FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Fire Glenn Beck: "Shoot them all in the head"





handfleisch
The website http://got.to/firebeck has been created this week because of what Glenn Beck recently said of Guantanamo detainees:

"We’re going to shoot them all in the head...If we can’t put them away and they’re going to use our court system—kill them."

That's right -- Glenn Beck, hate-broadcaster, has advocated mass murder of detainees in US custody.

His long history of lies and hate-speech is bad enough. Now he is urging that we shred the Constitution and, apparently, have US forces just start slaughtering detainees in the Guantanamo Bay detention center. It is a dishonor to what America stands for, an insult to US soldiers, and is simply far below acceptable debate on the public airwaves.

The citizens of the USA are not standing for it, and as in the case of Michael Graham and William Bennett, America is standing up to these hatemongers and extremists by telling corporate media to clean up their act and get these creeps off the air.

You can get active by contacting CNN and Beck's sponsors. Audio link to Beck's words and all info you need is at http://got.to/firebeck
Rattlebunny
handfleisch wrote:
Now he is urging that we shred the Constitution and, apparently, have US forces just start slaughtering detainees in the Guantanamo Bay detention center.


Man Oh Man. What a wonderful statement this is, it shows that you have never read the Constitution of the great country you are a citizen (assuming) of.

There is absolutely nothing in the US Constitution regarding the treatment of prisoners of war or detainees, or unlawful combatants, or what every they're calling them this week. That would be the Geneva Convention, and those guide lines are only strictly adhered to by two countries that I can think of ... the United States and Great Brittan.

Regardless of what you think of Glen Beck, you have to understand the error in your statement. You see, the Constitution which you would use to hang him with protects his right to say exactly what he said. See Amendment 1.

Additionally I have to say this, if you continue to go along with everything that you read or see on television, you are never going to have an opinion that matters or is even the slightest bit intelligent. There are two documents that you really need to spend some time reading. The Constitution of the United States of America, and the Declaration of Independence. There are many others that are equally important, but start with these and then voice your opinion about Glen Beck.
Bikerman
Err what about Article III section 2:
Quote:
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; --to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; --between Citizens of different States;
--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

That would seem to imply that the Supreme Court is sovereign in the case of Guantanemo wouldn't it?
Rattlebunny
Bikerman wrote:
Err what about Article III section 2:
Quote:
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; --to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; --between Citizens of different States;
--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

That would seem to imply that the Supreme Court is sovereign in the case of Guantanemo wouldn't it?


Article III sets up a Supreme Court that over sees the enacting and implementation of any and all laws as they apply to the constitution. I still maintain that the Constitution does NOT protect these people, and should not be warped into doing so. Article III says NOTHING about the treatment of these people in Guantanamo. The treatment of prisoners of war is covered in the Geneva Convention which was signed in the early 1900's. Had the Constitution any power over the treatment of Prisoners of War, the Geneva convention would not have been necessary ... at least not for the United States.
Bikerman
Rattlebunny wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
Err what about Article III section 2:
Quote:
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; --to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; --between Citizens of different States;
--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

That would seem to imply that the Supreme Court is sovereign in the case of Guantanemo wouldn't it?


Article III sets up a Supreme Court that over sees the enacting and implementation of any and all laws as they apply to the constitution. I still maintain that the Constitution does NOT protect these people, and should not be warped into doing so. Article III says NOTHING about the treatment of these people in Guantanamo. The treatment of prisoners of war is covered in the Geneva Convention which was signed in the early 1900's. Had the Constitution any power over the treatment of Prisoners of War, the Geneva convention would not have been necessary ... at least not for the United States.

It specifically says "foreign States, Citizens or Subjects". How does that not apply?
The US has not abided by the GC in Guantanamo because it states that the prisoners are NOT prisoners of war. You can't have it both ways - either they are prisoners of war and the GC applies, or they are not and Article III applies...
Of course in reality the US DID have it both ways - it has deliberately avoided both the requirements of the GC AND the Constitution by keeping the prisoners off-shore and by refusing to categorise the prisoners as POWs. It is duplicitous.
It took a Supreme Court ruling (in 2006) to ensure that the GC is (partially) applied in Guantanamo, but many people (including me) don't think that it is being applied properly, since the GC requires that POWs prosecuted for war crimes must be tried by the same court under the same rules as the detaining country´s armed forces. This is not being done (the US is using special Military 'Commissions' rather than Courts Martial).
Rattlebunny
Bikerman wrote:
--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
That would seem to imply that the Supreme Court is sovereign in the case of Guantanemo wouldn't it?


