opinions based on lies. That's why it's hugely
I referred to the Patriot Act to show that Europe has not passed any laws restricting basic rights despite laws against media lying, while the US in fact has. More pointing out an irony than making a major point.
@BloodskullMannoroth The Patriot Act is a law made by Bush that is Unconditional and against your rights as a US citizen. This needs to be removed from law. All you need to know is...It's BAD...
o reilly: i don't care about the constitution, don't be a pinhead.
The Judge: Hahahahaha.
----
Judge Napolitano understands irony better than bill oreilly. As much as i like watching bill's show, I can't stand his interview style... such a dickhead.
I despise O'reilly and fox network, but I can't stand liberals either. To me, this vid raises a valid question. What is the definition of "war", especially after gigantic terror attacks? Should it still remain Govn't VS Govn't in its traditional form or would it need a revision?
LOL @ 2:30 Judge Andrew Napolitano saying that to O'Reilly trying to trap 'em in getting what HE wants to hear him say to the gullible American viewer.
Shameful O'Reilly, even calling the Judge a pin head to his face what a piece of shit lowlife move that was to a public servant.
you realize that when you take comments like "i don't care about the constitution" out of context like that, we're doing the same thing we hate bill o'reilly for. i'm not saying that he's good or anything, i fucking hate bill o'reilly, but it's quite clear that he wasn't saying that he actually doesn't care about the constitution. i agree with the judge but this kind of video seems somewhat hypocritical.
@billygowhoop Good point. I did notice that too. I know that Bill meant to say that, in terms of opinion, the constitution didn't matter. I don't hate Fox News, but I do feel sorry for people who take the show seriously enough to change actual laws in America.
When OReilly comes on, I switch to Fox BUSINESS News and watch Judge Andrew Napolitano on "Freedom Watch." I get the news of the day and learn about the Constitution! What a deal!
This video would seem to refute the notion that fox is unfair, Oreilly and Judge have totally different views, and they are sorting it out. What's the problem? Did Olbermann have on people who disagreed with him?
All respect and thought to the victims of 9/11, but I'm sick of living in a country that thinks that we're the only one that's been the victim of terrorism. Really.
all i know is that 9/11 happened, people are dead, and they are arguing on an issue that wont change anything. I disagree with Bill O'reilly and we should not have gone to war but none of this is news and fox news is a huge biased republican news station.
wow, the guy answered the question 9 times and o'reilly continued to badger him. then he tells him "don't be a pinhead". so if you disagree with bill o'reilly that makes you a "pinhead"? what a clown o'reilly is.
krauthammer hasn't been right about anything in his life. he's like the nascar driver that hasn't won in 12 years but every sunday gets in a sponsored car.
Yeah but, yeah but...................you're not giving me the answer I want so I will interrupt you, wait, wait, I want you to say this......................not that. Great interview Bill!
It's mistake to READ the United States Constitution before deciding how to proceed with supposed "terrorists" YET "Bitchen" Bill O'Reilly ONLY likes the U.S. Const. when it FITS HIS FUCKIN AGENDA!! Yeah that's real, that's reality!!! NOT NOT NOT!!! What a fuckin' moron! What kind of jackball son of a bitch is this guy??? He really needs his ass kicked and I mean morning, noon and night every 24 hour period he should have his ass handed to him 3 times a day. My Goodness, some people's kids!!!
It was George Washington who said that political parties would spell disaster for this country. It seems those in power have forgotten the very foundation that this country was built on: limited government and the power of its people. When did doing the right thing become second to doing what benefits the party most? America used to stand for freedom, respect, and kindness towards others and its people. I think it's time we remind our corrupt government what it forgot.
@SkyBon0 I would say O'Reilly is talking politics and the decision to try KSM in NY (and the subsequent unwillingness or inability to do so) was a political decision.
As a matter of law, I believe they are both wrong re: how things would have or should have changed if Congress had entitled it's joint resolution 'a declaration of war' rather than an authorization on the use of force. According to the Congressional Research Service, there is no substantive difference between the two.
this isnt even an interview. o'reilly interjects him on each important issue the other guy gets to with his OWN BIASED OPINION. if anyone thinks this is actual news you should kill yourself
@cujagu Out of context? How do you say those words in that order in any way which is reasonable? I understand it is misleading but it truly makes no difference. He said it in a way to deflect an argument, that is not much better than saying it as a general opinion towards the constitution itself. You are correct on the misleading part but it wasnt exactly out of context in the sense that he kinda meant it.
@Jononutoob I think it's pretty clear that when he said he didn't care about the constitution he was just trying to get the interviewee to answer his question the way he wanted him to. It was taken out of context, because even his next sentence clears up what he meant. He wasn't saying "I Bill O'Reilly, wipe my ass with the constitution every time I take a shit and I'm gonna use my talk show as a launchpad to take over the world."
@cujagu "He wasn't saying 'I Bill O'Reilly, wipe my ass with the constitution every time I take a shit and I'm gonna use my talk show as a launchpad to take over the world.'" --Are we all talking about the same Bill O here?? In so many words he did say that and much much more.
Liberal tards. He didn't mean that he "didn't care about the constitution" the guy he was talking to was bringing the constitution into the subject and it didn't need to be. ITS CALLED IRRELEVANCY MORONS! The constitution wasn't irrelevant, the matter he was bringing it into was irrelevant.
@JoshBoschke No, the judge is completely correct.
If we had declared war against Al-Qaeda and everyone sheltering them, then we would be taking a military approach to this issue.
Since we haven't, and we probably won't at this point, we SHOULD be trying these people as civilian criminals under international law.
