You ought to take a little time, not real long, and actually read the Constitution. Then think about it. Is that how you'd design a union of nations, or states, to provide for the common defense and insure domestic tranquility? You might even decide Judge Napolitano deserves a higher score than one, much higher. He must be Fox's sop to the libertarians. He's not like the others on fox.
@ruthgan Judge Napolitano says that any person has the right to be tried in court, which is true, but it DOES NOT APPLY to a terrorist or a group of terrorists to even let them be tried.
I wouldn't be surprised if O' Reilly is a fucked up pedophile who is into snorting cocaine and fucking 5$ hookers every night of his life. I wonder if he has kids cuz they must really fucking hate him. Bill O' Reilly's eyes go up in flames when he is proven wrong countless times on his show. The only time O' Reilly smiles is when babys are dying and mothers are crying. Lets sign a petition to hang O' Reilly, cuz this world is fucked up enough without someone spreading more lies.
I absolutely hate O' Reilly im surprised someone hasnt slit his fucking throat yet, He lies lies and lies on his show because Fox pays him 8 million dollars a year to speak these lies. You think O' Reilly doesnt know the Gov't is corrupt he is one of the mother fuckers corrupting it. His show is soo biased its bullshit. Offcourse he doesnt care about the constitution cuz the constitution in todays gov't is a fuckin joke!!! They are literally wiping thier asses with the constitution.
@corpen11 Oh and the the government would not try to protect people from themselves as it is none of their business what an individual does as long as others are not harmed physically or their property is not harmed.
@corpen11 Speaking for me, as I do consider myself to be conservative but not a Neo Con, I think government should be small and limited, it should not legislate morality beyond that which infringes on others rights, and beyond those truly incapable of helping themselves or those who need temporary help does not give it with tax revenue . I believe we should have an open border policy after a simple background check and medical check for serious contagious illnesses. As I said that is just me.
What perplexes, confounds and, well, F'N blows my mind away is that these (you) talking heads on BOTH SIDES keep you all running around in circles so that you will never get anywhere in life but to the Dr's for the ulcers and dysentery formed by the allowance of your mind to be sucked up into this two party "he said" "she said" nonsense that has not a single drop of relevance in our lives.
.
.
Turn these Pin-Heads off, turn your TV's off and reclaim America... Before you ask them to remove it.
@473009723 when did you start promoting democracy north korean style? ban tv and radio talk shows and decide your future on the basis of what info? knobhead.
Herr O'Reilly dismissed another rule of law and due process.They were arrested in Pakistan, Not tried and convicted. Until then they are alleged terrorists. Absurdly, the DOJ was criticised for bringing them to new York saying," What if they are acquitted and released in the streets? They are admitting the posibility that the government arrested and imprisioned them without sufficient evidence to convict, This way of thinking is scary in its implications for America
As i understand it, they are not legally enemy combatants, since as alleged terrorists they are not members of the military of a NATION at war with us. We ae not at war vs the Iraqi or Afghanistan's government. if so,our premptive strike would be to make undeclared war vs a sovereign nation and illegal under international law. The war vs terrorism is a whole new ball game, making legal issues complicated.......which is the position terrorists want to get nations into.
Me? Engage in a political conversation? Good luck, I don't sit at the computer hours on end arguing about how "this guy sucks" or "this guy is right" or "no you're wrong".
This is the last comment I'm leaving here - Bill O'Reilly is not a fucktard, and you are an immature bitch to say otherwise. Maybe if you actually listen to his stance on any given subject, you'd see he is not as crazy as you think he is.
I'm not a wingnut dipshit. I'm independant, with conservative views. Silly libs.
You may not be a wingnut, but you are agreeing with and defending a nitwit who is more concerned about being a rich guy on tv than giving a crap about the laws of this nation.
You people are so stupid. He just said "I don't care about the Constitution," because he was trying to get the other guy's opinion on the situation and the other guy was trying to dodge the question.
So your saying the guy was dodging the question by offering the facts of the constitution, instead of his own opinion, I thought Bill'O was the no spin guy, saying "I don't care about the Constitution" sounds like a hurricane to me.
I am pretty sure terrorism is not mentioned in the Constitution. Bill was asking that guy where he thought terrorism fit into the discussion, but that guy for some reason refused to give his own interpretation.
Bill asked him why should these guys be tried in a civilan court in New York? and he gave his answer, which clearly stated what the Contitution said, just because these guys are terrorist doesn't change what the law is or what we stand for. Besides this not an issue of opinion but facts.
Just one more proof that the hard right conservatives dont really give a got dam about the rule of law or the constitution. These people want a totalitarian theocracy.
Then O'reilly will wrap himself in the American flag and claim everyone who opposes him is anti-american. Notice how Fox did nothing to kick him off TV or punish him for saying such things. Apparently Fox veiwers agree about "I dont care about the constitution.".
i don't know if this was supposed to be funny or shocking, but it just made me pissed off. i knew Bill was a piece of shit before, but he is arguing AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION!!!!!!!
Its like if a kkk member blow up a black church and killed a bunch people then ran off to Mexico. If we caught that member they'd be brought back here to go under trial.
Are you that big of an idiot? If an American citizen commits a crime in America, then flees the country of course he will be brought back. These people AREN'T AMERICAN!!
If someone helps plot a crime against America from Pakistan, then gets arrested in a foreign country, why in the world should he have taxpayer's money defending him in an American court of law?
He should be tried in a military tribunal like all other terrorists. You liberals are out of your head.
To me, being in general population with Thunderdick being made to lick grape jelly out of his asshole is greater justice then finding him guilty elsewhere and just hanging him.
Why do strict conservatives care where he is found guilty?
Because in a criminal court he can argue that his miranda rights wasn't read to him and so any evidence collected can't be used. Also they can ask how they collected data and it will be televised to every one of our enemies that will turn into a recruiting tool. If he is tried as an enemy combatant or soldier on the other side then it would be tried in a military tribunal and he wouldn't have to read them miranda rights you don't stop to arrest someone on the battlefield.
The original attackers of the WTC were Americans...? I'm talking about the 1993 attacks...though I don't know what other attacks you could be thinking of at the moment.
I'm talking about Ramzi Yousef, Mahmud Abouhalima, Mohammad Salameh, Nidal Ayyad, Abdul Rahman Yasin and Ahmad Ajaj. They were not American citizens.
there's really no good reason to try him in new york. we don't have to arrest foreign nationals and bring them to our country and try them as the indignant asshole poster before me stated correctly. but i think it's a good thing to do in most cases. however, when e a defendant cannot get a fair trial the venue is moved. And I'm afraid that there is no place in this country where he could get a fair trial...so... not sure ...but am definately not looking forward to the media circus to come.
