[VIDEO] ~ Judge Napolitano ~ "September 11th Attacks Were NOT An Act Of War!"

[Reason]

YouTube - September 11th Attacks Were NOT An Act Of War! Judge Napolitano (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0cfENDJiWs)

[Reason]

O'reilly: "I don't care about the constitution".

/sigh

[maqsur]

Kudos to the judge for not going along with o'reilly's leading statements/arguments. Of course, O'reilly didn't really want a substantive discussion - that much was obvious.

[dannno]

Jeebus...

[Romulus]

he set up and attacked the Judge.

Bill is a douche and can not take a fair debate.

[CharlesTX]

O'reilly: "I don't care about the constitution".

/sigh


+1

[reduen]

Great job by the judge here! Nice....

[pcosmar]

I am reminded,

YouTube - Bill O'Reilly's Producer (Unseen Footage) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEszZBS7Oig&feature=fvw)

[RevolutionSD]

I liked the end:

O'Reilly: "I respect your opinion."
Judge Nap: "And I'm glad you had me on."

[Deborah K]

I think they should be tried by a military tribunal, but I also think OReilly is our enemy because of the mere fact of his willing ignorance on most issues.

[reduen]

I think they should be tried by a military tribunal, but I also think OReilly is our enemy because of the mere fact of his willing ignorance on most issues.

Not to be argumentative here at all, I just have a couple questions that I am curious for you to answer.

Was Timothy Mcveigh (Spelling ?) tried by a military tribunal ? Should he have been?

[pcosmar]

Not to be argumentative here at all, I just have a couple questions that I am curious for you to answer.

Was Timothy Mcveigh (Spelling ?) tried by a military tribunal ? Should he have been?

A court martial. He was still working for the Government.

Of course they can't admit that. ;)

[FindLiberty]

Bush stated, "They attack us because we are prosperous and free..."

Thankfully, our guberment has removed both of those motivations (now
that we're no longer prosperous or free) so now there won't be any
more (not an act of war) attacks to worry about.

No worries mate.

[dannno]

I don't care to financially support a justice system that is not transparent. I don't believe that's what the Founding Fathers signed up for.

[Deborah K]

Not to be argumentative here at all, I just have a couple questions that I am curious for you to answer.

Was Timothy Mcveigh (Spelling ?) tried by a military tribunal ? Should he have been?

The difference between him and them is that he was an American citizen with Constitutional rights so no, I don't think so. But, it's a good question, perhaps he should have been.

I don't agree with trying them this way for these reasons:

1. They don't deserve constitutional protection
2. Even if I agreed that they deserved constitutional protection, how will they ever get a non-partial jury of their peers?
3. I am not a truther (but do believe the gov't knew it was going to happen) and believe that Bin Laden, et al was behind the attack. He has declared war against America. This, in my opinion, makes the attack an act of war, whether or not our inept gov't declared war.
4. I am concerned about the safety of the judge, jurors, and others during the trial.

[FindLiberty]

http://www.google.com/images?q=tbn:Wi3FBDApPoSQhM::www.jonesreport.com/images/181206_mcveigh_1991.jpg&h=78&w=101&usg=__Qju_eB0fYo7KcSJquAfaJMWRSiA=

Timothy James McVeigh (April 23, 1968 – June 11, 2001) was a US Army veteran, security guard and mass murderer.

He may have been executed before he started giving up names and fingered others involved (some
worked for the BATF and FBI). This could still cost 'em their pensions and/or promotions. It might
even embarrass other guberment authorities if the whole truth leaked out.

[jmdrake]

The difference between him and them is that he was an American citizen with Constitutional rights so no, I don't think so. But, it's a good question, perhaps he should have been.

I don't agree with trying them this way for these reasons:

1. They don't deserve constitutional protection
2. Even if I agreed that they deserved constitutional protection, how will they ever get a non-partial jury of their peers?
3. I am not a truther (but do believe the gov't knew it was going to happen) and believe that Bin Laden, et al was behind the attack. He has declared war against America. This, in my opinion, makes the attack an act of war, whether or not our inept gov't declared war.
4. I am concerned about the safety of the judge, jurors, and others during the trial.