*shrug* There's nothing more to say about the legality of it. What the Bush administration cowardly didn't do is really what caused this little issue. Should have, didn't, declare war
@GoodAvatar 9/11 was orchestrated from within the US by the thugs in question too. They got the flying training in the US, waited for the right time, etc.
@Redcarpet01 I've heard that claim before. The trick is that pesky proof thing which conspiracy nuts are always quick to say couldn't exist because the "gubment dun hid everthang."
@GoodAvatar Mmm. The only thing, objectwise, being hidden, is possibly the black boxes. Supposedly all are gone forever, which is hard to beleive. And that the security camera footage of the Pentagon at the time it was struck were confiscated by the FBI but are neither released nor shown to the 9/11 Commission. That is at least, like territorialism, as we know the FBI and other US Intelligence Community bodies barely communicate and share intel.
@Redcarpet01 Unfortunately, I can't accept any of that as proof. That's actually a LACK of proof, like I was stating earlier. What it is, is suspicious as hell if true. Like I said, though, that doesn't actually mean anything.
I used to be a 'Truther' but now I've kinda come around, not so much because I believed the official story, but because logic and evidence started stepping in to reign in my impulses to distrust the government. Which I still do.
@GoodAvatar What is the basis for your claim that the joint resolution the Congress passed authorizing the use of force "against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons" is substantively different that such a resolution declaring war against those same entities.
According to the Congressional Research Service, there is none.
@nnjhansen Because that's some pretty convenient wording to allow perpetual war, isn't it?
I think that needs to be stopped immediately. Congress, and only Congress, should be in control of military strategies. In other words, politicians should actually debate about whether or not war is necessary, then declare war or not.
I feel that this blank check for military adventuring should stop as quickly as possible.
Unfortunately, it sounds like you're probably correct about the legal wording.
@GoodAvatar How would the same wording in a joint resolution entitled a Declaration of War be any different?
The Constitution specifically entrusts the President with control of military strategies as commander in chief, not the Congress. The post 9/11 AUMF was debated fully by the Congress and approved by large majorities of both houses.
Congress is free to cease funding for any military operation at any time.
@nnjhansen "Congress is free to cease funding for any military operation at any time."
And it should. Congressmen should be accountable and absolutely, completely should reduce the overall military presence by a huge amount. In fact, I'd feel a lot more comfortable if wars operated a bit more traditionally from now on. We need to know when the war is officially over because we defeated our stated foe.
It's a bit harder to pin down our unstated foe of "Terror", isn't it?
@GoodAvatar Congress is accountable, every two years. Your belief regarding our military presence is not shared by the majority of your fellow citizens.
Unfortunately, we do not get to choose our enemies. If they wish to operate in a way that makes it difficult or impossible to know when they have been defeated, there is little we can do about it.
@nnjhansen "If they wish to operate in a way that makes it difficult or impossible to know when they have been defeated, there is little we can do about it."
.............Right, because they're civilians, not soldiers. This is the problem that I was addressing. Unfortunately, due to the political cowardice of the Bush admin, carried over into the Obama admin, we didn't declare war against a specific agency.
So the criminals we've got need to be charged as civilians whether we like it or not.
@GoodAvatar They are not civilians in that they are waging war on the US. That makes them combatants, their decision to operate outside the laws of war makes them illegal combatants.
Their decision to operate as illegal combatants entitles them to fewer protections under international law, not the greater protections afforded civilian criminal under the US Constitution.
You propose rewarding them for their decision to operate outside the bounds of the laws of war.
@GoodAvatar Again, there is no substantive legal difference between a joint resolution entitled an authorization to use military force and one entitled a declaration of war. As a matter of both domestic and international law, you are incorrect.
They attacked us by committing an act of war and we responded, rightfully with the use of military force. Wars are not solely governments fighting governments. Since the earliest days, nations have waged war against non-state actors.
@nnjhansen "They attacked us by committing an act of war"
Okay, that's fine..... Who is "They"? And if THEY committed an act of war, why didn't we respond by DECLARING WAR? That's the real crux of this problem.
"Wars are not solely governments fighting governments. Since the earliest days, nations have waged war against non-state actors"
Absolutely they have... That's called a police action.
A war, however, is when a nation engages in a long term conflict with another nation.
@nnjhansen "War, not a 'police action' can be and have been waged against non-state actors."
Can you list a few examples? Specific ones, I mean, I don't mean these insanely stupid, dumbass rhetoric wars like the War on Drugs and the War on Poverty and the War on Terror. I mean actual, specific examples of "war" being declared against a non-government.
You have yourself backwards. CONGRESS should first declare war, and THEN the military does stuff. That shouldn't be reversed, and it has.
@GoodAvatar Sure, military actions against pirates on the high seas have a long history, our own war against the Barbary pirates at the turn of the 19th century is one example. Virtually every civil war is waged by a government against a non-state actor.
Congress DID authorize the use of military force prior to those forces being used.
@nnjhansen Those are ALL police actions. Including the civil wars, unless the other side set up a government as well, such as the American Civil War. THAT is a war. Declarations of opposition, contesting governments, standing militaries. That's what's required for a technical war.
And regardless of what Congress authorized, they DID NOT DECLARE WAR.
Are you beginning to detect a pattern here? THAT is the problem.
If this is a police action, they're tried as civilian criminals. War? Soldiers.
Its all good... until they pull this shit on YOU, right folks? Wake up.
