Bill O'Reilly money line: "I don't care about the Constitution"

[Knightskye]

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

Skip ahead to 1:54 in the video.

"Okay, I don't--I don't care about the Constitution."

Boy, Bill, I wouldn't have guessed. :D

[UtahApocalypse]

Treasonous

[ClayTrainor]

Don't mess with the Judge, Mr. O'Reilly, he'll make you look like the Goon you are :D

[TRIGRHAPPY]

I hate to be the one to step in to defend Bill O'Reily of all people......but the quote is being taken out of context.

He was asking judge Nap what he thought the attacks of 9/11 were, a terrorist act, an act of war, or a criminal matter....... Judge Nap answered with what the constitution says, and Bill replied with the "i dont care about the constitution line, I want to know what YOU think" or something to that effect.

Don't kid yourselves folks, Bill is stupid, but he's not a total retard. Regardless of what he actually thinks about the constitution, he's not retarded enough to refer to it as irrelevant over the air when he knows full well a bunch of glenn beck fans are watchin.

[Knightskye]

I hate to be the one to step in to defend Bill O'Reily of all people......but the quote is being taken out of context.

He was asking judge Nap what he thought the attacks of 9/11 were, a terrorist act, an act of war, or a criminal matter....... Judge Nap answered with what the constitution says, and Bill replied with the "i dont care about the constitution line, I want to know what YOU think" or something to that effect.

No. Here's what he said:

[O'Reilly]: "I dont--I don't care about the Constitution. The Constitution isn't here; you're here. Don't be a pinhead. 9/11..."

[...]

[Napolitano]: "Because the document you don't want me to talk about says, when the government is going to prosecute you, it must do so in the place where the alleged harm was caused."

The line and the Judge's response indicate to me that the line was in context, and that O'Reilly thinks it's okay to ignore what the Constitution says about criminal prosecutions.

[dannno]

Don't kid yourselves folks, Bill is stupid, but he's not a total retard.

I beg to differ.




[O'Reilly]: "I dont--I don't care about the Constitution. The Constitution isn't here; you're here. Don't be a pinhead. 9/11..."
.

[Athan]

Whether it is in the context he meant still doesn't change the fact that Bill DOESN'T care about the Constitution!

Think about it, it gives clear directions regarding acts of terrorism such as marque and reprisal, declaration of war, gold and silver currency, the bill of rights, and he DOESN'T support the Constitutional law on these matters. He is a neo-con. NOT conservative.

Out of context? Maybe if he was an actual paleo-conservative or constitutional conservative... but he IS NOT.

[Brian4Liberty]

To play devil's advocate, Bill got the Judge to say that if the US had declared war on Al-Queda (an organization, not a nation), then everything would be OK. The Judge stepped in it there.

The biggest fail of all is that no one (Krauthammer, O'Reilly, the Judge, the last two administrations) has articulated a clear definition and process to determine whether someone is a criminal or a soldier.

[specsaregood]

What did Bill mean by "don't outrun your coverage"?
also, you have to find this statement amusing: "they were mirandized when they arrived in cuba"

[TastyWheat]

I saw this live and I let out a kind of sad chuckle when Bill said that.

[orafi]

No. Here's what he said:

[O'Reilly]: "I dont--I don't care about the Constitution. The Constitution isn't here; you're here. Don't be a pinhead. 9/11..."

[...]

[Napolitano]: "Because the document you don't want me to talk about says, when the government is going to prosecute you, it must do so in the place where the alleged harm was caused."

The line and the Judge's response indicate to me that the line was in context, and that O'Reilly thinks it's okay to ignore what the Constitution says about criminal prosecutions.

He was basically calling the Judge a pinhead for bring up the constitution. There you go folks.

[ItsTime]

What did Bill mean by "don't outrun your coverage"?
also, you have to find this statement amusing: "they were mirandized when they arrived in cuba"

I want to know that too

[NoHero]

What did Bill mean by "don't outrun your coverage"?
also, you have to find this statement amusing: "they were mirandized when they arrived in cuba"


I want to know that too

I've never heard this, but I think he's using a football analogy, and a bad one. He's telling Judge not to get ahead of himself, I think. Except a receiver in football actually wants to outrun the coverage, or defense. So, maybe I don't know.

[catdd]

He thinks his pet phrase "pinhead" is suppose to really mean something to intelligent people like the judge. It just shows his own ignorance.
He's always been an abusive asshole and for the life of me, I can't understand why his ratings are so high.

[Pericles]

To play devil's advocate, Bill got the Judge to say that if the US had declared war on Al-Queda (an organization, not a nation), then everything would be OK. The Judge stepped in it there.

The biggest fail of all is that no one (Krauthammer, O'Reilly, the Judge, the last two administrations) has articulated a clear definition and process to determine whether someone is a criminal or a soldier.

4th Geneva Convention:
Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.

Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.