And yet somehow the FBI isn't convinced enough of OBL's involvement in 9/11 to put that on his wanted poster. Go figure?

This is another example of why congress should quit being chicken livers and just declare war when appropriate. Of course that would mean having to treat captured prisoners as prisoners of war under the Geneva conventions. Bush wanted to have his cake and eat it to and we ended up with frosted vomit.

Regards,

John M. Drake

[heavenlyboy34]

always good to see Billy boy get his ass handed to him! Thnx, OP.

[nobody's_hero]

9/11 wasn't an act of war. It was a criminal act, and if we had pursued it as a criminal act, I'll bet that we'd have caught and tried those responsible for the attacks long ago.

Instead, we went ripping across the middle east destroying lives as well as any remaining sense of goodwill that we had among Arab nations (and the rest of the world) with the whole "you're either with us or against us" attitude.

We should have presented any evidence we had on the suspects to the other nations of the world and asked for their assistance in seeing that justice would be served. Total war was not necessary at all, and neither is nation-building.

[dannno]

9/11 wasn't an act of war. It was a criminal act, and if we had pursued it as a criminal act, I'll bet that we'd have caught and tried those responsible for the attacks long ago.

Instead, we went ripping across the middle east destroying lives as well as any remaining sense of goodwill that we had among Arab nations (and the rest of the world) with the whole "you're either with us or against us" attitude.

We should have presented any evidence we had on the suspects to the other nations of the world and asked for their assistance in seeing that justice would be served. Total war was not necessary at all, and neither is nation-building.


EXACTLY!!

Timothy McVeigh would NEVER have been able to kill that many people without help from the inside. The 9/11 perps would have never even THOUGHT to hijack multiple planes and fly them around US air space for that long and run them into buildings without help from the inside.. I mean, it's not like we don't monitor commercial airliners and have an air force or anything.. The government terrorists are the ENABLERS of small minded individuals who carry out these attacks. They should be first priority, not these small minded people who we can just throw in jail for the rest of their lives.. Who cares about them? They would be NOTHING without the help of our govt.

[Bodhi]

O'reilly: "I don't care about the constitution".

/sigh


and... "The Constitution isn't here, don't be a pinhead"

WOW, O'Reilly is such an a**.

[ClayTrainor]

O'Reilly is no intellectual match for the Judge. I would like to see them "get into it" on some other issues, so we can get O'Reilly to give off some more interesting quotes. I can't see how anyone could walk out of that debate agreeing with O'Reilly.

[Romulus]

and... "The Constitution isn't here, don't be a pinhead"

WOW, O'Reilly is such an a**.

now now, lets leave the name calling to mr. oreily.. its his last defense when he's at a loss.

[libertygrl]

Way before I became educated by the good Dr., I would have cared less for the rights of these terrorists. I would have wanted them tried as military combatants. But today, no matter how much I may despise these people, if we don't provide them with a fair day in court, those in power can one day do the same to any one of us. That's how I look at things now. If we don't uphold the rule of law for even the most vile people in our society, it gives free reign for those in power to turn it around back on us.

I thought I once read that the right to a fair & speedy trail goes back to the Magna Carta and it applies to everyone. It doesn't matter if you are a citizen of that particular country or not. Can anyone expound on this?

[catdd]

Well, I'd say O'really is speaking for a large number of neocons who are obviously terrified that this trial could lead to the Bush Administration being brought up on war crimes.

[Deborah K]

Way before I became educated by the good Dr., I would have cared less for the rights of these terrorists. I would have wanted them tried as military combatants. But today, no matter how much I may despise these people, if we don't provide them with a fair day in court, those in power can one day do the same to any one of us. That's how I look at things now. If we don't uphold the rule of law for even the most vile people in our society, it gives free reign for those in power to turn it around back on us.

I thought I once read that the right to a fair & speedy trail goes back to the Magna Carta and it applies to everyone. It doesn't matter if you are a citizen of that particular country or not. Can anyone expound on this?

I think the issue is about whether they should be tried by a military tribunal or in New York. I don't think anyone believes they shouldn't get a trial.

[Freedom 4 all]

O'reilly: "I don't care about the constitution".

/sigh


Pretty much sums up everything I've ever suspected about Billo the Clown. He's not only a statist but a moron. Even the far leftists at MSNBC wouldn't dare say they don't care about the constitution (even if they were thinking it).