WAKEUPNOWDAMMIT 2 weeks ago
As usual...Bill O'Reilly>>>>"Don't confuse me with the facts...I already have my unchangeable opinion"
adrianriviera 2 weeks ago
I hate fox news and liberals with a passion
Reido2828 3 weeks ago
He wasn't saying it in that way, he was just saying he wants to hear what the other guy thinks not what the constitution says.
DrMeh3 4 weeks ago
Bill - catch cancer u prick
ll1lI 1 month ago
he doesnt care about the constitution? oh dear.
matthewandrew 1 month ago
no major media icons selected to guide the sheeple care about the constitution. Bill Oreilly is an idiot but rather and idiot with an opinion than the zombie hosts of cnn who dont even understand the words they're reading off the teleprompter. You can tell by the look in their eyes that their minds are completely blank.
BWCmike 1 month ago
@BWCmike except wolf blitzer who is an aipaic spokesman. See --> /watch?v=U0KDAeQYNDg
BWCmike 1 month ago
You guys are such idiots, he said i don't care about the constitution because he wants HIS point of view...
live2ride153 1 month ago
@live2ride153 No he didnt and your and idiot! learn something in life kid!
XxballertownXx 1 month ago
wow O'Reilly plays his character better than Colbert
ElPiggo 1 month ago
Respect his opinion my ass! He talked over him, didn't let him explains things from his point of view and pretended like everything he sai didn't matter like he knows more things them him.
vzerby 1 month ago
@vzerby This is what Bill O'Reilly gets paid for. He's not suppost to be taken serious, he's just an entertainer. That's the only reason why he acts the way he acts.
ketio 1 month ago
you dont have to be read your mirandas after an arrest. officers are only required to inform you of them before they start to question you after the arrest. if you admit to the crime before they question you they have no reason to read them to you unless they intend to question you about another crime.
berkjohnson 1 month ago
The irony of Bill Oh'really calling anyone a pinhead is giggleworthy. The guy has blinders of hate on and is unable to see anyhting other then the path too his own venagence. He is the lead Pinhead of the pack.
masluxx 2 months ago
Pshhh. What does Andrew Napolitano know about the law over Bill O'Reilly? It's not like he's a judge or anything...
I picture Bill-O getting diagnosed with cancer and telling his physician "That's not cancer. Don't be a pinhead! I don't care about treatment!"
Alas, we're not that lucky.
BlueRonin44 2 months ago
Uh.. really Bill? I think you are the pinhead. I believe you know nothing about the Constitution therfore you care nothing about it. Just another example of how Asshole O'Reilly is a whore for the lamestream media.
kirkstaub 2 months ago
FUCK YOU BILL!!!!!!!!
mikeherbs88 2 months ago
Bill O'Reily is an idiot and no onewith half a brain takes him serious.
kvn31k 2 months ago
Nobody declared war on anybody; they were terrorists and should be tried where the crime was committed. Why does it make so much difference where these people are tried?
jerico641 2 months ago
That O' Reilly is an abrasive, obnoxious turd of a man.
MiG2880 2 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
secure . ronpaul2012 . com
ToxinalX 3 months ago
this brings up al awalaki but no he was killed with no trial
EAsports93 3 months ago
Without any guiding ethical principles, O'Reilly is nothing more than a simple minded tool of whoever agreed with him last. Or... paid for his last latté.
j1a2r34 3 months ago
old bill needs to get his fake eyeball replaced, he looks like a disfigured fish
MattThermer 3 months ago
it hurts to watch 2 adult men talking about nothing
SkaffBear 3 months ago
The entire right-wing goofy-assed drama about trying Al-Qaeda members in civilian courts is the ultimate hypoctie moron idiot issue.
Why?
Simple:
The George Bush administration tried numerous terrorist suspects in civilian court. And where were the conservative assholes screaming about it then?
I'll tell you where: NOWHERE!
Why?
Because they are fucking idiot hypocrite assholes, that's why.
Don't you get it?
Idiot fucking hypocrite assholes. What else is there to know about conservatives?
bapyou 4 months ago
A narrow minded conservative christian that doesn't care about the constitution? What a surprise!!
LOCUSTHATER666 4 months ago
Have you noticed that in all the videos that B.O.R. is in , there is never a kind word for him. You would think that after awhile the Pinhead would catch on, and change his attitude. Nope, he gets payed big $ to be a Jackass, and he doesn't even have to stand in an Outhouse while it is being turned completely upside-down!
lizardfirefighter110 4 months ago
the constitution, the truth, Bill O is a care free douchebag if the day comes that they round up corrupt journalists i hope they will forget the constitution too
batchoftruth 4 months ago
Judge Napolitano Spun it!
torylelandkirgiss 4 months ago
O'Reilly: Don't be a pinhead!
Napolitano: LOL! xD
O'Reilly: >:(
Yabuturtle 4 months ago 3
well he wasn't dismissing the constitution, only trying to get the guests personal opinion. He just didn't seem to understand that the guest's opinion was to uphold the constitution. Military was not involved in 9/11 so why would it be dealt with in military court? Why wouldn't anyone want the city that was attacked to get the vengeance?
muphart 4 months ago
B.O.R. or the short version, just plane B.O. both fit that A hole....
wldbill57 4 months ago
B.O.R. Yeah the name says it all doesn't it. Not only is billie o' reilly a complete idiot but also a bore, just abbreviate his name, here, look : Bill O'REilly ! Get it?
