O’Reilly Advocates Execution w/o Due Process
January 30, 2010 at 10:00 am | Posted in Video Blog | 13 Comments
13 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a Reply
Follow & Contact:
-
As Seen On:
Become a fan on:
Blog at WordPress.com. | Theme: Pool by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.
I think you are over reacting to interpret a discussion into an advocacy. I view the segment you presented as an exploration of the legality of certain choices made by the ‘authorities’, not a promotion of such choices.
respectfully submitted
Comment by Phyllis— January 30, 2010 #
It’s a one-sided exploration. Who is there representing the other side of the argument? You have three people concurring. That does not strike me as a discussion. If they really wanted to explore the legality of it, they would have someone representing the opposing position they marginally hint at.
Comment by Walter Scott Hudson— January 30, 2010 #
Why do leftists support dicators and terrorists?
Comment by Zeitgeist— January 30, 2010 #
I’m not a leftist, as a cursory examination of this site’s content clearly shows. Thanks for the presumption though.
I support the Constitution of the United States of America. O’Reilly and company here support a dictatorial policy. Dictators sign decrees, not executives of a representative republic. If you’re willing to discard due process for an American citizen due to a highly subjective definition of “terrorist,” what stops Obama or DHS from defining you as a terrorist?
Comment by Walter Scott Hudson— January 30, 2010 #
Phyllis is correct – they are discussing possibilities. Not certainties. What might or could happen, not what Should happen. Are you so lefty that you can’t be objective? Cute kid.
Comment by Gino Flatulani— January 30, 2010 #
Again, not a leftist. What is “leftist” about my position? If anything, it is a position consistent with a conservative regard for the Constitution and due process.
Comment by Walter Scott Hudson— January 30, 2010 #
But you say:
“Dictators sign decrees, not executives of a representative republic.”
Presidents have been signing executive orders for a long, long time. The Viet Nam War was started with an executive order. Like it or not, they are part of the president’s ‘arsenal’ of legislative tools.
Comment by Gino Flatulani— January 30, 2010 #
@Gino
Previous occurrence is not the same thing a legal precedent. The Constitution, by its own word, is the Supreme Law of the Land. It provides for separation of executive and legislative powers. Do you really want the president, based on an arbitrary definition of terrorism, to be able to sign the “death warrant” of any American citizen? It is incumbent upon us to look beyond this case, where most would be inclined to agree the traitor should die, to what it could be perverted to justify.
Comment by Walter Scott Hudson— January 30, 2010 #
To provide a domestic analogy, if a cop kills a criminal in a firefight, he has not violated the criminal’s rights. But if he signs a napkin and calls it a death warrant, then goes out and finds the guy and guns him down, that’s clearly a circumvention of justice.
Comment by Walter Scott Hudson— January 30, 2010 #
Walter, you’re a liar. They are NOT advocating anything. It is a discussion, plain & simple. O’Rielly does not advocate for anything. The three of them are explaining how a Pres., any Pres., can do this under the Ex. order Pres. Bush signed. There isn’t one syllable that advotes for it. It’s a shame that you would spend your time, & probably money, to waste bandwidth like this. When your kid is old enough to view & understand the lies you’re spewing here, he’ll puke on you, even if he’s 30 then.
Same thing with your claim on the CPS or whatever. All they did is explain the procedure here in the states & in England. They did NOT advocate for it.
YOU apparently have no idea how outrageous your comments/lies are.
Comment by Dave— January 30, 2010 #
Wow, Dave. You’re a little emotional about the whole thing, aren’t you. Take a breath.
I guess it’s a testament to the vastly different way folks can perceive something. To me, it was very clear these three were in agreement with the policies they uniformly represented. There was passion in their voices as they made emotional arguments which mentioned the law and opposing legal concern as an afterthought. Particularly in the CPS case, O’Reilly called the lack of “action” in Britain “despicable.” Lis said CPS has a duty to “supervise,” citing no legal justification for doing so. But hey, see it your way.
Very mature, insulting me through my kid. You have a nice day, Dave.
Comment by Walter Scott Hudson— January 30, 2010 #
Interesting points.
That whole discussion about Child Services did seem weird to me. Accusing that mother of potentially harming her child and then thinking she should be monitored for as long as the gov’t sees fit . . . because of a silly photo? How many times have we seen pictures where parents have posed their babies with sunglasses on and beer bottles in their hand? Unfunny, maybe. Unfit? Hardly. Maybe there’s more to the story, but yikes.
Comment by Kim— February 3, 2010 #
They’re talking about using government to police taste.
Comment by Walter Scott Hudson— February 3, 2010 #