You guys are ***Complete Idiots***. Like allenrw3 among others said below, as you can plainly see Amendment 6 only refers to U.S. Citizens. You dickless leberal shits refuse to acknowledge that IF YOU ARE NOT A U.S. CITIZEN YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO THE PROTECTION OF THE CONSTITUTION. I'll say it again: Amd. 6 does not address ENEMY COMBATANTS. WAR TRIBINALS DO!!!! How's that for common sense?
they are not part of a recognized national military. therefore war tribunals do not apply to them. the 6th amendment does NOT apply only to americans. if you actually read it, it says "the accused". not "only americans". try using common sense, whatever it is that you're doing, you're doing it wrong.
They all say they "love" the Constitution, but if they actually read the whole thing instead of picking and choosing to support their own adjendas, they would find they disagree on a lot of it. Not voting on the rights of minorities and the situation above com to mind.
I don't listen to Bill, to be honest he would more than likely spit in my face, thats cool, free country, blah blah blah, but I figured he would have more respect for our countries doctrine. Is this where we are going as a nation? It makes me wish I had been born earlier so I could experience the great depression and not watch the U.S get flushed down the toilet by two bickering parties who have wasted time, money and all our faith in them.
Amen. Just wait man, it's all gonna come down in our lifetimes. The stupid fucks on the left and right who made our decline happen are lazy, petty, and unproductive. They won't survive in the chaos to follow, and it'll be glorious to watch these lame people suffer when a strong gov't isn't providing all the framework that allows them to bitch. Just make sure you're not one of them.
We should just not listen to Fox stuff? That's probably what most Republicans do - not watching any news that differs with their "views."
Reasonable people try to keep tabs on what people in "the loyal opposition" are saying and thinking. Fox IS disgusting and obscene, but it tells us all what people on the far right are thinking - and telling THEM what they want to hear. We on the left need to know what's going on, especially on the far right. Fox has that information. It's nauseating, tho.
The GOP has really "lost it." I can remember a time when I could talk rationally with (R)s. Today, their official mantra should be: "Don't confuse us with facts." Isn't that how they behave?
The only reason they can hold on is because so many of their "base" don't want facts, either. Hearing facts just get them riled. They just want their way, and are now becoming militant about it. If we didn't see their true colors in the Bush years, it's impossible to miss it now.
Clearly these terrorists should be tried in some kind of military court, since both sides have declared over and over again how they're at war with each other. Just because one side is fighting asynchronously and targeting civilians doesn't make it a matter for civilian courts.
Did you not watch the video.....No declaration of war was ever made by Congress.
You may not like what the Constitution says, in which case you can lobby your elected representatives to change it. But until then we must abide by the law. And the law says to try federal offenses in the district where the crimes were committed.
Im tired of this anti fox news. I don't like fox either. So stop watching and bitching about the channel!! This is getting so old. Cant people post something better and maybe better for America?
I think nagging at the government always is. ppl are dieing out there and all you can do is bitch about fox news?!?! I know they suck but come on? Wake up america!!
I am amazed that anyone actually thinks that the repubicans are on their side.
They don't care about you and they never will. The only reason that the heartland likes them is because the republicans were taken over by the right wing christian extremists.
And do you think Obama gives a shit about you? Do you think Pelosi gives a shit about you? No, the leftwing is trying to destroy the Constitution, they're main goal is to destroy the First Amendment.
Yes I do think that Obama and Pelosi both care for the American people. You have no evidence to back up this ridiculous statement and whats more Bush someone you doubtless voted for was more interested in destroying freedom. In his own words Bush said that the constitution was a piece of paper.
I can't believe that this former judge sits there and lets O'Reilly call him a pin head because he's getting an answer that he doesn't want to hear. The judge was right, O'Reilly is wrong. The End.
Dems and Repubs only quote the Constitution when it's convenient or serve their agendas. It's a document that was shit on and burnt up long ago. It's nothing more than an occasional speed bump in the legislative process. We live under Oligarchy.
O'Reilly is a typical Conservative Republican that does not care about the Constitution. This is not surprising and he is not an anomaly. O'Reilly is a typical Conservative in his belief that we can disregard are laws when it becomes convenient!
This is just another example of how Conservatism is a scurge in our nation and we need to continue to reject it with our vote. We began rejecting Conservatism in 2006, continued in 2008, and we must totally erradicate it from our society in 2012!!!
Reject Conservatism or the Republicans? I hope you are just confusing the two. There are even two spheres of Conservatism: Economic and Social. I am certainly for economic conservatism. I don't know how many more trillions of dollars in debt we have to get before people start thinking it is a good idea to be economically conservative. In fact, I would argue that the Republicans have been anything but economically conservation (i.e. billions spent in Iraq and Bush's first bailout).
totally agree man. but as long as republicans keep doing what ever the hell the want with our money the dems have to spend even more to clean up there mistakes.
Westonely: I pretty much agree with you here, though I might add that those two spheres are not completely separate and distinct. There is definitely SOME overlap...
I've just sent an email to Bilo asking him... When is he going to have "I DON'T CARE ABOUT? THE CONSTITUTION!" - T-SHIRTS and MUGS?....It would be a great new O'Reilly Factor Gear.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Why should he ? The so called president and most of the elected politicians don't. Most of the time the TYT host doesn't care about the constitution either.The constitution seems to be used by people today only when its convenient.
No doubt Bill OH'really is a stooge who only thinks of his ratings.The same with the Young Turd.People like the Turd and OH'really love the spotlight.The we only difference is the Turds not making money yet.
In O'Reilly's defense he's trying to provoke a vocal response from the judge, because let's face it, the constitution, an inanimate piece of paper, can't physically talk.
brit huhm said what he said because obama and holder said it would be more advantageous to try them this way. Huhm is simply stating he doesnt see the advantage.
The advantage is that it's legal. If Hume doesn't see this,then he's an idiot. He's not really though. He's just an extreme partisan, who will bitch about WHATEVER the Democrats and Obama do.
6th Amendment - In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Ok. I really think this guy might be retarded. !st of all, this is a HUGE mistake, opening up a whole can of worms for some jackass ACLU attorney. YOU ARE ALL WRONG. The CONSTITUTION claims an accused person has the right to a trial by jury of his peers in the jurisdiction of where the crime was committed.