And yes I agree with all of You folks who said he is a piece of shit ! I would say , to take this a step closer to the truth, BillOreilly is TurdFungus !
attilaevil 4 months ago
O' Reilly, what a piece of crap, bet im not the only one that would like pound his face, only way to shut his big mouth !
wldbill57 4 months ago
holy moly this O'reilly guy is so sad. Its sad he can say these things on TV. My god people please vote for Ron Paul.
samhellsup 4 months ago
The opinion of Bill "megalomaniac" O'Reilly isn't worth the keystrokes it took to enter this sentence...
TheSentinelGuardian 4 months ago
O'Reilly is the pinhead here. I think everyone who is invited onto his show should tell him to stick it that we are not coming on to be interrupted and talked over. Just put the know it all jackass out of business. I despise Barney Frank but he and Ann Coulter are the only two people I have ever seen that won't let him get away with it. One rude SOB
Fedproman 4 months ago
Charles Krauthammer: Evil dishonest Neoconservative
Bill O'Reilly: Shill for corporatism and the globalists
Andrew Napolitano: Honest man and true conservative constitutionalist
VotePaineJefferson 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Bail outs, Fake derivatives, Printing fiat currency Endless wars Looting of Fed programs Less government Remove sanctions Real free trade Restore America's human rights Ron Paul 2012 !!
2020starman 5 months ago
Bill is the great pragmatist he claims to be."I don't care about the constitution....the constitution isn't here".The constitution should only be followed when it agrees with him and dismissed at his whim.Funny if he thinks that the constitution is divinely inspired that he would so easily forsake it.
AisAbsolute 5 months ago
feel free to leave oreilly I think you have made many millions off of that constitution.....go to china and run your mouth,,,, thats why i quit watching your BS years ago.......LOL....mr know it all
MrMBB333 5 months ago
Comment removed
bossrube53 6 months ago
Comment removed
bossrube53 6 months ago
Comment removed
bossrube53 6 months ago
Conclusion: I think Bill O'Reilly learned a lot about the US Constitution today and he doesn't like it and should be jailed (or at least fired) for speaking against it...
tpstrat14 6 months ago
i love how when O'Reilly is confronted with things that require knowledge like the constitution of our country, he resorts to the "pinhead" insult as a defense against his ignorance.. I also love how Napolitano just laughed at him and wasn't bothered at all that Bill O'Reilly thinks he's a pinhead.
tpstrat14 6 months ago
Oh boogeyman in the sky, take down Fox News by way of Murdoch.
penlovmov 6 months ago
HEY MR. NAPOLITANO!! how dare you use the constitution to prove me wrong! i am an American and an on duty clown for FOX NEWS! The constitution is nonwhitstanding when it doesn't support my racist beliefs!!!
00sparkleandshiiine 6 months ago
@00sparkleandshiiine lol
FightingSpirt 4 weeks ago
@7footballfanatic7 fucking retard he's a fascist not a commie
7footballfanatic7 6 months ago
Dear Bill. you are beyond your time-slot. You ask questions, then if it isn't what you want to see or hear and you knew which way the conversation was going, you loudly interupt wth unfounded allegetions and calling them names at times. Do you not understand your not making sense at all. Like a child your argue with people have checked the facts before bringing it to attention for all to see. You shouldnt make snappy judgements based on your version of the Bible in your head. Open your mind!
vilmoroth 6 months ago
just stop watching the o'reilly show and that takes care of that....
popadope67 6 months ago
@ninjashade411 Correct. Bill O Reilly is just Al Sharpton for white people.
coolgreyoneabby 6 months ago 17
@coolgreyoneabby Except Al Sharpton's not a racist, lying bigot like Bill O'Reilly.
DontRepYourCity 6 months ago
@DontRepYourCity Yes, Bill O' is exactly as you describe. But Al is just as bad. That is why I made the analogy. Al Sharpton was the first media whore to jump on the Duke Lacrosse team when they were falsely accused of rape, but did you see any apology later? No. He just looks for media opportunities to scream "racism". I think Bill and Al are the same, they look for opportunities to fire up their audience with a perceived injustice of it all.
coolgreyoneabby 6 months ago
@coolgreyoneabby Really. Sharpton is a non-thinking black moron. Take the blinders off kid.
flyboy7588 2 weeks ago
@flyboy7588 We could not agree more.
coolgreyoneabby 2 weeks ago
I don't care about the constitution? Wow, he got some guts to say those words as hypocrisy itself, is his name.
ltmikepowell 7 months ago
I literally just shit myself when O'Reilly said that; he is out of his fucking mind!
JUDGE NAPOLITANO your the fucking man!
One more thing, fuck off O'Reilly!
RON PAUL 2012!
jdp8642 7 months ago 44
This has been flagged as spam show
Wrong Bill and Napolitano Ron Paul hit the nail on the head when his said 9/11 was an act of piracy but the only reason it was not treated as act of piracy was because so many politicians bankers and despots have built their reputation on looting the national purse, providing funds to terrorists and populism.
kulan2 7 months ago
Wrong Ron Paul hit the nail on the head when his said 9/11 was an act of piracy but the only reason it was not treated as act of piracy was because so many politicians bankers and despots have built their reputation on looting the national purse, providing funds to terrorists and populism.
kulan2 7 months ago
bill (lack of capitalization is to show disrespect) you are a clown.. a circus clown
DRyalyan 7 months ago
I dont understand why ppl bother to go to his "show"???!!! he is just lying, exaggerating, is extremely rude and doesnt let the ppl finish a sentence when they dont agree with him! Just dont go there and this will show what a loser he is and the programm will be stopped! peace!
MsLiliana2010 7 months ago
someone take away his 1st amendment rights. He doesnt care
sendyoshit 7 months ago
@sendyoshit LOL seriously though
TheDougass 7 months ago
I can't believe people watch O'Reilly. It saddens me deeply.