This provides direction on dealing with laws. Specifically US Laws. Like it or not the Supreme Court does not have the right to create law (though they tend to do so, and for some reason we let them), that's what the legislative branch is for. Exactly which law is being broken here? Due process applies to citizens of the United States, they are not citizens.

Quote:
It specifically says "foreign States, Citizens or Subjects". How does that not apply?


To what I understand, and being not a lawyer I can not say I understand it all, Article III was not intended to have any governance over the treatment of Prisoners of War. It's intent was and is to allow for redress of laws broken by "foreign States, Citizens or Subjects" or laws that the United States or it's Citizens had broken which may cause controversy between the US and the "foreign States, Citizens or Subjects". So, again which law is being broken here? The only way this would ever apply to the people held a Guantanamo is if we made them all Citizens of this country. Then you could say that the laws governing Due Process have been broken, and possibly bring Miranda into the equation. But, would you have us make citizens of the enemies of the United States? I would not. And I think you will find that most people in this Country would feel the same way.

Now, let me make something perfectly clear. I don't think that we should have "shot them all in the head". And I do feel that some of the people there may have been mistreated. I also don't think that Glenn Beck would have us line them up and shoot them all in the head. That's simply ridiculous. But I feel that rather than provide them access to our courts and allow them to effectively sue the United States, I'd see them all shot. They are not citizens. They are for the most part Terrorists. Don't forget that. From what we know about the Terrorist doctrine, they would gladly shoot us all in the head, and most of them would if given the opportunity.

See, there's one really bad thing about war. Innocent people get swept up in it. On 9/11 they didn't attack our military, they didn't attack our way of life (though they did a good job of saying so), they attacked our citizens ... you and me. I had friends that died there. And neither one of them had anything to do with the government or foreign policy. One was a janitor ... he was never found. And the other was a security guard. Nearly all of the people they attacked on 9/11 were innocents. Remember that.
Bikerman
Rattlebunny wrote:
This provides direction on dealing with laws. Specifically US Laws. Like it or not the Supreme Court does not have the right to create law (though they tend to do so, and for some reason we let them), that's what the legislative branch is for. Exactly which law is being broken here? Due process applies to citizens of the United States, they are not citizens.
The Supreme Court DOES have the power to create law - every ruling of the SC IS Law.
Quote:
To what I understand, and being not a lawyer I can not say I understand it all, Article III was not intended to have any governance over the treatment of Prisoners of War. It's intent was and is to allow for redress of laws broken by "foreign States, Citizens or Subjects" or laws that the United States or it's Citizens had broken which may cause controversy between the US and the "foreign States, Citizens or Subjects". So, again which law is being broken here? The only way this would ever apply to the people held a Guantanamo is if we made them all Citizens of this country. Then you could say that the laws governing Due Process have been broken, and possibly bring Miranda into the equation. But, would you have us make citizens of the enemies of the United States? I would not. And I think you will find that most people in this Country would feel the same way.
This is a nonsense argument. You do not have to grant the detainees citizenship at all. US law applies to ANY citizen of any country. If I were in the US then your laws would apply to me - you would not have to make me a US citizen. The US could try terrorists in the civil courts without any need to grant citizenship. The particular law being broken would depend on the specific cases - murder, firearms offences, conspiracy etc...
Quote:
Now, let me make something perfectly clear. I don't think that we should have "shot them all in the head". And I do feel that some of the people there may have been mistreated. I also don't think that Glenn Beck would have us line them up and shoot them all in the head. That's simply ridiculous. But I feel that rather than provide them access to our courts and allow them to effectively sue the United States, I'd see them all shot. They are not citizens. They are for the most part Terrorists. Don't forget that. From what we know about the Terrorist doctrine, they would gladly shoot us all in the head, and most of them would if given the opportunity.
How do you know they are terrorists? Have they had their day in court? What if some of them are entirely innocent?
Quote:
See, there's one really bad thing about war. Innocent people get swept up in it. On 9/11 they didn't attack our military, they didn't attack our way of life (though they did a good job of saying so), they attacked our citizens ... you and me. I had friends that died there. And neither one of them had anything to do with the government or foreign policy. One was a janitor ... he was never found. And the other was a security guard. Nearly all of the people they attacked on 9/11 were innocents. Remember that.
I do remember that but the correct way to deal with terrorists (who are criminals) is to use the legal system. Your legal system can quite easily deal with terrorists - it has done so before. What you are saying is that these people should not be allowed proper legal representation. I disagree - that is how tyrannies operate, not modern democratic states. The 9/11 terrorist acts were committed on US soil and the terrorists and their accomplices are common criminals who should be dealt with via civilian law.
The detainees from Afghanistan and Iraq are either combatants who should be dealt with according to the Geneva Convention, or are terrorists (criminals) who should be dealt with according to civil law. It is that simple.
Rattlebunny
Bikerman wrote:
The US has not abided by the GC in Guantanamo because it states that the prisoners are NOT prisoners of war. You can't have it both ways - either they are prisoners of war and the GC applies, or they are not and Article III applies...
Of course in reality the US DID have it both ways - it has deliberately avoided both the requirements of the GC AND the Constitution by keeping the prisoners off-shore and by refusing to categorise the prisoners as POWs. It is duplicitous.
It took a Supreme Court ruling (in 2006) to ensure that the GC is (partially) applied in Guantanamo, but many people (including me) don't think that it is being applied properly, since the GC requires that POWs prosecuted for war crimes must be tried by the same court under the same rules as the detaining country´s armed forces. This is not being done (the US is using special Military 'Commissions' rather than Courts Martial).