Right? OK. So, if this TERRORIST actually committed the crime, then yes, he would (it would still be a mistake) be tried in NY. BUT THIS GUY DIDN"T ACTUALLY COMMIT THE CRIME! He PLANED IT!
"jurisdiction of where the crime was committed..."
i.e. New York.
Last I was aware, any assistance in planning a crime is being an "accomplice" and also makes you a criminal. So, on that note, if the guy helped plan the 9/11 attacks, he is still an accomplice. Simple as that.
Peace.Love.
p.s. Lose the caps, any literate viewer is capable of finding the emphasis without you making yourself look like an idiot.
Hellping to plan a crime makes you an acomplice to a crime that was commited in the district of new york.The guy on your side in this argument actually just said I dont care about the constitution.We are a country of laws not political agendas and by denying KSM a trial and calling fort hood a terrorist attack u sir are the one helping the terrorist not media matters or the new york times.This should show clearly that fox and the right wing leaders DO NOT CARE ABOUT THIS COUNTRy the want power .
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."
Amazing how some of those wing-nuts actually have tried to abolish the constitution. the pitchfork wielding mob is growing impatient with due process and rights - they just want blood.
THAT PART OF THE CONSTITUTION REFERS TO ***U.S. CIVILIANS*** YOU FUCKING COCKSUCKING MORONS. THE GOV'T CAN PROSECUTE COMBATANTS WHEREVER THE FUCK THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH WANTS TO!!!
Look at 1:54. Libs always do this get all high and mighty and talk about common-sense. Where this fuck is this guy's common sense? He doen't know what the fuck he's talking about, and TYT's 'common sense' is NOT a CONCLUSIVE ARGUEMENT.
Unlikely hero? Andrew Napolitano has always been a libertarian and a strict constitutionalist that has always spoken out against big government and violations of constitutional rights.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
1. The US Constitution is not applicable to non-US citizens who are not residents;
2. Terrorism is not a "crime" in strict legal terms but an act of war. We cannot fight a war by applying criminal law;
3. The Geneva Convention does not apply to terrorists but only to fighters wearing a nation's uniform --- Islamic terrorists don't wear uniforms unless it's the turban and beard but then I'm told that is profiling and, therefor, illegal;
4. Does this Young Turk think he is a real news commentator?
@xXzumiesXx2 Actually it does apply to them too. They are the rules of this country. If you commit a crime on american soil you will be put to justice, regardless of where you live. Their the guidlines to the treatment of all people in the cusdity of the state. All men are created equal, not just americans.
there's not a place in the 6th amendment that specifically states "only americans". it says "the accused shall...". the 6th amendment can be used against any and all people from any country, who commit a crime in the US.
Im not talking about the 6th amendment I am talking about the constitution as a whole. No where in it does it say that non- americans have the same constitutional rights as we do. Also what these people did was not a crime, what the did was an act of war. I think that was the point Bill was trying to make but I am not sure.
No, the rights of both citizens and non-citizens are protected by the US Constitution. However, there are some right specifically reserved for citizens, such as the right to a Federal job and to vote. In actuality, the Constitution doesn't apply to "citizens," nor does it even apply to "people." It applies to the government. It tells the government what it can and can't do (the body tells the government what it can do, and the Bill of Rights tells it what it can't do).
Personal opinions aside, it was NOT an act of war, seeing as war was never declared by either the US or any other country at the time. The "terrorists" were not, nor ever were, part of a recognized national military. Which means it was nothing more than mass murder. Once again, use logic and common sense.
BillO is a traitor, plain and simple. He and other right-wingers do not care about the country and should leave.
Here's a thought: if he is so eager to profile people then shouldn't right-wing mouthpieces who say they don't care about the Constitution be profiled as possible enemies ?
Wow. Usually the government media is more discrete on trampling the constitution. We can see in these examples of why these mouthpieces want a rule of man over the rule of law. It steals power for them from the people.
The Constitution only applies when you have politicians who are not criminals. Our Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. This means that public servants who ignore it are by definition, criminals.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
A declaration of war is not required for there to be a war, for example; The Japanese pilots at Pear Harbour would not have been tried by a civilian court.
Further, Napolitano's logic is circular, yes once the federal government is going to try someone then you have to try them where the crime was committed.
But that is IF the FEDERAL govt tries him, NOT if a military commission handles the issue either as a legal or illegal enemy COMBATANT.
@mctarmac10 Yes a declaration of war IS required for it to be a LAWFUL war...
Ex Parte Quirin, go read up on it you uneducated prick. Then when you are done with that go read the '49 Geneva Conventions which the USofA signed and put into law under U.S Municipal law, article 6 of the Constitution.
Modern IHL is not concerned with the legality of the resort to force. Rather, its fundamental rules are designed to regulate and restrain the conduct of hostilities.
As noted the U.S. is justified in treating bin Laden and the members of his organization as a paramilitary force which engages in the illegal use of force. Whether the terrorists are regarded as paramilitary or civilians who have assumed a combatant role, they are, in the context of interstate hostilities, unprivileged combatants,
Furthermore your rather limited purview deems any preventative or preemptive self defence action illegal, which they are not (aka Japan, aka Israel.) As per Article 51.
Thankfully YOU saying its legal does not MAKE it legal. The very fact you want to skirt the law proves the very actions that led to their being captured was due to an unjust illegal war and you are afraid they will be freed if evidence has to be brought forward.
The law is the law, deal with it or get the fuck out.
There is one problem with your arguement - Al Queda is not a sovereign nation. The guy they're trying is part of an extra-national organization. It would be like the United States Government declaring war on the Walt Disney company, doesn't work that way.
The man they captured is a civilian, and terrorism is a crime committed by civilians, thus this guy should be tried in a civilian court, just like the good judge says.
Please Have Judge Nap. on TYT.
Salvysahagun 4 months ago
The Judge sides with the Constitution in all cases. Cenk only does when it is convenient. That being said Bill O'Reilly is an idiot.
BenjaminWirtz 6 months ago
"I don't care about the Constitution" Bill O'Reilly. Unfortunately, not many other Americans do either.
keepaopenmind 7 months ago
You ought to take a little time, not real long, and actually read the Constitution. Then think about it. Is that how you'd design a union of nations, or states, to provide for the common defense and insure domestic tranquility? You might even decide Judge Napolitano deserves a higher score than one, much higher. He must be Fox's sop to the libertarians. He's not like the others on fox.
keepaopenmind 7 months ago
Bill Orielly, "I don't care about the constitution."
