Glenn Beck Says Something Smart!!!!!!!!!!

civver_764

Deity
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
6,436
Location
San Jose, CA
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/04/faisal-shahzad-arrest-bec_n_562467.html

The arrest of a Pakistani-born American in connection with a failed attempt to set off a car bomb in New York City's Times Square has produced a swift and remarkable debate among conservatives over civil rights and national security. Within a matter of hours, Glenn Beck was casting longtime lawmakers as shredders of the Constitution.

The morning after the arrest of 30-year-old Faisal Shahzad at John F. Kennedy airport on Monday evening, the usual suspects in the GOP took to print and the airwaves to whack away at the president and his top lawyer. Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) mocked the idea that Attorney General Eric Holder might read the suspect his Miranda rights or consider trying him in a civilian court.

"I hope that [Attorney General Eric] Holder did discuss this with the intelligence community. If they believe they got enough from him, how much more should they get? Did they Mirandize him? I know he's an American citizen but still," King said.

Notorious for jumping into the political fray in the wake of attempted or successful terrorist acts, King was quickly joined in the ring by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who called the idea of reading Miranda rights a "serious mistake."

"There's probably about 350 different charges he's guilty of -- attempted acts of terror against the United States, attempted murder," McCain said during an appearance on "Imus in the Morning". "I'm sure there's a significant number to warrant the death penalty."

That both McCain and King would so quickly condemn the idea of reading Miranda rights is a reflection of just how far the Republican Party has moved away from a basic element of law enforcement (used often by, among others, the Bush administration's Department of Justice). The suspect, after all, is an American citizen. And in an unexpected moment of dissension, the two lawmakers found themselves on the opposite end of the argument from no less a conservative voice than Beck.

"He is a citizen of the United States, so I say we uphold the laws and the Constitution on citizens," the bombastic Fox News host said to the stunned co-hosts of "Fox and Friends". "If you are a citizen, you obey the law and follow the Constitution. [Shahzad] has all the rights under the Constitution."
Story continues below

"We don't shred the Constitution when it is popular," Beck added. "We do the right thing."

WATCH:

How Beck and McCain could be so far at odds is a reflection of a distinctive debate taking place within the conservative movement and the obvious political gains that the elected GOP sees in attacking the White House on matters of national security. On Tuesday, the firm Resurgent Republic released polling data showing that: "Voters agree that civilian trials are a bad idea by a 56 to 36 percent margin overall, including a 61 to 32 percent margin among Independents and a 76 to 20 percent margin among Republicans (Democrats say civilian trials are a good idea by a 55 to 36 percent margin)."

Likewise, in a speech that was planned before the news of Shahzad's arrest, House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) tore into the president for a "naïve moral relativism in which the United States bears much responsibility for the problems we face around the world."

"America can't win the battle for hearts and minds in the Muslim world by apologizing, and by banning terms like "war on terror" and "radical Islam," the congressman said, according to excerpts provided by his office. "Al Qaeda knows very well that it has a soft underbelly: Our job is to exploit it."

"The problem with the Obama defense and foreign policy philosophy is that it seems to abandon the proven strategy of peace through strength"
Video is in the link.

Yay for Glenn Beck? This restores my hope that he's actual not a crazy right winger and is trolling everyone.

Oh and so this isn't considered a spam thread or anything, do YOU think this dude should get Mirandarized? It seems like a such an obvious question, I know, but there's always those 4 or 5 guys that disagree with the rest of CFC about EVERYTHING(not going to name names :rolleyes:).

Anyways, in case my stance isn't clear, OF COURSE he should get mirandarized. I believe in human rights thanks.
 
:eek:

Exit, stage right!
 
I don't know what's worse--that there are people who think this gentlemen shouldn't be mirandized, or that Glenn Beck thinking he should is newsworthy.
 
The end is nigh! :run:
 
Beck has a fairly good idea about it: if you are a citizen, you are still entitled to all the rights given to Americans under the Constitution and overall law.

The logic seems fair enough, so yes, he should be Mirandized. He is still an American, even if a potentially-traitorous one.