Okay, so the GC says that they have to be tried by the same court and under the same rules. It does not say that they should get complete access to our court system for what ever they like. It says that this applies only for the war crimes they are being tried for. And yes, that should come with the appeals and everything else, but it still does not afford them the protections under the constitution that the citizenry of the US enjoys. It really doesn't matter what they're calling them, you and I both understand that "Unlawful Combatant" is BS. But at the same time the water had already be muddied by the circumstances surrounding the manhunt for Bin-Laden. At least some of the people held at Guantanamo are there as suspects surrounding that whole ordeal. And they would not be eligible for protection under either the GC or the US Constitution.

The other thing is, history shows that we as Americans ... for the most part ... are rabid when it comes to doing what's right. I can't say the same for our politicians, but then I don't think many countries can. The truth in this whole mess will eventually surface, and I for one hope that they have really good reasons for what they've done. I will never think that the people a Guantanamo, who are not citizens of the US, should be allowed full access to our courts or protection under our Constitution.

As to the military trying these people. I have nothing to say except ... If the people down at Gitmo want their grievances heard in this life time it's their best bet, because I can guarantee that the debate over which court to try them all in would take forever. And then it would take years for the first case to be heard anyway as backed up as our courts are.

The truth is, we really don't know what's going on at Gitmo. But then if we shout out to CNN everything that we're doing how can we hope to accomplish anything? And if we change the laws and find that we need complete openness when it comes to these matters what happens then? Like it or not, sometimes, especially when entities like the US media are around, it's best to keep secrets ... no matter what they are. Think of it this way, how would Normandy have gone if we had to report to the media that we were going to invade? I think most of Europe would still be speaking German and Hitler would have died and old man in his bed in Berlin. But it was a different time back then, and maybe the media did know. But if they did know at least they had the good sense not to report it to the world. Time will tell, and we will know everything then.
Rattlebunny
There's no way this thread is going to end well. We both agree that something shady is going on there, but it's not up to me.

Additionally, the decisions of the supreme court are based on prior decisions by lower courts and are the judgment of the legality of that prior decision ... they are not supposed to be making new laws. A supreme court decision makes that case final, and laws have resulted, but the supreme court did not write them.