ThaPremiere1 7 months ago 2
It looks like devil himself participates in this show.
EminidisMike 7 months ago 2
O'Really is such an idiot. He is not a patriot as he calls himself. Very anti American.
dsrtrat89 7 months ago
The "Terrorists" of 9-11 trained for several years in the UNITED STATES! So should we bomb ourselves? Oh I forgot, we did bomb ourselves on 9-11 as a pretext false flag operation to get us into these multiple wars.
MrBullfrog9876 7 months ago 2
The changes to the US and the world are discussed in "The Project for a New American Century" and the attack of 911 fits nicely with the "catalyzing event " spoken of. "Operation Northwoods" also discusses the usefulness of a "false flag" attack on the American people as a pretext to military action Al Queda might have planned 911, but the CIA and Mossad made sure there were no barriers to carrying out a successful terrorist attack. "Able Danger"is more evidence of US intelligence involvement.
aubreyfarmer 7 months ago
Anyone who thinks 9/11 was an act of war is a pinhead. You weren't even attacked by a state or country. O Reilly is so dumb. LOL
JJbubbs23 7 months ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
Ron Paul 2012
TheTrueConservative 8 months ago
O'Reilly cannot argue intelligently, nor does he allow others who can, to voice their views... he is, by his own definition, a "pinhead". Bill O'Reilly and Bill Maher need to debate... let's see who's a bigger hypocritical ass.
threepercenter03 8 months ago
Judge N is the real deal. Oreilly you have no class and youre a shill
spineadjuster13 8 months ago
Bill O'Reilly is not even worth the price of a piece of shit.
DieserBenuterIstCool 8 months ago
Man, I honestly HATE O'Reilly and would not piss on him if he were on fire.
ENJOYtheLITTLthings 8 months ago
Nepalitano is an effin Judge! Eff U Oreally
sergeantrex 8 months ago
I'm no O'reilly fan but this is taken totally out of context. He was saying I don't care about the constitution because I want to hear what you think right now. Plus he is totally right. Going back to John Adams's quasi war and Thomas Jefferson's undeclared war against the barbary pirates a declaration has not been necessary for a conflict to be considered a war. He was captured in a foreign land as a combatant not following any of the rules of civilized nations. He has no rights. Period.
tmccart3 8 months ago
Everybody who thinks Bill is crazy, is stupid. "I don't care about the constitution" is TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT. He very much cares about the constitution and says the government currently is tearing it up. You guys are such losers for thinking he meant that.
pj8guy 8 months ago
@pj8guy He pretends to care about the constitution whenever it suits him. He was cheering along when the shrub was tearing the constitution a new one.
soylentgreenb 8 months ago
@pj8guy You sir are an idiot and a liar. Him saying he doesn't care about the constitution when his guest IS speaking about the constution does not translate to him playing devil's advocate for the government who is supposedly "tearing it up". He is doing the EXACT opposite and refusing to acknowledge the constitution and basically saying the constitution itself is BESIDES THE POINT in this case
00sparkleandshiiine 6 months ago
Dr. Steve Pieczenik & Alex Jones-FULL INTERVIEW (5-3-11)
2020starman 8 months ago
Kill Bill.
LocoGroove 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
O'REILLY FOR PRESIDENT.
biggingeryeti 9 months ago
Comment removed
biggingeryeti 9 months ago
Comment removed
biggingeryeti 9 months ago
"I don't care about the constitution?" WTF?!?! O Reilly should get shot in the head for that statement.
Jamzkangster 9 months ago
i know how o'riley and faux news can save the world.. they can go kill them selves
scorand 9 months ago
@scorand Got it wrong mate. They can go FUCK themselves.
Pashatube 9 months ago
"Should have been taken care of." That sounds like an assassination implication. Way to go, Bill, you cock
RobotSlayer9 9 months ago
This lawyer knows what he's talking about. O'Reilly is such an annoying and polarizing figure. What he says is always nonsensical stuff with no bearing on reality.
He wouldn't be allowed to lie the way he does on European TV. We have standards every television figure must meet. Freedom of speech shouldn't let you lie to the public.
Norwification 9 months ago
@Norwification Then the government can just claim you're lying when you speak out against it.
BloodskullMannoroth 9 months ago
@BloodskullMannoroth No, it can't. Defamation is a legal concept, so you can sue for telling a lie in the US. Incidentally, the passing of the Patriot Act sort of cracks that argument....
Norwification 9 months ago
@Norwification Defamation isn't just a lie, when you get sued for Defamation you get sued for falsely accusing someone with intent to ruin their reputation, which is different from being restricted from making political arguments based on what could be lies. If the government could decide if your political views are lies and punish you for them then there is the possibility that they will eventually misuse that power.
I didn't understand what you meant when you referenced the Patriot Act.
BloodskullMannoroth 8 months ago
@BloodskullMannoroth Rightly enough. The point is that it's not "the government" as in the party in power that decides whether or not something constitutes a lie. It's a committee. Committees are used for a lot of stuff in politics, including parliamentary/congress formed judiciaries.
The key argument is that a democracy cannot fully operate if the population is not being told the truth by an outlet they rely on for the truth. Voters cannot form opinions based on lies. That's why it's hugely
Norwification 8 months ago
@BloodskullMannoroth important to maintain an unbiased and correct media.
I referred to the Patriot Act to show that Europe has not passed any laws restricting basic rights despite laws against media lying, while the US in fact has. More pointing out an irony than making a major point.
