helping terrorists

[briannell]

Those Who Help the Terrorists...

Tuesday, July 26, 2005

By Bill O'Reilly



Those who help the terrorists, that is the subject of this evening's "Talking Points Memo".

As you may know, “The Factor” is holding every governor in the country accountable for passing tough new laws against child sex offenders. Alabama, for example, is in the process of doing that right now. And we applaud the action.

But those governors who do not move against child sex abusers will be noted on this broadcast. The clock is running.

In addition, we have decided to spotlight just who's helping the terrorists, which countries and individuals are aiding these vicious killers. As always, we'll back up our analysis with facts and give our targets the opportunity to respond if they want to. We realize the seriousness of the situation.

Now there's no question that worldwide terror exists because people help these savages. Some actively, some passively, but help is help.

Target number one, the USA is the ACLU, which is demanding that accused foreign terrorists be afforded Geneva Convention protections and trials in criminal court. The Geneva Convention is quite clear in stating that captured individuals wearing no uniforms and those who attack civilians are not entitled to Geneva protections. The ACLU doesn't seem to care about that.

The Constitution makes no mention of any legal rights for foreigners captured overseas. Again, the ACLU doesn't care. The ACLU is also demanding that more pictures of the abuse at Abu Ghraib be released. The Defense Department is fighting that. Everybody knows those pictures incite violence against Americans. So why should more of them be fed to the press? We already know what happened at Abu Ghraib. And people are going to prison because of it.

Clearly, more pictures of Abu Ghraib (search) help the terrorists, as do Geneva Convention protections and civilian lawyers. So there's no question the ACLU and the judges who side with them are terror allies.

But what about a guy like "New York Times" columnist Bob Herbert? His thesis is that worldwide terrorism is being exacerbated by the Iraq War. And Herbert's opinion is held by many people who are blaming the current wave of terror killings on President Bush and Prime Minister Blair.

Are Herbert and others helping the terrorists by misdirecting, in my opinion, the motive for terrorism? "Talking Points" will not condemn Herbert for that opinion. I think it's wrong, but not intentionally aiding the killers.

However, you will not see Herbert and his ilk condemn the ACLU for inciting terror with this Abu Ghraib deal. And that is out of the park hypocritical. Any picture of accusation of an American abusing a Muslim is a terror recruiting tool. Hello, Newsweek, oran controversy.

So Bob Herbert is most likely helping the terrorists, but his hatred of Mr. Bush blinds him to that. He's not alone, but this kind of stuff has got to stop. We're now fighting for our lives. And those helping the enemy will be brought to your attention. And that's "The Memo."

The Most Ridiculous Item of the Day

And time now for "The Most Ridiculous Item of the Day." — It's beyond ridiculous.

The media in this country has largely sat out the child sexual offender issue, as you know. Newspapers like The Houston Chronicle and The St. Petersburg Times actually oppose some tough, proactive policies to deal with offenders who molest children and those who help them.

But I was very happy to se the New York Daily News columnist Denis Hamill blast politicians and others who will not confront these sick criminal. Hamill consistently looks out for the folks, and I'm happy he's on our side in this crusade, because few others in the media are.

And that is ridiculous in the extreme.

And finally tonight, he mail, but first, results of our billoreilly.com poll. Do you care what happens to Karl Rove? Almost 30,000 of you voted. Sixty percent say they do care what happens to old Karl. And 40 percent do not care one bit.

Here's our new billoreilly.com poll question. Do you think the American media is fair when covering terrorism? Do you think the American media is fair when covering terrorism? Yes or no. All right? Give you the results later on in the week.

—You can watch Bill O'Reilly's "Talking Points Memo" and "Most Ridiculous Item" weeknights at 8 and 11 p.m. ET on the FOX News Channel. Send your comments to: oreilly@foxnews.com

SEARCH

[SonomaCat]

Well, given the number of self-described libertarians on this board, I suspect that Bill's opinions as to the suspension of due process for anyone arbitrarily declared to be a terrorist by our government (which never makes mistakes) don't carry much weight with this crowd.

That gosh darn ACLU -- fighting for the protection of civil liberties regardless if they agree with the people's political views or not. Evil, pure evil, I tell ya.

[mquast53000]

Nothing like trying to protect the rights of those that are trying to kill our citizens and soldiers in a cowardly fashion (terrorism).

[SonomaCat]

Nothing like trying to protect the rights of those that are trying to kill our citizens and soldiers in a cowardly fashion (terrorism).

If we had a good method of knowing with 100% certainty who was a terrorist and who wasn't, then we could just execute them on the spot without any worries. That would make the whole war on terror very simple.

Absent that, it's probably not a bad idea to at least have a process in place to make sure that we aren't out torturing innocent people. We'd expect the same from any country that held a U.S. citizen accused of a heinous crime. The ACLU isn't asking them to release these guys or anthing -- just to follow a framework of law to make sure that abuses don't happen (especially since our track record on abuses of innocent people isn't that great right now, this is particularly important).