See it's simple actually ... the Executive Branch does its presidential thing, the Legislative Branch debates and writes bills, and laws, and wastes a lot of time doing it, and the Judicial Branch is supposed to oversee the enforcement of those laws. At least it's supposed to be simple. But you and I both can agree than no Lawyer ever made things simpler. And unfortunately in the United States we've allowed the Lawyers to be the only ones in charge. So it seems that since the word "Lawyer" has the word "Law" in it everyone feels like they have the right or obligation to write laws, pass judgment, legislate from the bench and whatever else. I'm not going to ever say that my country is right all the time. All I'm saying is that we try.

And as far as my believing that the people at Gitmo don't deserve their day in court ... not true ... if they are found to be a terrorist, then I agree charge them, convict them if you can, and put them away or to death what ever the case may be. But until that determination is made I don't think it's responsible to just let anyone at Gitmo access to our courts. And you're probably right, Gitmo is NOT in the US and they're being held there for that reason. But then what would you have us do? Let them all go? Just so they can strap on a bomb or plant an IUD that could take out one of my friends, or one of yours? Yes, I do believe that most of the people being held a Gitmo are terrorists and that it will come out at some point.
Bikerman
The point about Guantanamo is - who decides?
The GC is clear - if they are prisoners of war it should be a Court Martial. If they are civilians it should be a civil court. The US has played a game by saying they are neither and trying to change the rules. This has resulted in legal chaos and has brought the US into disrepute throughout the world. The situation at Guantanamo is a disgrace and it should be ended quickly. Nobody has suggested letting them go - the demand is that they be given a proper and fair trial. These people have now been detained for up to 6 years without due process. It is an obscenity.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jun/05/usa.guantanamo1
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7452125.stm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article4123181.ece

I come from a country with pretty extensive experience with terrorists. We have made mistakes as well - internment without trial being a major one. I had hoped that the US might learn something from our experience and listen to the advice of UK politicians on this issue - they didn't, and are now suffering the consequences.

Seriously - look at the argument as it stands:
1) We are good people. We don't wrongly imprison people.
2) We have imprisoned several hundred people at Guantanamo
3) How do we know that these people are not wrongly imprisoned? See point 1.

Look at the facts. 775 people have been imprisoned at Guantanamo. 420 have been released without charge. Some have been released conditionally to other countries (we don't have the details for most of these). 1 has been convicted (David Hicks). 270 remain today of which about 60 are already cleared for release (but no country will take them).
The US has said that 60-80 will eventually stand trial. That is just over 10% of those detained. Does that sound like justice to you?

Now, in this context, cut to what Glenn Beck actually said in the broadcast:
Quote:
If we think they are against us, we’re going to shoot them and kill them—period because that’s the only thing we’ve got going for us—cause we can put them away and get information. If we can’t put them away and they’re going to use our court system—kill them.
So, let's be clear. The 420 released without charge - kill them. The 60-80 waiting release - kill them. The other 130 plus who will probably face no charges - kill them. Is this really defensible or is this the ranting of a bigoted fool?
Rattlebunny
Quote:
Amendment 11 - Judicial Limits. Ratified 2/7/1795. Note History

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.


This would sort of take the Supreme Court out of it don't you think?
Bikerman
Rattlebunny wrote:
Quote:
Amendment 11 - Judicial Limits. Ratified 2/7/1795. Note History

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.


This would sort of take the Supreme Court out of it don't you think?

No, I don't think. Did the detainees take a legal suit against the US or one of the states of the US? I think not. This refers specifically to legal action taken against a US state by a citizen of another state (be it foreign or part of the US). It has nothing to do with the detention of foreign combatants. Here the situation is the other way around - it is the US taking legal action against the detainees.
Related topics
I dont think John Karr killed JonBenet Ramsey.
Radical Muslims - When will they stop?
Are Americans stupid?
Megaman Phoenix
July 4th 1776 - what went wrong?
2009 Predictions
Who is the best Football player , Messi or Ronaldo?
Tiller murder: FOX's O'Reilly responsible for the hate
Things only a Republican could believe
‘Sign This Paper or You Will Die’ -- Gypsies sterilized
House votes to repeal Obama's Health Care Law
Glenn Beck getting fired from FOX. Boycott works
98 advertisers pull ads off Limbaugh + Hannity-Levin-Beck!
Mysterious soundbite in the Glenn Beck radio show intro song
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.