Art. 31. No physical or moral coercion shall be exercised against protected persons, in particular to obtain information from them or from third parties.

Art. 32. The High Contracting Parties specifically agree that each of them is prohibited from taking any measure of such a character as to cause the physical suffering or extermination of protected persons in their hands. This prohibition applies not only to murder, torture, corporal punishments, mutilation and medical or scientific experiments not necessitated by the medical treatment of a protected person, but also to any other measures of brutality whether applied by civilian or military agents.

Art. 68. Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offence committed. Furthermore, internment or imprisonment shall, for such offences, be the only measure adopted for depriving protected persons of liberty. The courts provided for under Article 66 of the present Convention may at their discretion convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for the same period.

The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with Articles 64 and 65 may impose the death penalty against a protected person only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offences were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.

The death penalty may not be pronounced against a protected person unless the attention of the court has been particularly called to the fact that since the accused is not a national of the Occupying Power, he is not bound to it by any duty of allegiance.

In any case, the death penalty may not be pronounced on a protected person who was under eighteen years of age at the time of the offence.

Art. 71. No sentence shall be pronounced by the competent courts of the Occupying Power except after a regular trial.

Accused persons who are prosecuted by the Occupying Power shall be promptly informed, in writing, in a language which they understand, of the particulars of the charges preferred against them, and shall be brought to trial as rapidly as possible. The Protecting Power shall be informed of all proceedings instituted by the Occupying Power against protected persons in respect of charges involving the death penalty or imprisonment for two years or more; it shall be enabled, at any time, to obtain information regarding the state of such proceedings. Furthermore, the Protecting Power shall be entitled, on request, to be furnished with all particulars of these and of any other proceedings instituted by the Occupying Power against protected persons.

The notification to the Protecting Power, as provided for in the second paragraph above, shall be sent immediately, and shall in any case reach the Protecting Power three weeks before the date of the first hearing. Unless, at the opening of the trial, evidence is submitted that the provisions of this Article are fully complied with, the trial shall not proceed. The notification shall include the following particulars:
(a) description of the accused;
(b) place of residence or detention;
(c) specification of the charge or charges (with mention of the penal provisions under which it is brought);
(d) designation of the court which will hear the case;
(e) place and date of the first hearing.

Art. 72. Accused persons shall have the right to present evidence necessary to their defence and may, in particular, call witnesses. They shall have the right to be assisted by a qualified advocate or counsel of their own choice, who shall be able to visit them freely and shall enjoy the necessary facilities for preparing the defence.

Failing a choice by the accused, the Protecting Power may provide him with an advocate or counsel. When an accused person has to meet a serious charge and the Protecting Power is not functioning, the Occupying Power, subject to the consent of the accused, shall provide an advocate or counsel.

Accused persons shall, unless they freely waive such assistance, be aided by an interpreter, both during preliminary investigation and during the hearing in court. They shall have the right at any time to object to the interpreter and to ask for his replacement.

Art.73. A convicted person shall have the right of appeal provided for by the laws applied by the court. He shall be fully informed of his right to appeal or petition and of the time limit within which he may do so.

The penal procedure provided in the present Section shall apply, as far as it is applicable, to appeals. Where the laws applied by the Court make no provision for appeals, the convicted person shall have the right to petition against the finding and sentence to the competent authority of the Occupying Power.

Art. 74. Representatives of the Protecting Power shall have the right to attend the trial of any protected person, unless the hearing has, as an exceptional measure, to be held in camera in the interests of the security of the Occupying Power, which shall then notify the Protecting Power. A notification in respect of the date and place of trial shall be sent to the Protecting Power.

Any judgement involving a sentence of death, or imprisonment for two years or more, shall be communicated, with the relevant grounds, as rapidly as possible to the Protecting Power. The notification shall contain a reference to the notification made under Article 71 and, in the case of sentences of imprisonment, the name of the place where the sentence is to be served. A record of judgements other than those referred to above shall be kept by the court and shall be open to inspection by representatives of the Protecting Power. Any period allowed for appeal in the case of sentences involving the death penalty, or imprisonment of two years or more, shall not run until notification of judgement has been received by the Protecting Power.

Art. 75. In no case shall persons condemned to death be deprived of the right of petition for pardon or reprieve.

No death sentence shall be carried out before the expiration of a period of a least six months from the date of receipt by the Protecting Power of the notification of the final judgment confirming such death sentence, or of an order denying pardon or reprieve.

The six months period of suspension of the death sentence herein prescribed may be reduced in individual cases in circumstances of grave emergency involving an organized threat to the security of the Occupying Power or its forces, provided always that the Protecting Power is notified of such reduction and is given reasonable time and opportunity to make representations to the competent occupying authorities in respect of such death sentences.