I mostly just get a kick out of the ACLU bashing by the right. Most people don't even know what the ACLU does, and everybody would appreciate what they do if they did. The only problem the ACLU has is that it is too consistent -- it stands for civil liberties consistently in all cases, even if it doesn't agree with the plaintiff on a personal level. It's ironic that it is villified by the right (who often see civil liberties in a very pragmatic sense -- great if it favors them, bad if it is for somebody they want to control) for being consistent across the political spectrum in terms of its views of our constitutional rights.

[Ponycat]

The ACLU lost all credability when the chose to defend NAMBLA. Period. End of discussion.

[SonomaCat]

The ACLU lost all credability when the chose to defend NAMBLA. Period. End of discussion.

Not really. Freedom of Speech is Freedom of Speech, no matter how vile. The ACLU has also defended racists and other creeps, all within the virtues of being consistent. If one case is decided where Freedom of Speech is violated based on the content of the speech that offends certain/most/all people, then that same precedent can be used in the future to curtail your free speech because somebody else considers it offensive.

Like I said, the ACLU's biggest strength/flaw is that they are consistent -- they defend the underlying rights as opposed to changing their arguments based on the client. Unfortunately for them, where the very nature of these rights is tested the most is by these extreme cases that nobody else will take.

Just like everybody else, I don't agree with the position they take on every case (because, like everyone else, I have a bias against people and groups that offend my personal sensibilities). However, I am glad that they are around to keep the system honest and force our court system to rule by law as opposed to by personal preference.

[Ponycat]

It's not protected speech when it is facilitating a crime.

[Ponycat]

It is my understanding that they were fighting for make any information gathered by law enforcement agents from the NAMBLA web site inadmissable in court. That isn't really a free speech issue.

[SonomaCat]

It's not protected speech when it is facilitating a crime.

That's the question that had to be answered, and not one that should simply defaulted due to the creepiness of the organization. You let that fall without a fight, and then suddenly every time a person reads a Stephen King book and then later kills somebody, Stephen King is liable for his speech in his book. Or anytime a Christian preacher speaks of the sins of abortion, and then one of his clergy assaults an abortion doctor, the church is liable for the assault.

These are important questions to answer, and we can't let the precedents be influenced based on the creepiness of the defendent -- they must be decided based on the law itself. Without somebody defending the creeps rights, the law would end up moving into an area that would have serious negative impacts on all of us.

[SonomaCat]

It is my understanding that they were fighting for make any information gathered by law enforcement agents from the NAMBLA web site inadmissable in court. That isn't really a free speech issue.

I don't really know that much about the legal manueverings of the case (nor do I really want to -- it doesn't sound like a pleasant case to read about), so I'm just keeping my points based on the 10,000 foot perspective. This is a blurb that I found from an ACLU guy that suggests that they saw it as a First Amendment thing:

As ACLU of Massachusetts Legal Director John Reinstein sees it: "Regardless of whether people agree with or abhor NAMBLA's views, holding the organization responsible for crimes committed by others who read their materials would gravely endanger important First Amendment freedoms."

I do admire that they are willing to take on the cases that they know will get them ripped viciously in the press. It would be much easier (and probably much better for their fundraising) if they only took cases that were popular with at least a decent portion of the population as opposed to cases that nobody can sympathize with. But like I said, the places where most civil liberties are going to be tested the most are these extreme cases where our natural instincts are to toss out civil liberties in favor of our personal views of justice. We just have to remember that the law is supposed to be blind, so if we toss out civil liberties for somebody else, they might not be there when we, in turn, need them.

[Ponycat]

NAMBLA specifically tells there members how to commit a crime, and not get caught. If they were just protecting free speech that would be one thing but seems different to me.


BAC, just a question, because I don't know. Did the ACLU defend people when they would be red-flagged for buying books such as the Turner Diaries? The cases seem similar to me but not sure if the ACLU took a stand on this or not.

[Ponycat]

Well, given the number of self-described libertarians on this board, I suspect that Bill's opinions as to the suspension of due process for anyone arbitrarily declared to be a terrorist by our government (which never makes mistakes) don't carry much weight with this crowd.

Battle field combatants and FORIEGN terrorists, are a little different than suspected terrorists in the U.S., IMO, which is what Bill was refering to.

Those suspected of being terrorist in the U.S are afforded those rights, minus what the Patriot Act takes away. (I'm not a fan of the patriot act BTW)

[briannell]

BAC - NAMBLA the whole legalize sex with kids - it is not freedom of speech- it's sick and vile and NO group should protect these pedophiles. don't get me started about ACLU involvement. But, I've told you in a PM why i feel this way, so i'll drop it on the board.

however, I'm with Ponycat on this one.

-rebecca

-Brad - I like Bill, you gonna shoot me?

['93HonoluluCat]

That gosh darn ACLU -- fighting for the protection of civil liberties regardless if they agree with the people's political views or not. Evil, pure evil, I tell ya.

Definitely off topic, but if BAC is right, why, then, does the ACLU not pick up the cases of discrimination against Christians? Do Christians and other conservative causes not need protection of their civil liberties?