JImmy4336 9 months ago
I'm surprised Fox hasn't fired Judge Napolitano yet. He actually speaks the truth, which I didn't know Fox tolerated
ruthgan 9 months ago 11
@ruthgan Judge Napolitano says that any person has the right to be tried in court, which is true, but it DOES NOT APPLY to a terrorist or a group of terrorists to even let them be tried.
eminemkd1 1 month ago
@corpen11 Neocons, you mean. Real conservatives would care.
David12King 10 months ago
@David12King good distinction
dan11009 8 months ago
@corpen11 I think you mean liberals
ipodmaster2688 10 months ago
this turk is not young but completely doomed
zashibys009 11 months ago
I wouldn't be surprised if O' Reilly is a fucked up pedophile who is into snorting cocaine and fucking 5$ hookers every night of his life. I wonder if he has kids cuz they must really fucking hate him. Bill O' Reilly's eyes go up in flames when he is proven wrong countless times on his show. The only time O' Reilly smiles is when babys are dying and mothers are crying. Lets sign a petition to hang O' Reilly, cuz this world is fucked up enough without someone spreading more lies.
arthurk9 1 year ago
@arthurk9 A wise man once said "you're at a 10 when you should be at a 2.
griffinshaffer83 1 year ago
I absolutely hate O' Reilly im surprised someone hasnt slit his fucking throat yet, He lies lies and lies on his show because Fox pays him 8 million dollars a year to speak these lies. You think O' Reilly doesnt know the Gov't is corrupt he is one of the mother fuckers corrupting it. His show is soo biased its bullshit. Offcourse he doesnt care about the constitution cuz the constitution in todays gov't is a fuckin joke!!! They are literally wiping thier asses with the constitution.
arthurk9 1 year ago
@corpen11 Oh and the the government would not try to protect people from themselves as it is none of their business what an individual does as long as others are not harmed physically or their property is not harmed.
jddrafts 1 year ago
@corpen11 Speaking for me, as I do consider myself to be conservative but not a Neo Con, I think government should be small and limited, it should not legislate morality beyond that which infringes on others rights, and beyond those truly incapable of helping themselves or those who need temporary help does not give it with tax revenue . I believe we should have an open border policy after a simple background check and medical check for serious contagious illnesses. As I said that is just me.
jddrafts 1 year ago
@corpen11 Only the neocons and they aren't really conservatives anyway.
jddrafts 1 year ago
@corpen11
I have to correct you. That is what the Neo-Conservatives think.
rmccay88 1 year ago
What perplexes, confounds and, well, F'N blows my mind away is that these (you) talking heads on BOTH SIDES keep you all running around in circles so that you will never get anywhere in life but to the Dr's for the ulcers and dysentery formed by the allowance of your mind to be sucked up into this two party "he said" "she said" nonsense that has not a single drop of relevance in our lives.
.
.
Turn these Pin-Heads off, turn your TV's off and reclaim America... Before you ask them to remove it.
473009723 1 year ago
@473009723 when did you start promoting democracy north korean style? ban tv and radio talk shows and decide your future on the basis of what info? knobhead.
kingda117 1 year ago
Wow, I actually agreed with TYT on this. Good job and keep it up. Too bad I think your full of crap on almost all the other videos.
insaneduane 1 year ago 2
i fucking hate how necessary government..is because i know it is eternally fucked up.
Heftymunchkin 1 year ago
Workers of the world, unite!
misterbadguy99 2 years ago
Herr O'Reilly dismissed another rule of law and due process.They were arrested in Pakistan, Not tried and convicted. Until then they are alleged terrorists. Absurdly, the DOJ was criticised for bringing them to new York saying," What if they are acquitted and released in the streets? They are admitting the posibility that the government arrested and imprisioned them without sufficient evidence to convict, This way of thinking is scary in its implications for America
montanagf 2 years ago
What I don't understand is why they don't just try them in a military tribunal if they are enemy combatants?
poolerboy0077 2 years ago
As i understand it, they are not legally enemy combatants, since as alleged terrorists they are not members of the military of a NATION at war with us. We ae not at war vs the Iraqi or Afghanistan's government. if so,our premptive strike would be to make undeclared war vs a sovereign nation and illegal under international law. The war vs terrorism is a whole new ball game, making legal issues complicated.......which is the position terrorists want to get nations into.
montanagf 2 years ago
i agree with TYT.
aussieguy2109 2 years ago
it was very low already
herbsnspices772 2 years ago
and my respect for O'reilly just cut in half
herbsnspices772 2 years ago
Bill O'Reilly is right 85% of the time...
Masterofxtreme93 2 years ago
Bill O'Reilly is a fucktard.
sabertooth1980 2 years ago
I expect a arrogant liberal to say that.
Masterofxtreme93 2 years ago
And I expected a wingnut dumbass Sheeple to respond with nothing intelligent to say.
Calling me arrogant, or liberal doesn't detract from the fact that Bill O'Reilly is a fanatical Fucktard.
If you are going to engage me in conversation like this, you're going to have to try harder.
sabertooth1980 2 years ago
Me? Engage in a political conversation? Good luck, I don't sit at the computer hours on end arguing about how "this guy sucks" or "this guy is right" or "no you're wrong".
This is the last comment I'm leaving here - Bill O'Reilly is not a fucktard, and you are an immature bitch to say otherwise. Maybe if you actually listen to his stance on any given subject, you'd see he is not as crazy as you think he is.
I'm not a wingnut dipshit. I'm independant, with conservative views. Silly libs.
Masterofxtreme93 2 years ago
I have. He thinks that Intelligent Design is science.
He's a fucktard.
Course that is just the thing that sticks out in my mind about him at the moment.
And once again you are attacking me and not my idea on why Bill is a FuckTard.
sabertooth1980 2 years ago
"I don't care about the Constitution."
You may not be a wingnut, but you are agreeing with and defending a nitwit who is more concerned about being a rich guy on tv than giving a crap about the laws of this nation.
fel121 2 years ago
O'Reilly is the funniest!
kingreg69 2 years ago
Wow, O'Reilly proves he's clueless yet again.
1080Peter 2 years ago 4
o reilly is the pinhead
kazooga1234 2 years ago 22
Comment removed
kazooga1234 2 years ago
You people are so stupid. He just said "I don't care about the Constitution," because he was trying to get the other guy's opinion on the situation and the other guy was trying to dodge the question.
superchampion88 2 years ago
So your saying the guy was dodging the question by offering the facts of the constitution, instead of his own opinion, I thought Bill'O was the no spin guy, saying "I don't care about the Constitution" sounds like a hurricane to me.