[Deborah K]

And yet somehow the FBI isn't convinced enough of OBL's involvement in 9/11 to put that on his wanted poster. Go figure?This is another example of why congress should quit being chicken livers and just declare war when appropriate. Of course that would mean having to treat captured prisoners as prisoners of war under the Geneva conventions. Bush wanted to have his cake and eat it to and we ended up with frosted vomit.

Regards,

John M. Drake

I'm going off his own words. He has declared war against America.

[Deborah K]

9/11 wasn't an act of war. It was a criminal act, and if we had pursued it as a criminal act, I'll bet that we'd have caught and tried those responsible for the attacks long ago.

Instead, we went ripping across the middle east destroying lives as well as any remaining sense of goodwill that we had among Arab nations (and the rest of the world) with the whole "you're either with us or against us" attitude.

We should have presented any evidence we had on the suspects to the other nations of the world and asked for their assistance in seeing that justice would be served. Total war was not necessary at all, and neither is nation-building.

Bin Laden has claimed responsibility for 9/11. He has also declared that as long as we are over there he will continue to attack us. That is war any way you slice it.

I agree that invading Iraq was wrongheaded and so is nation building. We should have just gone after Bin Laden and cut the head off the beast while we still had the chance.

[jmdrake]

I'm going off his own words. He has declared war against America.

I hope you're not going by the tape where he claimed responsibility for 9/11. That seems fabricated.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1212851/Has-Osama-Bin-Laden-dead-seven-years--U-S-Britain-covering-continue-war-terror.html?sms_ss=email#ixzz0VltmhfJG

Again there's a reason why the FBI hasn't put 9/11 on his wanted poster. And regardless, we haven't declared war on him. This touchy feelly "illegal combatant" crap is what got is in the mess we are in. That's what happens when you go outside the constitution.

Regards,

John M. Drake

[Captain America]

wait a second the judge didnt get to explain the entire position. it was an act of war but we the people or the government do not have the right to send people to other counties without a declaration of war as stated by the Constitution. OReilly and others are asking questions that shouldnt have to be answered. the government broke one law by not declaring war and of course its going to lead to other questions and laws broken.

we are a Republic with a Representative Democracy not a Democracy. We are under a unlawful government. its up to the people kick out the collectivsts and elect liberty orientated people also meaning economic liberty.

we already have our rights as individuals but the government arm and hand is helping us along even though we don't want it to interfear with liberty or to enslave a person by having another person or persons have control of you in any way.

Just as important is the right to exist, further yourself without any resisting force, you have not a second of right to any person in time, or life. If another takes your life they shall pay with his own life.

[Deborah K]

I hope you're not going by the tape where he claimed responsibility for 9/11. That seems fabricated.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1212851/Has-Osama-Bin-Laden-dead-seven-years--U-S-Britain-covering-continue-war-terror.html?sms_ss=email#ixzz0VltmhfJG

Again there's a reason why the FBI hasn't put 9/11 on his wanted poster. And regardless, we haven't declared war on him. This touchy feelly "illegal combatant" crap is what got is in the mess we are in. That's what happens when you go outside the constitution.

Regards,

John M. Drake



I'm going off of what I've learned from Michael Scheuer.

[Reason]

//

[Brian4Liberty]

9/11 wasn't an act of war. It was a criminal act, and if we had pursued it as a criminal act, I'll bet that we'd have caught and tried those responsible for the attacks long ago.
...
We should have presented any evidence we had on the suspects to the other nations of the world and asked for their assistance in seeing that justice would be served. Total war was not necessary at all, and neither is nation-building.

Well, that is how it started. Then it came down to the fact that the main suspects were essentially part of the Afghan government. That could qualify as an act of war, unless the Afghan government disavowed them and turned them over. They didn't. We could have officially declared war on Afghanistan at that time. We didn't.

At that point, almost all nations were on our side and assisting us (the original Afghan effort was truly multi-national). It was the Bushies ignoring all law (US and international treaties), and invading Iraq that turned everyone against us.

And of course now we are there acting as Police, which doesn't qualify as war. Maybe that's why they never declared war? A real war would have been long over...