Norwification 8 months ago
@BloodskullMannoroth The Patriot Act is a law made by Bush that is Unconditional and against your rights as a US citizen. This needs to be removed from law. All you need to know is...It's BAD...
Dealermann 8 months ago
o reilly: i don't care about the constitution, don't be a pinhead.
The Judge: Hahahahaha.
----
Judge Napolitano understands irony better than bill oreilly. As much as i like watching bill's show, I can't stand his interview style... such a dickhead.
daPlumber702 9 months ago 2
The Judge for Supreme Court!
Rensune 9 months ago
I despise O'reilly and fox network, but I can't stand liberals either. To me, this vid raises a valid question. What is the definition of "war", especially after gigantic terror attacks? Should it still remain Govn't VS Govn't in its traditional form or would it need a revision?
davidmjeong926 9 months ago
my god what a bonehead!(o'reilly, not the judge)
dsspike51 9 months ago 2
Not news moron, Bill O'Reilly hosts an OPINION entertainment show....Not a NEWS show...Learn the difference...
Chareb94 9 months ago
The US didn't declare war against Vietnam or North Korea.
totoibra1 9 months ago
LOL @ 2:30 Judge Andrew Napolitano saying that to O'Reilly trying to trap 'em in getting what HE wants to hear him say to the gullible American viewer.
Shameful O'Reilly, even calling the Judge a pin head to his face what a piece of shit lowlife move that was to a public servant.
kantoriX1 10 months ago
you realize that when you take comments like "i don't care about the constitution" out of context like that, we're doing the same thing we hate bill o'reilly for. i'm not saying that he's good or anything, i fucking hate bill o'reilly, but it's quite clear that he wasn't saying that he actually doesn't care about the constitution. i agree with the judge but this kind of video seems somewhat hypocritical.
billygowhoop 10 months ago
@billygowhoop Good point. I did notice that too. I know that Bill meant to say that, in terms of opinion, the constitution didn't matter. I don't hate Fox News, but I do feel sorry for people who take the show seriously enough to change actual laws in America.
spinynorman1982 9 months ago
"I don't care about the constitution"... I think most already knew this, but hey, thanks for letting everybody else know.
grabyourgat 10 months ago 52
This has been flagged as spam show
When OReilly comes on, I switch to Fox BUSINESS News and watch Judge Andrew Napolitano on "Freedom Watch." I get the news of the day and learn about the Constitution! What a deal!
vechorik 3 months ago
Everything they are talking about is fiction.
FreeHumanDon 10 months ago
Judge Napolitano handled it like like a class act...Bill oreilly is a disgrace to watch. what a pompous biased @ssh0le
bigcox01 10 months ago 2
Waste of tax dollars keeping them locked up whter it be in Federal Pens or Gitmo...
Blow their fucking brains out bullets are cheap...
Greendude33 10 months ago
bill o'reilly is a harley rider
sodaxcandy08 10 months ago
911 was an inside job done by usa end of story...
NattyPJ 10 months ago
This video would seem to refute the notion that fox is unfair, Oreilly and Judge have totally different views, and they are sorting it out. What's the problem? Did Olbermann have on people who disagreed with him?
GiancarloD87 10 months ago
All respect and thought to the victims of 9/11, but I'm sick of living in a country that thinks that we're the only one that's been the victim of terrorism. Really.
HoneyNVinegar 10 months ago
all i know is that 9/11 happened, people are dead, and they are arguing on an issue that wont change anything. I disagree with Bill O'reilly and we should not have gone to war but none of this is news and fox news is a huge biased republican news station.
Hayaishin 10 months ago
Khalid deserves a fair trial. Hell, even Hermann Goering got a fair trial.
acronus 10 months ago
o reillys stupid
jacesk8ter123 10 months ago
wow, the guy answered the question 9 times and o'reilly continued to badger him. then he tells him "don't be a pinhead". so if you disagree with bill o'reilly that makes you a "pinhead"? what a clown o'reilly is.
krauthammer hasn't been right about anything in his life. he's like the nascar driver that hasn't won in 12 years but every sunday gets in a sponsored car.
tomitstube 10 months ago 2
what a lil bitch......
Bagfest08 10 months ago
Yeah but, yeah but...................you're not giving me the answer I want so I will interrupt you, wait, wait, I want you to say this......................not that. Great interview Bill!
SlimSh8E 10 months ago
It's mistake to READ the United States Constitution before deciding how to proceed with supposed "terrorists" YET "Bitchen" Bill O'Reilly ONLY likes the U.S. Const. when it FITS HIS FUCKIN AGENDA!! Yeah that's real, that's reality!!! NOT NOT NOT!!! What a fuckin' moron! What kind of jackball son of a bitch is this guy??? He really needs his ass kicked and I mean morning, noon and night every 24 hour period he should have his ass handed to him 3 times a day. My Goodness, some people's kids!!!
10secs2lovetffl 10 months ago
O'Reilly's a pinhead
Dilly5 11 months ago 74
It was George Washington who said that political parties would spell disaster for this country. It seems those in power have forgotten the very foundation that this country was built on: limited government and the power of its people. When did doing the right thing become second to doing what benefits the party most? America used to stand for freedom, respect, and kindness towards others and its people. I think it's time we remind our corrupt government what it forgot.
8u77355 11 months ago
billo the the clown
dus182311 11 months ago
O'Reilly does not have a clue what he is talking about.
SkyBon0 11 months ago
@SkyBon0 What do you believe he is wrong about?
nnjhansen 11 months ago
@nnjhansen Napolitano talks law, O'Reilly talks emotions.