TheDalinkwent 2 years ago
I am pretty sure terrorism is not mentioned in the Constitution. Bill was asking that guy where he thought terrorism fit into the discussion, but that guy for some reason refused to give his own interpretation.
superchampion88 2 years ago
Bill asked him why should these guys be tried in a civilan court in New York? and he gave his answer, which clearly stated what the Contitution said, just because these guys are terrorist doesn't change what the law is or what we stand for. Besides this not an issue of opinion but facts.
TheDalinkwent 2 years ago
Just one more proof that the hard right conservatives dont really give a got dam about the rule of law or the constitution. These people want a totalitarian theocracy.
Then O'reilly will wrap himself in the American flag and claim everyone who opposes him is anti-american. Notice how Fox did nothing to kick him off TV or punish him for saying such things. Apparently Fox veiwers agree about "I dont care about the constitution.".
reverendjeremiah 2 years ago 4
Love this clip. Conservative hypocrisy along with classic lines from Cenk.
HasanSIM14 2 years ago
hahahaha i dont care about the CONSTITUTION
HerroHerrar 2 years ago 2
i don't know if this was supposed to be funny or shocking, but it just made me pissed off. i knew Bill was a piece of shit before, but he is arguing AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION!!!!!!!
konothecook 2 years ago
Seriously? Andrew Napolitano identifies himself as a libertarian. Why is this so suprising?
underdogBA 2 years ago
Its like if a kkk member blow up a black church and killed a bunch people then ran off to Mexico. If we caught that member they'd be brought back here to go under trial.
jumpchamp08 2 years ago
jumpchamp08:
Are you that big of an idiot? If an American citizen commits a crime in America, then flees the country of course he will be brought back. These people AREN'T AMERICAN!!
If someone helps plot a crime against America from Pakistan, then gets arrested in a foreign country, why in the world should he have taxpayer's money defending him in an American court of law?
He should be tried in a military tribunal like all other terrorists. You liberals are out of your head.
FearEqualsRespect 2 years ago
K lol. I wasnt addressing you. I was addressing Billo's argument. But you can be made all you want i'm no trippin' have a nice day.
jumpchamp08 2 years ago
To me, being in general population with Thunderdick being made to lick grape jelly out of his asshole is greater justice then finding him guilty elsewhere and just hanging him.
Why do strict conservatives care where he is found guilty?
DoctorCataclysm 2 years ago
Because in a criminal court he can argue that his miranda rights wasn't read to him and so any evidence collected can't be used. Also they can ask how they collected data and it will be televised to every one of our enemies that will turn into a recruiting tool. If he is tried as an enemy combatant or soldier on the other side then it would be tried in a military tribunal and he wouldn't have to read them miranda rights you don't stop to arrest someone on the battlefield.
slackerinbama 2 years ago
Actually he is not a citizen of this country so miranda rights have a gray area where that is concerned.
As a soldier who conducted search and destroy missions through out Iraq I can tell you that we do stop to arrest people on the battlefield.
I can also tell you that they don't need this trial as a recruiting tool. They have enough material as it is.
DoctorCataclysm 2 years ago
We tried the original WTC bombers in a civilian court. No one complained about that.
We should try these ones too. They attacked the US, US should try them.
ReaperSin 2 years ago
They were americans protected under the Constitution. They were not enemy combatants captured on the battlefield in war.
ITCHYisSylar 2 years ago
The original attackers of the WTC were Americans...? I'm talking about the 1993 attacks...though I don't know what other attacks you could be thinking of at the moment.
I'm talking about Ramzi Yousef, Mahmud Abouhalima, Mohammad Salameh, Nidal Ayyad, Abdul Rahman Yasin and Ahmad Ajaj. They were not American citizens.
ReaperSin 2 years ago
I don't care about the constitution sums it all up.
muzapstar 2 years ago 3
Billo "I don't care about the constitution". Well I guess thats says everything.
falconfira 2 years ago
there's really no good reason to try him in new york. we don't have to arrest foreign nationals and bring them to our country and try them as the indignant asshole poster before me stated correctly. but i think it's a good thing to do in most cases. however, when e a defendant cannot get a fair trial the venue is moved. And I'm afraid that there is no place in this country where he could get a fair trial...so... not sure ...but am definately not looking forward to the media circus to come.
leetcr 2 years ago
no god
CondorDM 2 years ago
You guys are ***Complete Idiots***. Like allenrw3 among others said below, as you can plainly see Amendment 6 only refers to U.S. Citizens. You dickless leberal shits refuse to acknowledge that IF YOU ARE NOT A U.S. CITIZEN YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO THE PROTECTION OF THE CONSTITUTION. I'll say it again: Amd. 6 does not address ENEMY COMBATANTS. WAR TRIBINALS DO!!!! How's that for common sense?
s117godd 2 years ago
they are not part of a recognized national military. therefore war tribunals do not apply to them. the 6th amendment does NOT apply only to americans. if you actually read it, it says "the accused". not "only americans". try using common sense, whatever it is that you're doing, you're doing it wrong.
allenrw3 2 years ago
They all say they "love" the Constitution, but if they actually read the whole thing instead of picking and choosing to support their own adjendas, they would find they disagree on a lot of it. Not voting on the rights of minorities and the situation above com to mind.
stophthecomputerwiz 2 years ago
I don't listen to Bill, to be honest he would more than likely spit in my face, thats cool, free country, blah blah blah, but I figured he would have more respect for our countries doctrine. Is this where we are going as a nation? It makes me wish I had been born earlier so I could experience the great depression and not watch the U.S get flushed down the toilet by two bickering parties who have wasted time, money and all our faith in them.
mj13again 2 years ago 3
second!!! Dems and Repubs do not have the country in mind!!!
JED4prez 2 years ago
Amen. Just wait man, it's all gonna come down in our lifetimes. The stupid fucks on the left and right who made our decline happen are lazy, petty, and unproductive. They won't survive in the chaos to follow, and it'll be glorious to watch these lame people suffer when a strong gov't isn't providing all the framework that allows them to bitch. Just make sure you're not one of them.
s117godd 2 years ago
They act like Fox news is bias but they are just as bias, just on the other side.
imaginationland45 2 years ago
We should just not listen to Fox stuff? That's probably what most Republicans do - not watching any news that differs with their "views."