Now this goes back to the scope of legal protection's application: does it apply only within America's borders, or only to American citizens? Or some bizarre mixture of both, or neither?
 
read the Miranda rights, but we should still invade Pakistan
 
:lmao:
This Beck, this Glenn - where does he get such original ideas? :lol:

I just said he had the right idea. Not so much that it was original; by all means, it's not, since there's so many takes on how and where our laws apply. No need to be so condescending with laughter.
 
It seems like what Americans would call a "no brainer" but I guess it is comendable for him to make such comments on the Fascist News Network.
 
It seems like what Americans would call a "no brainer" but I guess it is comendable for him to make such comments on the Fascist News Network.

Considering the right often wants to not give constitutional rights to traitors immediately - never mind "innocent until proven guilty" - it certainly is progressive(in Fox News terms) that he is willing to at least give the guy a chance with a fair trial, just like any ordinary American. Simply because the crime is of international implication doesn't make it any less the same as any other crime, as in it needs to be processed the same way through the legal system.
 
I just said he had the right idea. Not so much that it was original; by all means, it's not, since there's so many takes on how and where our laws apply. No need to be so condescending with laughter.
Don't feel hurt, my level of amusement doesn't always make sense.
But I still can picture a couple of right-wingers who suddenly realize He is right! without supporting this view before. And that is kind of pathetic and definitely funny IMO.
 
Don't feel hurt, my level of amusement doesn't always make sense.
But I still can picture a couple of right-wingers who suddenly realize He is right! without supporting this view before. And that is kind of pathetic and definitely funny IMO.

The majority of people are indeed sheep... regardless of political ideology. ;) Those who are not tend to end up being our leaders. Or at least, the real leaders, leading through inept puppets.

I do look forward to seeing how many people do suddenly change opinions simply because Beck is now a supporter, just to get a general idea of how many sheep are in the right-wing.
 
Considering the right often wants to not give constitutional rights to traitors immediately - never mind "innocent until proven guilty" - it certainly is progressive(in Fox News terms) that he is willing to at least give the guy a chance with a fair trial, just like any ordinary American. Simply because the crime is of international implication doesn't make it any less the same as any other crime, as in it needs to be processed the same way through the legal system.

I agree, mostly because you just reiterated common sense - ie. follow the legal system.

But I don't see why it has international implications. An American attempted to commit a terrorist act in the United States. Where is the external implications in that?
 
Its sad its notable when a prominent person in a whole political side of the spectrum says you should follow the laws that are apparently what are supposed to make American great.

Perhaps Republicans think if terrorists hate our freedom, then if we aren't free terrorists won't target us.
 
I agree, mostly because you just reiterated common sense - ie. follow the legal system.

But I don't see why it has international implications. An American attempted to commit a terrorist act in the United States. Where is the external implications in that?

As somebody from the Islamic world, he is OBVIOUSLY connected to Al-Qaeda or some such. No, he couldn't possibly just be another McVeigh but with a different skin tone.

I wouldn't rule out the possibility he is some agent of a foreign terrorist group, but to AUTOMATICALLY assume he is would be insane. Let the investigation discover whether he's involved with anyone big outside the borders, or if he's just some radical anarchist or some such who just happens to be from an Islamic background.
 
Now this goes back to the scope of legal protection's application: does it apply only within America's borders, or only to American citizens? Or some bizarre mixture of both, or neither?
I think it should apply to every human, no matter where you live.
 
I think it should apply to every human, no matter where you live.

That's fair enough. Though I'd use the UN's documents for human rights, and certainly not any individual nation's documents.

...especially considering saying the Constitution should apply to everyone around the world can be very easily twisted into imperialist objectives.

Whereas the UN, a democracy of the world's nations, gives every nation the right to make international law, and the responsibility to be bound by it.

Using a single nation's document is bad because in the end, the document is only responsible to that single nation, and obviously not the entire world; they don't choose whether to live under it or not. We choose it for them.
 
Back
Top Bottom