SkyBon0 11 months ago
@SkyBon0 I would say O'Reilly is talking politics and the decision to try KSM in NY (and the subsequent unwillingness or inability to do so) was a political decision.
As a matter of law, I believe they are both wrong re: how things would have or should have changed if Congress had entitled it's joint resolution 'a declaration of war' rather than an authorization on the use of force. According to the Congressional Research Service, there is no substantive difference between the two.
nnjhansen 11 months ago
Stop taking things out of context, people.
Beefster09 11 months ago
my ass he respects The Judge's opinion
ctminarchist 11 months ago
I can't believe the arrogance of Bill O'theClown telling a judge that he is a pinhead.
What a fucktard
MrWonkoSane 11 months ago
this isnt even an interview. o'reilly interjects him on each important issue the other guy gets to with his OWN BIASED OPINION. if anyone thinks this is actual news you should kill yourself
crankdatbatman23 11 months ago 12
@crankdatbatman23
Dude ... then every republican will no longer exist !!!
Fair and Balanced my ass he he he :)
joe24021991 9 months ago
Fox made a smart move by picking up Judge, he continues to surprise me.
skydome29 11 months ago
lol i didnt recognize Bill!! lmao I was like where is he...then...oh hes talking lmao
YouReadMyMind 11 months ago
Terror terrorize terrorism terror terror terrorism terrorize terror.....
Keep saying it so I stay scared Billy
agkreider 1 year ago
I love how he hides behind the constitution when he thinks it backs up his argument but is happy to ignore it when it doesn't. What a patriot.
LeeMarcelle 1 year ago
Bill O'Reilly: I'm losing the argument, lets end this interview here
squeezycheeseypeas 1 year ago
The title of this video is pretty misleading. I'm not an O'Reilly fan, but that quote was clearly taken out of context.
cujagu 1 year ago
@cujagu Out of context? How do you say those words in that order in any way which is reasonable? I understand it is misleading but it truly makes no difference. He said it in a way to deflect an argument, that is not much better than saying it as a general opinion towards the constitution itself. You are correct on the misleading part but it wasnt exactly out of context in the sense that he kinda meant it.
Jononutoob 1 year ago
@Jononutoob I think it's pretty clear that when he said he didn't care about the constitution he was just trying to get the interviewee to answer his question the way he wanted him to. It was taken out of context, because even his next sentence clears up what he meant. He wasn't saying "I Bill O'Reilly, wipe my ass with the constitution every time I take a shit and I'm gonna use my talk show as a launchpad to take over the world."
cujagu 1 year ago
@cujagu "He wasn't saying 'I Bill O'Reilly, wipe my ass with the constitution every time I take a shit and I'm gonna use my talk show as a launchpad to take over the world.'" --Are we all talking about the same Bill O here?? In so many words he did say that and much much more.
savemyplaylist 11 months ago
@savemyplaylist So you actually think Bill O'Reilly is trying to take over the world?
cujagu 11 months ago
oreilly resolves to calling names?? seriously?
5600981 1 year ago
Liberals have no reasoning or common sense.
DignifiedGlory 1 year ago
@DignifiedGlory Billo is a conservative btw
hempartist420 1 year ago
@hempartist420 I know he is a major conservative along with Rush Limbaugh. I wrote my previous comment just to state that liberals are idiots.
DignifiedGlory 1 year ago
Go to 1:52 if you cannot stand O'Reilly's voice for 4 minutes.
lawtongreymanning 1 year ago
How can you have an opinion that is exactly the opposite of the constitution and be praised as a patriot for it? It is the basis of the country...
stratelite 1 year ago
Liberal tards. He didn't mean that he "didn't care about the constitution" the guy he was talking to was bringing the constitution into the subject and it didn't need to be. ITS CALLED IRRELEVANCY MORONS! The constitution wasn't irrelevant, the matter he was bringing it into was irrelevant.
JoshBoschke 1 year ago
@JoshBoschke No, the judge is completely correct.
If we had declared war against Al-Qaeda and everyone sheltering them, then we would be taking a military approach to this issue.
Since we haven't, and we probably won't at this point, we SHOULD be trying these people as civilian criminals under international law.
*shrug* There's nothing more to say about the legality of it. What the Bush administration cowardly didn't do is really what caused this little issue. Should have, didn't, declare war
GoodAvatar 1 year ago 18
@GoodAvatar 9/11 was orchestrated from within the US by the thugs in question too. They got the flying training in the US, waited for the right time, etc.
Redcarpet01 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Redcarpet01 Even if that was true, and I'm not prepared to say it is, what does any of that have to do with what I said?
GoodAvatar 1 year ago
@Redcarpet01 I've heard that claim before. The trick is that pesky proof thing which conspiracy nuts are always quick to say couldn't exist because the "gubment dun hid everthang."
GoodAvatar 1 year ago
@GoodAvatar Mmm. The only thing, objectwise, being hidden, is possibly the black boxes. Supposedly all are gone forever, which is hard to beleive. And that the security camera footage of the Pentagon at the time it was struck were confiscated by the FBI but are neither released nor shown to the 9/11 Commission. That is at least, like territorialism, as we know the FBI and other US Intelligence Community bodies barely communicate and share intel.
Redcarpet01 1 year ago
@Redcarpet01 Unfortunately, I can't accept any of that as proof. That's actually a LACK of proof, like I was stating earlier. What it is, is suspicious as hell if true. Like I said, though, that doesn't actually mean anything.
I used to be a 'Truther' but now I've kinda come around, not so much because I believed the official story, but because logic and evidence started stepping in to reign in my impulses to distrust the government. Which I still do.