Reasonable people try to keep tabs on what people in "the loyal opposition" are saying and thinking. Fox IS disgusting and obscene, but it tells us all what people on the far right are thinking - and telling THEM what they want to hear. We on the left need to know what's going on, especially on the far right. Fox has that information. It's nauseating, tho.
fastermx 2 years ago 4
Free Marc Emery
johnnymac44 2 years ago
The GOP has really "lost it." I can remember a time when I could talk rationally with (R)s. Today, their official mantra should be: "Don't confuse us with facts." Isn't that how they behave?
The only reason they can hold on is because so many of their "base" don't want facts, either. Hearing facts just get them riled. They just want their way, and are now becoming militant about it. If we didn't see their true colors in the Bush years, it's impossible to miss it now.
fastermx 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Check out my video for a free MacBook, PS3, XBOX 360, Nintendo Wii, Variety of iPods, and much more!
HackLockerz2OO9 2 years ago
Judge rocks
He gets a lot of things right
Google Freedom Watch - it's Napolitano's internet show
skullface216 2 years ago
Andrew Napolitano's the only positive thing about FOX.
abola2121 2 years ago 3
....maybe Shepard Smith too (sometimes)
microflex22 2 years ago
Clearly these terrorists should be tried in some kind of military court, since both sides have declared over and over again how they're at war with each other. Just because one side is fighting asynchronously and targeting civilians doesn't make it a matter for civilian courts.
tuntitommosille 2 years ago
Did you not watch the video.....No declaration of war was ever made by Congress.
You may not like what the Constitution says, in which case you can lobby your elected representatives to change it. But until then we must abide by the law. And the law says to try federal offenses in the district where the crimes were committed.
microflex22 2 years ago
Im tired of this anti fox news. I don't like fox either. So stop watching and bitching about the channel!! This is getting so old. Cant people post something better and maybe better for America?
blank404 2 years ago
I thin maybe slamming Fox News is better for America.
microflex22 2 years ago
I think nagging at the government always is. ppl are dieing out there and all you can do is bitch about fox news?!?! I know they suck but come on? Wake up america!!
blank404 2 years ago
Some would argue that Fox's obstructionist view on health care is stalling our chance at reform, as a result, to use your words "people are dying".
But in the end you're right, Fox is just a drop in the bucket.
microflex22 2 years ago
I am amazed that anyone actually thinks that the repubicans are on their side.
They don't care about you and they never will. The only reason that the heartland likes them is because the republicans were taken over by the right wing christian extremists.
aldernagon3 2 years ago
And do you think Obama gives a shit about you? Do you think Pelosi gives a shit about you? No, the leftwing is trying to destroy the Constitution, they're main goal is to destroy the First Amendment.
Billythepeon 2 years ago
Yes I do think that Obama and Pelosi both care for the American people. You have no evidence to back up this ridiculous statement and whats more Bush someone you doubtless voted for was more interested in destroying freedom. In his own words Bush said that the constitution was a piece of paper.
glddraco 2 years ago
@Billythepeon Yes I'm sure a theoretical half of the nation is trying to destroy the country like some arbitrary super villain.
MachShot1337 2 years ago
I dont care about the constitution! Dont be a pinhead
iCore3 2 years ago 3
Judge Napolitano has been very consistent on constitutional issues, as he was throughout the Bush administration.
AdderallApocalypse 2 years ago 2
all the republicans care about is lining there friends pockets and advantsing there hate filled political agenda.
emreldsun 2 years ago
use a TELEPROMPTER!!! JESUS! !!!! !! !
sirpigg 2 years ago
why there is no chat on you tube.. Btw anyone up for some cam chat^^
AmmberSexyy 2 years ago
I can't believe that this former judge sits there and lets O'Reilly call him a pin head because he's getting an answer that he doesn't want to hear. The judge was right, O'Reilly is wrong. The End.
gassy4sure 2 years ago
The funny thing is, I know that the second it suited his argument, ol' Bill would be shouting people down for ignoring the constitution.
But that's just the nature of the hysterical hypocrisy that has made his career. A win for doublethink!
ProphetTenebrae 2 years ago
Dems and Repubs only quote the Constitution when it's convenient or serve their agendas. It's a document that was shit on and burnt up long ago. It's nothing more than an occasional speed bump in the legislative process. We live under Oligarchy.
Nickelodeon2002 2 years ago
O'Reilly is a typical Conservative Republican that does not care about the Constitution. This is not surprising and he is not an anomaly. O'Reilly is a typical Conservative in his belief that we can disregard are laws when it becomes convenient!
This is just another example of how Conservatism is a scurge in our nation and we need to continue to reject it with our vote. We began rejecting Conservatism in 2006, continued in 2008, and we must totally erradicate it from our society in 2012!!!
halette20001 2 years ago
Reject Conservatism or the Republicans? I hope you are just confusing the two. There are even two spheres of Conservatism: Economic and Social. I am certainly for economic conservatism. I don't know how many more trillions of dollars in debt we have to get before people start thinking it is a good idea to be economically conservative. In fact, I would argue that the Republicans have been anything but economically conservation (i.e. billions spent in Iraq and Bush's first bailout).
westonely 2 years ago
totally agree man. but as long as republicans keep doing what ever the hell the want with our money the dems have to spend even more to clean up there mistakes.
emreldsun 2 years ago
Westonely: I pretty much agree with you here, though I might add that those two spheres are not completely separate and distinct. There is definitely SOME overlap...
pissandwich 2 years ago
I loe Bill-O calling people "pinhead" while he's making the most idiotic, uninformed statements.
MaryJesusJoseph 2 years ago
They should rent him out in Clown Make Up to entertain.
2DRonaldo 2 years ago
"I don't care about the constitution"
Did you get that ?
Who's really un-american ?
Deepstarr7020 2 years ago 3
Yeah, I actually went back and played it a few times. I thought I misheard him. Wow o_O
senoritabonita1421 2 years ago
he doesnt care, only ignorance reign. They dont deal with facts they deal with hate and blind leading the blind.
djslyfox 2 years ago
I find it that most people who say "that's un-american" are usually un-american themselves.
dragonofthedarknight 2 years ago 3
Oh Yeah
Deepstarr7020 2 years ago
Seriously. He's a child. He has no respect.
purplefuzzythings 2 years ago
Still hiding behind the fake screen shots I see, what a pussy !
hobo59 2 years ago
"I don't care what the Constitution says."