By contrast, Soldiers (combatants) who are entitled to treatment as prisoners of war by the First Convention are:

Art 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[
(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

(4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

(5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

There are annexes to the Conventions as to acceptable distinctive sign, etc. but the one principle that remains unchanged is that to be considered a combatant, and thus entitled to the protections of a POW, as opposed to a saboteur, is adhering to the provisions of the Conventions. Thus, terrorists are treated as saboteurs, and may be executed after conviction at a trial.

[constituent]

He's always been an abusive asshole and for the life of me, I can't understand why his ratings are so high.

Because he's an abusive asshole. His audience responds to that sort of thing...

There's a lesson to be learned there for dealing w/ the fox viewing audience.

[specsaregood]

Because he's an abusive asshole. His audience responds to that sort of thing...

There's a lesson to be learned there for dealing w/ the fox viewing audience.

This is a very astute observation.

[Reason]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=219364

[Brian4Liberty]

4th Geneva Convention:


Sounds great. Except for the fact that the Bushies threw that right out the window... Now the government can't use it, otherwise they will incriminate themselves.

[Pericles]

Sounds great. Except for the fact that the Bushies threw that right out the window... Now the government can't use it, otherwise they will incriminate themselves.

Exactly. There is no such classification as an "illegal combatant". One is either an combatant, and when captured is a POW, or one is a non-combatant, and a protected person. When a non-combatant participates in a conflict or conducts an attack, he loses his protections as a non-combatant, and is treated as a spy or saboteur, and when captured and convicted via a standing justice system, may be executed. In terms of the Geneva Conventions, terrorists are no different from saboteurs.

[heavenlyboy34]

He thinks his pet phrase "pinhead" is suppose to really mean something to intelligent people like the judge. It just shows his own ignorance.
He's always been an abusive asshole and for the life of me, I can't understand why his ratings are so high.

He appeals to the low-brow crowd, which is very large thanks to dumbed-down education standards and generally declining standards amongst the majority of population. JMO

[familydog]

Bill O'reilly and I agree on something?

Wow.

:eek:

[Knightskye]

Bill O'reilly and I agree on something?

Wow.

:eek:

Agree on what?

[ghengis86]

aren't fox news and their counterpart msnbc, admittedly entertainment networks and not legitimate news networks? I remember a lawsuit or something in the past...

fox appeals to the uneducated masses and msnbc appeals to the miseducated masses

[tonesforjonesbones]

well..i would say Fox does some news but it's mostly op ed stuff. Oreilly is a pinhead. His ratings are high because he's in the prime time spot. tones

[Matt Collins]

This is what the Judge thinks when he has to talk to the Leprechaun...






http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x93/sonicspikesalbum/misc/JudgeNapolitanofingertoheadgun.jpg

[dude58677]

Bill O'Reilly says" Bush is going to be on trial. The CIA is going to be on trial. The waterboarding..."

Translation: We fucked up bad for not following the Constitution and now it is going to bite us in the end.

[Todd]

He thinks his pet phrase "pinhead" is suppose to really mean something to intelligent people like the judge. It just shows his own ignorance.
He's always been an abusive asshole and for the life of me, I can't understand why his ratings are so high.

Try having a political discussion with one of O'reilly's fans. This exchange is usually what you'll experience.


Me: The constitution says.......

Fan: Pinhead!

Is it because many of his fans tend to like the abusive asshole act? :)

[Matt Collins]

What did Bill mean by "don't outrun your coverage"?

I've never heard this, but I think he's using a football analogy, and a bad one. He's telling Judge not to get ahead of himself, I think. Except a receiver in football actually wants to outrun the coverage, or defense. So, maybe I don't know.

I think he meant, "don't try to out talk me, it's my show, not yours".


I just now watched the clip.... sheesh.... The Leprechaun is pathetic and highly ignorant :rolleyes::mad:

[Matt Collins]

Here is another instance of the neocon ignoramuses at Fox attacking the Judge recently:

YouTube - 9/28/09 Judge Napolitano on Iran War Rhetoric (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=or0UDnpL7cE&feature=player_embedded)

[Knightskye]

Here is another instance of the neocon ignoramuses at Fox attacking the Judge recently:

YouTube - 9/28/09 Judge Napolitano on Iran War Rhetoric (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=or0UDnpL7cE&feature=player_embedded)

The Judge handled himself well. He's also more eloquent than the other guys.

I love Cody's anti-authority stance. Fits well with his high-pitched voice.

[purplechoe]

http://www.chrisdellavedova.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/oreilly.jpg

http://www.weavils.com/bill-o-reilly.png

http://olbermannwatch.com/images/sneer.jpg

[Matt Collins]

YouTube - Bill O'Reilly Flips Out (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tJjNVVwRCY)

[familydog]

Agree on what?

His position on the Constitution as quoted in the thread title. ;)

[LibForestPaul]

When was the first time the word "terrorism" was used?
To describe an act?
To describe a crime?

[Knightskye]

His position on the Constitution as quoted in the thread title. ;)

Fill out this survey, please?
http://www.nolanchart.com/survey.php

:)