GoodAvatar 1 year ago
@GoodAvatar Not saying it was proof of anything. Just saying they're legitimate suspicions of at least territorialism by the FBI.
Redcarpet01 1 year ago
@GoodAvatar What is the basis for your claim that the joint resolution the Congress passed authorizing the use of force "against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons" is substantively different that such a resolution declaring war against those same entities.
According to the Congressional Research Service, there is none.
nnjhansen 11 months ago
@nnjhansen Because that's some pretty convenient wording to allow perpetual war, isn't it?
I think that needs to be stopped immediately. Congress, and only Congress, should be in control of military strategies. In other words, politicians should actually debate about whether or not war is necessary, then declare war or not.
I feel that this blank check for military adventuring should stop as quickly as possible.
Unfortunately, it sounds like you're probably correct about the legal wording.
GoodAvatar 11 months ago
@GoodAvatar How would the same wording in a joint resolution entitled a Declaration of War be any different?
The Constitution specifically entrusts the President with control of military strategies as commander in chief, not the Congress. The post 9/11 AUMF was debated fully by the Congress and approved by large majorities of both houses.
Congress is free to cease funding for any military operation at any time.
nnjhansen 11 months ago
@nnjhansen "Congress is free to cease funding for any military operation at any time."
And it should. Congressmen should be accountable and absolutely, completely should reduce the overall military presence by a huge amount. In fact, I'd feel a lot more comfortable if wars operated a bit more traditionally from now on. We need to know when the war is officially over because we defeated our stated foe.
It's a bit harder to pin down our unstated foe of "Terror", isn't it?
Stupid fucking name.
GoodAvatar 11 months ago
@GoodAvatar although the absolutely, completely and huge was a bit unnecessary. Grammar inflation.
GoodAvatar 11 months ago
@GoodAvatar Congress is accountable, every two years. Your belief regarding our military presence is not shared by the majority of your fellow citizens.
Unfortunately, we do not get to choose our enemies. If they wish to operate in a way that makes it difficult or impossible to know when they have been defeated, there is little we can do about it.
nnjhansen 11 months ago
@nnjhansen "If they wish to operate in a way that makes it difficult or impossible to know when they have been defeated, there is little we can do about it."
.............Right, because they're civilians, not soldiers. This is the problem that I was addressing. Unfortunately, due to the political cowardice of the Bush admin, carried over into the Obama admin, we didn't declare war against a specific agency.
So the criminals we've got need to be charged as civilians whether we like it or not.
GoodAvatar 11 months ago
@GoodAvatar They are not civilians in that they are waging war on the US. That makes them combatants, their decision to operate outside the laws of war makes them illegal combatants.
Their decision to operate as illegal combatants entitles them to fewer protections under international law, not the greater protections afforded civilian criminal under the US Constitution.
You propose rewarding them for their decision to operate outside the bounds of the laws of war.
nnjhansen 11 months ago
@nnjhansen "You propose rewarding them for their decision to operate outside the bounds of the laws of war."
We HAVE to treat them like civilians.... BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T DECLARED A WAR! Which country are we fighting against? What "soldiers" have we detained?
Wars are governments fighting other governments. Battling terrorists is a national level police action.
Since we didn't declare war, we should be trying these people as civilian criminals. We have no other legalistic choice.
GoodAvatar 11 months ago
@GoodAvatar Again, there is no substantive legal difference between a joint resolution entitled an authorization to use military force and one entitled a declaration of war. As a matter of both domestic and international law, you are incorrect.
They attacked us by committing an act of war and we responded, rightfully with the use of military force. Wars are not solely governments fighting governments. Since the earliest days, nations have waged war against non-state actors.
nnjhansen 11 months ago
@nnjhansen "They attacked us by committing an act of war"
Okay, that's fine..... Who is "They"? And if THEY committed an act of war, why didn't we respond by DECLARING WAR? That's the real crux of this problem.
"Wars are not solely governments fighting governments. Since the earliest days, nations have waged war against non-state actors"
Absolutely they have... That's called a police action.
A war, however, is when a nation engages in a long term conflict with another nation.
GoodAvatar 11 months ago
@GoodAvatar We responded by authorizing the use of military force. Which again is the legal equivalent of a formal declaration of war.
War, not a 'police action' can be and have been waged against non-state actors.
nnjhansen 11 months ago
@nnjhansen "War, not a 'police action' can be and have been waged against non-state actors."
Can you list a few examples? Specific ones, I mean, I don't mean these insanely stupid, dumbass rhetoric wars like the War on Drugs and the War on Poverty and the War on Terror. I mean actual, specific examples of "war" being declared against a non-government.
You have yourself backwards. CONGRESS should first declare war, and THEN the military does stuff. That shouldn't be reversed, and it has.
GoodAvatar 11 months ago
@GoodAvatar Sure, military actions against pirates on the high seas have a long history, our own war against the Barbary pirates at the turn of the 19th century is one example. Virtually every civil war is waged by a government against a non-state actor.
Congress DID authorize the use of military force prior to those forces being used.
nnjhansen 11 months ago
@nnjhansen Those are ALL police actions. Including the civil wars, unless the other side set up a government as well, such as the American Civil War. THAT is a war. Declarations of opposition, contesting governments, standing militaries. That's what's required for a technical war.
And regardless of what Congress authorized, they DID NOT DECLARE WAR.
Are you beginning to detect a pattern here? THAT is the problem.
If this is a police action, they're tried as civilian criminals. War? Soldiers.
GoodAvatar 11 months ago