"I do."
MisterMisanthrope 2 years ago 3
Really not much more to it than that, says it all.
billthebutcher2 2 years ago
Explains Bill-O to a T. Just stunning!
mkhomero 2 years ago
"I don't care about the constitution"
LMFAO...
Yet Bill will state how the constitution is sooo important when it suits him. What an pin head LOL
Fox news is a joke. Nothing but a joke.
pooyan6969 2 years ago 2
I've just sent an email to Bilo asking him... When is he going to have "I DON'T CARE ABOUT? THE CONSTITUTION!" - T-SHIRTS and MUGS?....It would be a great new O'Reilly Factor Gear.
atomicTOONS 2 years ago
we watch 'tyt' for the relevant news clips, not the lame 'show' backdrop or 'commentary'.
dannikills 2 years ago
"I don't care about the Constitution." - Bill O'Reilly.
I'm gonna remember that one.
dylantuzyk 2 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Why should he ? The so called president and most of the elected politicians don't. Most of the time the TYT host doesn't care about the constitution either.The constitution seems to be used by people today only when its convenient.
xxdonaldqxx 2 years ago
Like Bill O'Riely LOL
pooyan6969 2 years ago
No doubt Bill OH'really is a stooge who only thinks of his ratings.The same with the Young Turd.People like the Turd and OH'really love the spotlight.The we only difference is the Turds not making money yet.
xxdonaldqxx 2 years ago
he only cares about it when it suits his world view. if it doesn't, who cares.
themeep 2 years ago 4
In O'Reilly's defense he's trying to provoke a vocal response from the judge, because let's face it, the constitution, an inanimate piece of paper, can't physically talk.
muribry 2 years ago
btw I like napolitano because he endorsed Ron Paul. He actually has a brain.
pipersmitty87 2 years ago
no, not if he endorsed Ron Paul.
glddraco 2 years ago
funny you say that - the only politician who speaks logically confuses people used to listening to jibberish. like you. just another sheep.
pipersmitty87 2 years ago
brit huhm said what he said because obama and holder said it would be more advantageous to try them this way. Huhm is simply stating he doesnt see the advantage.
pipersmitty87 2 years ago
The advantage is that it's legal. If Hume doesn't see this,then he's an idiot. He's not really though. He's just an extreme partisan, who will bitch about WHATEVER the Democrats and Obama do.
Fox News is NOT news.
johnedwards1968 2 years ago 2
It's so obvious the buck stops here!
And if Bush/Cheney acts or lies, Saudi connections, or whatever gets aired!
So be it!
We own it!
Only the truth will keep us free!
TerryEFV2 2 years ago
Any time any Pug uses the constitution against liberal ideas, we need to tell that Pug "don't be a pinhead".
I do anyways, but now we have O'Reilly as a guide.
aaronsande 2 years ago
whos the pin head......
Irm6001 2 years ago
6th Amendment - In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
allenrw3 2 years ago
It's because THEY use the consitution, they DON't ACTAULLY BELIEVE IN IT AND HAVE ALTERIOR MOTIVES.
They're trying to get "Liberals" to admit the ALTERIOR MOTIVE. But there ISN"T one.
kuribo99 2 years ago
maybe they should defer to the JUDGE on this one, not the comment on stuff guy.
MissNophi2U 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
TYT SUCK
gjtek2003 2 years ago
Ok. I really think this guy might be retarded. !st of all, this is a HUGE mistake, opening up a whole can of worms for some jackass ACLU attorney. YOU ARE ALL WRONG. The CONSTITUTION claims an accused person has the right to a trial by jury of his peers in the jurisdiction of where the crime was committed.
Right? OK. So, if this TERRORIST actually committed the crime, then yes, he would (it would still be a mistake) be tried in NY. BUT THIS GUY DIDN"T ACTUALLY COMMIT THE CRIME! He PLANED IT!
rarmac 2 years ago
"jurisdiction of where the crime was committed..."
i.e. New York.
Last I was aware, any assistance in planning a crime is being an "accomplice" and also makes you a criminal. So, on that note, if the guy helped plan the 9/11 attacks, he is still an accomplice. Simple as that.
Peace.Love.
p.s. Lose the caps, any literate viewer is capable of finding the emphasis without you making yourself look like an idiot.
peacefulbug 2 years ago
Hellping to plan a crime makes you an acomplice to a crime that was commited in the district of new york.The guy on your side in this argument actually just said I dont care about the constitution.We are a country of laws not political agendas and by denying KSM a trial and calling fort hood a terrorist attack u sir are the one helping the terrorist not media matters or the new york times.This should show clearly that fox and the right wing leaders DO NOT CARE ABOUT THIS COUNTRy the want power .
chrisgalizia 2 years ago
O'reilly :
"I DON'T CARE ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION,(...) DON'T BE A PINHEAD"
What a jerk. These guys have no shame.
lol
hashimirasama 2 years ago 2
Bill O'Reilly is such a dick. He reminds me so much of my old foster mom it's unreal.
Erric7777 2 years ago 2
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."
MooseOfReason 2 years ago
The truth comes out:
Bill: I don't care about the Constitution.
gmethry18 2 years ago 4
Amazing how some of those wing-nuts actually have tried to abolish the constitution. the pitchfork wielding mob is growing impatient with due process and rights - they just want blood.
hollywoodartchick 2 years ago
No I talk about the people who think that you don't need a high IQ to be a politician (republicans)
Anidem9 2 years ago 2
Yeah O'reilly's a douche.
on the other hand -
THAT PART OF THE CONSTITUTION REFERS TO ***U.S. CIVILIANS*** YOU FUCKING COCKSUCKING MORONS. THE GOV'T CAN PROSECUTE COMBATANTS WHEREVER THE FUCK THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH WANTS TO!!!
Look at 1:54. Libs always do this get all high and mighty and talk about common-sense. Where this fuck is this guy's common sense? He doen't know what the fuck he's talking about, and TYT's 'common sense' is NOT a CONCLUSIVE ARGUEMENT.
O wait, you only have 15,000 views.
s117godd 2 years ago
u'r an idiot and have no common sense :) where would u like them to be tried anyways??? take em to australia or something? jeez...what a are-tard
Magdra 2 years ago
scarah failin is a joke.
MrTabby5000 2 years ago
"I don't care about the constitution"
-Bill Oreilly
that about sums it up
OnWisconsin42 2 years ago 2
The only reason they are worried about a trial is... the good guys did some bad shit...
stuartjamesgemmell 2 years ago 2
I don't understand Fox and the Republicans.
