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

Hard for me to take this guy seriously anymore. I mean, he comes off as just an entertainer who may or may not even believe the stuff he says.

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

That video was in no way serious. It was manipulated.

A: They frequently switched the scene to make the appearance of him repeating himself (Continually switching to different times he said "I have a plan," whereas in real life he had a plan.)

B: Misinterpreting what Glenn said about God unveiling his plan, while I am not a Mormon and so cannot religiously agree with Glenn, what he was saying is that God gave him a plan in his heart, not that God literally spoke to him.

C: Rodeo Clown: Glenn jokingly calls himself a rodeo clown, and people harp over it all the time.

There's MUCH MUCH MUCH more, but its clear the guy who made that video is a comedian at best, and at worst a ******** idiot with mental issues.
 
I certainly don't think he needs any help in that regard. :lol:


Link to video.


Link to video.

Making Funny Jokes=Good (And I admit I cracked up.)

Taking said funny joke as evidence that somebody who was made fun of in said joke=Bad

I actually support Glenn Beck, but even if I did not, I would not take the video above and use it as evidence.
 
Honestly, I wouldn't consider terrorists to deserve the rights of a POW. They are terrorists, and should be tried by the military and if guilty executed by firing squad. However, they should still get the chance to prove they are innocent before they are punished, you can't pass judgment before finding guilt.

So, just to get this clear.

The rights that exist to ensure a fair trial should not be extended to terrorists because they are terrorists. They should however get a fair trial to establish if they are terrorists?

The problem with the rights associated with a free trial is that, by definition, they cannot be removed from someone on the basis of what they have done since what they have done has not been established until the completion of the fair trial. Chicken - egg. Terrorist must have the same trial rights as every one else since until the completion of the trial they are not legally terrorists.
 
Let's not forget, The United States operates on the idea that every person going to trial is to be considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

To remove citizenship of someone before even being convicted (and thereby, still considered innocent) would be downright unAmerican, and destroying the ideas set down by the Founding Fathers (rather ironic, don't you think? :mischief:)
 
Why ironic? Even the devil is entitled to a fair trial and all that. Not to mention that this predates the US by some way. Magna Carta and the original Bill of Rights territory.
 
So, just to get this clear.

The rights that exist to ensure a fair trial should not be extended to terrorists because they are terrorists. They should however get a fair trial to establish if they are terrorists?

The problem with the rights associated with a free trial is that, by definition, they cannot be removed from someone on the basis of what they have done since what they have done has not been established until the completion of the fair trial. Chicken - egg. Terrorist must have the same trial rights as every one else since until the completion of the trial they are not legally terrorists.

Let's not forget, The United States operates on the idea that every person going to trial is to be considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

To remove citizenship of someone before even being convicted (and thereby, still considered innocent) would be downright unAmerican, and destroying the ideas set down by the Founding Fathers (rather ironic, don't you think? :mischief:)

I'm not sure what you are referring to Ginand, but I will say that until a terrorist is proven guilty, they are by law innocent. Once they are proven guilty (But not before) I have no problem with them losing their citizenship (And in most cases, their life.)
 
Does that mean you think all suspected terrorists should be read their Miranda rights? And you are opposed to Gitmo, torture to the point of even killing while in captivity, and military tribunals as used by the GWB administration? Or does that just pertain to US citizens who are suspected of committing terrorist acts?


Link to video.

It's quite telling he didn't ask any of these questions when GWB was in office. Don't you think?
 
@Domination

You want terrorists to be tried by the military.

Therefore, by definition, you want terrorists to be denied the due process everyone is entitled to.

The problem with this removal of process and rights for terrorists is that they are not terrorists until they have been found guilty under the system with full rights and due process.

It is therefore logically impossible to remove trial right from a group of criminals, since until the completion of their trial they are not members of that criminal group.

----------

On the same grounds the first serious criminal trial in the UK without a jury in the since well before the existence of the USA happened recently. Gangsters intimidated three juries at a cost of hundreds of millions of pounds. The problem wasnt so much that there was any debate that they were clearly massively guilty of a vast array of crimes including jury tampering but that it was very dodgy to remove their right to a jury trial without a jury trial to convict them of jury tampering.
 
Does that mean you think all suspected terrorists should be read their Miranda rights? And you are opposed to Gitmo, torture & even killing while in captivity, and military tribunals as used by the GWB administration? Or does that just pertain to US citizens who are suspected of committing terrorist acts?


Link to video.

Well, as a general rule, it would apply to US citizens.

If we catch a terrorist in the act, then we should be able to do what we see fit with them. Short of this or an absolute confession, they must be tried.

I am not opposed to Gitmo because these people were already identified as terrorists. But, the US Citizenry who are suspected of terrorism ought to keep the right to a fair trial until proven guilty. Once proven guilty, I favor them being treated as terrorists and not citizens.
 
LOL

They came for the jews to kill them
They came for the banks and car companies to give them 700 Billion dollars.
 
I am not opposed to Gitmo because these people were already identified as terrorists.

Report on Guantanamo Detainees: A Profile of 517 Detainees through Analysis of Department of Defense Data

Mark Denbeaux
Seton Hall University - School of Law

Joshua W. Denbeaux
Denbeaux & Denbeaux


February 2006

Seton Hall Public Law Research Paper No. 46



The media and public fascination with who is detained at Guantanamo and why has been fueled in large measure by the refusal of the Government, on the grounds of national security, to provide much information about the individuals and the charges against them. The information available to date has been anecdotal and erratic, drawn largely from interviews with the few detainees who have been released or from statements or court filings by their attorneys in the pending habeas corpus proceedings that the Government has not declared "classified."

This Report is the first effort to provide a more detailed picture of who the Guantanamo detainees are, how they ended up there, and the purported bases for their enemy combatant designation. The data in this Report is based almost entirely upon the United States Government's own documents. This Report provides a window into the Government's success detaining only those that the President has called "the worst of the worst."

Among the findings of the Report:

1. Fifty-five percent (55%) of the detainees are not determined to have committed any hostile acts against the United States or its coalition allies.

2. Only 8% of the detainees were characterized as al Qaeda fighters. Of the remaining detainees, 40% have no definitive connection with al Qaeda at all and 18% are have no definitive affiliation with either al Qaeda or the Taliban.

3. The Government has detained numerous persons based on mere affiliations with a large number of groups that, in fact, are not on the Department of Homeland Security terrorist watchlist. Moreover, the nexus between such a detainee and such organizations varies considerably. Eight percent are detained because they are deemed "fighters for;" 30% considered "members of;" a large majority - 60% - are detained merely because they are "associated with" a group or groups the Government asserts are terrorist organizations. For 2% of the prisoners, a nexus to any terrorist group is not identified by the Government.

4. Only 5% of the detainees were captured by United States forces. 86% of the detainees were arrested by either Pakistan or the Northern Alliance and turned over to United States custody. This 86% of the detainees captured by Pakistan or the Northern Alliance were handed over to the United States at a time in which the United States offered large bounties for capture of suspected enemies.

5. Finally, the population of persons deemed not to be enemy combatants - mostly Uighers - are in fact accused of more serious allegations than a great many persons still deemed to be enemy combatants.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=885659##
 
This is just beautiful:

The problem with the rights associated with a [fair] trial is that, by definition, they cannot be removed from someone on the basis of what they have done since what they have done has not been established until the completion of the fair trial.

Cleo
 
Back
Top Bottom