If any foreign terrorist had committed such a crime in Britain it wouldn't matter what country he was caught in.
We would be screaming as one,
"Get the fker here now and get his ass on trial."
Why are they so terrified of a man in chains.
Holy crap the republicans are cowardly.
MarcusCardiff 2 years ago 3
00:41
"I DON'T CARE ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION!"
That NEEDS to become a T-SHIRT with his big ugly mug on it under the quote.
KosmicCitizen 2 years ago 10
Agreed. O'Reilly is a complete ass for saying that.
liljohnnotbigjohn 2 years ago 4
I would buy it.
DeathAdderZL 2 years ago
agreed
Obelisk2290 2 years ago
Unlikely hero? Andrew Napolitano has always been a libertarian and a strict constitutionalist that has always spoken out against big government and violations of constitutional rights.
sniper6081 2 years ago
Fox News is propaganda for the real terrorist of the world, the neo-cons.
darealdjnutz 2 years ago 5
"most fair man in america" - cenk
funny joke cenk...funny joke.
Buergs323 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
1. The US Constitution is not applicable to non-US citizens who are not residents;
2. Terrorism is not a "crime" in strict legal terms but an act of war. We cannot fight a war by applying criminal law;
3. The Geneva Convention does not apply to terrorists but only to fighters wearing a nation's uniform --- Islamic terrorists don't wear uniforms unless it's the turban and beard but then I'm told that is profiling and, therefor, illegal;
4. Does this Young Turk think he is a real news commentator?
soverysneaky 2 years ago
"4. Does this Young Turk think he is a real news commentator? "
soverysneaky, do we think you're a real human?
JonahDavids 2 years ago 3
You're as delusional as the Bush administration.
MarcusCardiff 2 years ago
Fox is not a news show.I don't know anybody who takes ut seriously. Like Fred Flinstone's point of view
BeachBoysGuy1 2 years ago
these people are stupid the American costitutional rights only applies to american citizens not forgieiners who dont live here legally
xXzumiesXx2 2 years ago
@xXzumiesXx2 Actually it does apply to them too. They are the rules of this country. If you commit a crime on american soil you will be put to justice, regardless of where you live. Their the guidlines to the treatment of all people in the cusdity of the state. All men are created equal, not just americans.
BoneCrusherG1D 2 years ago 2
there's not a place in the 6th amendment that specifically states "only americans". it says "the accused shall...". the 6th amendment can be used against any and all people from any country, who commit a crime in the US.
allenrw3 2 years ago
Im not talking about the 6th amendment I am talking about the constitution as a whole. No where in it does it say that non- americans have the same constitutional rights as we do. Also what these people did was not a crime, what the did was an act of war. I think that was the point Bill was trying to make but I am not sure.
xXzumiesXx2 2 years ago
No, the rights of both citizens and non-citizens are protected by the US Constitution. However, there are some right specifically reserved for citizens, such as the right to a Federal job and to vote. In actuality, the Constitution doesn't apply to "citizens," nor does it even apply to "people." It applies to the government. It tells the government what it can and can't do (the body tells the government what it can do, and the Bill of Rights tells it what it can't do).
allenrw3 2 years ago
Im curious are you left or right.
xXzumiesXx2 2 years ago
Personal opinions aside, it was NOT an act of war, seeing as war was never declared by either the US or any other country at the time. The "terrorists" were not, nor ever were, part of a recognized national military. Which means it was nothing more than mass murder. Once again, use logic and common sense.
allenrw3 2 years ago
BillO is a traitor, plain and simple. He and other right-wingers do not care about the country and should leave.
Here's a thought: if he is so eager to profile people then shouldn't right-wing mouthpieces who say they don't care about the Constitution be profiled as possible enemies ?
sxevious 2 years ago
Wow. Usually the government media is more discrete on trampling the constitution. We can see in these examples of why these mouthpieces want a rule of man over the rule of law. It steals power for them from the people.
imataxslave 2 years ago
The constitution is the supreme law of the land Mr. O'Reilly...
Waywardgoat 2 years ago 4
The Constitution only applies when you have politicians who are not criminals. Our Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. This means that public servants who ignore it are by definition, criminals.
abukamoon 2 years ago 3
I've always been surprised to see Judge Napolitano on FOX. I've never heard him say something that I disagree with, which is INCREDIBLY surprising.
KagarBeardtooth 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
A declaration of war is not required for there to be a war, for example; The Japanese pilots at Pear Harbour would not have been tried by a civilian court.
Further, Napolitano's logic is circular, yes once the federal government is going to try someone then you have to try them where the crime was committed.
But that is IF the FEDERAL govt tries him, NOT if a military commission handles the issue either as a legal or illegal enemy COMBATANT.
JESUS Cenk , GET AN EDUCATION
mctarmac10 2 years ago
@mctarmac10 Yes a declaration of war IS required for it to be a LAWFUL war...
Ex Parte Quirin, go read up on it you uneducated prick. Then when you are done with that go read the '49 Geneva Conventions which the USofA signed and put into law under U.S Municipal law, article 6 of the Constitution.
Yeah, GET AN EDUCATION indeed...dumbfuck.
rdrakken 2 years ago
Modern IHL is not concerned with the legality of the resort to force. Rather, its fundamental rules are designed to regulate and restrain the conduct of hostilities.
As noted the U.S. is justified in treating bin Laden and the members of his organization as a paramilitary force which engages in the illegal use of force. Whether the terrorists are regarded as paramilitary or civilians who have assumed a combatant role, they are, in the context of interstate hostilities, unprivileged combatants,
mctarmac10 2 years ago
Furthermore your rather limited purview deems any preventative or preemptive self defence action illegal, which they are not (aka Japan, aka Israel.) As per Article 51.
mctarmac10 2 years ago
Thankfully YOU saying its legal does not MAKE it legal. The very fact you want to skirt the law proves the very actions that led to their being captured was due to an unjust illegal war and you are afraid they will be freed if evidence has to be brought forward.
The law is the law, deal with it or get the fuck out.
rdrakken 2 years ago
There is one problem with your arguement - Al Queda is not a sovereign nation. The guy they're trying is part of an extra-national organization. It would be like the United States Government declaring war on the Walt Disney company, doesn't work that way.
The man they captured is a civilian, and terrorism is a crime committed by civilians, thus this guy should be tried in a civilian court, just like the good judge says.
hawanja 2 years ago