[SonomaCat]

NAMBLA specifically tells there members how to commit a crime, and not get caught. If they were just protecting free speech that would be one thing but seems different to me.


BAC, just a question, because I don't know. Did the ACLU defend people when they would be red-flagged for buying books such as the Turner Diaries? The cases seem similar to me but not sure if the ACLU took a stand on this or not.

The case has to be defended so that a strong legal line can be drawn that will determine at what point it is free speech and at what point a law is broken. Even if they lose the case, they are strengthening the law by trying the case to the fullest extent of the merits of the case.

I'm not sure if they did anything with the Turner Diaries, although that would be a very similar fact pattern to the NAMBLA case. I do know they have done some cases involving hate speech in which they supported the racists (although I'm sure they were gritting their teeth as they did it, just as they probably were with the NAMLA thing).

[SonomaCat]

That gosh darn ACLU -- fighting for the protection of civil liberties regardless if they agree with the people's political views or not. Evil, pure evil, I tell ya.

Definitely off topic, but if BAC is right, why, then, does the ACLU not pick up the cases of discrimination against Christians? Do Christians and other conservative causes not need protection of their civil liberties?

Find me a legitimate case where Christians civil liberties are being violated, and then we'll discuss the question.

The racists and homophobes they have defended are very, very conservative ... so the theory that the don't represent the protection of civil liberties in the case of conservatives is way out the window.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/con12.htm

[SonomaCat]

BAC - NAMBLA the whole legalize sex with kids - it is not freedom of speech- it's sick and vile and NO group should protect these pedophiles. don't get me started about ACLU involvement. But, I've told you in a PM why i feel this way, so i'll drop it on the board.

however, I'm with Ponycat on this one.

-rebecca

-Brad - I like Bill, you gonna shoot me?

We just have to be consistent, that's all ... even if we can't stand what they are saying. When a crime is commited, though, the gloves come off in a big way.

I probably wouldn't shoot you for liking Bill -- that's not my style ... it's more like Bill acts like we should shoot anyone who doesn't agree with him. That's just his schtick (sp?).

[SonomaCat]

Well, given the number of self-described libertarians on this board, I suspect that Bill's opinions as to the suspension of due process for anyone arbitrarily declared to be a terrorist by our government (which never makes mistakes) don't carry much weight with this crowd.

Battle field combatants and FORIEGN terrorists, are a little different than suspected terrorists in the U.S., IMO, which is what Bill was refering to.

Those suspected of being terrorist in the U.S are afforded those rights, minus what the Patriot Act takes away. (I'm not a fan of the patriot act BTW)

The foreign guys are classified differently, but it is a little scary that we seem to take the position that we can pick up anyone we want from around the world and then lock them up indefinitely without any kind of due process or formal charges. I think that is a legitimate concern, and one that we would all definitely sympathize with if the roles were reversed (and another country was locking up our people without any evidence of wrong doing).

I totally agree with what I assume everybody feels in that we should be rounding these guys up and getting the information we can from them, but we also have to balance that out against abusing that power and becoming the bad guys. Some checks are necessary to keep that from happening, especially given our previous PR nightmares. Coming off looking like the arrogant oppressors of innocent Muslims is not a good way to reduce the number of terrorists worldwide, as we have already seen.

I guess I should note that, on a personal level, I really don't care what bad, bad things we do to people that we capture and label as terrorists. As long as there is a decent link to show that they are terrorists, I personally hope we do every evil thing we can think of to them to get information and prevent any future attacks. That's me talking...

But on a legal high-road level, I respect the ACLU's approach. Somebody has to be looking out for protections against abuse of our power, because I'm not personally going to do anything in that regard, and neither are the most of the rest of us. Somebody has to be thinking on a high-minded level to watch out for those of us who are driven by emotion as opposed to true justice.

[Hell's Bells]

It is my understanding that they were fighting for make any information gathered by law enforcement agents from the NAMBLA web site inadmissable in court. That isn't really a free speech issue.

I don't really know that much about the legal manueverings of the case (nor do I really want to -- it doesn't sound like a pleasant case to read about), so I'm just keeping my points based on the 10,000 foot perspective. This is a blurb that I found from an ACLU guy that suggests that they saw it as a First Amendment thing:

As ACLU of Massachusetts Legal Director John Reinstein sees it: "Regardless of whether people agree with or abhor NAMBLA's views, holding the organization responsible for crimes committed by others who read their materials would gravely endanger important First Amendment freedoms."

I do admire that they are willing to take on the cases that they know will get them ripped viciously in the press. It would be much easier (and probably much better for their fundraising) if they only took cases that were popular with at least a decent portion of the population as opposed to cases that nobody can sympathize with. But like I said, the places where most civil liberties are going to be tested the most are these extreme cases where our natural instincts are to toss out civil liberties in favor of our personal views of justice. We just have to remember that the law is supposed to be blind, so if we toss out civil liberties for somebody else, they might not be there when we, in turn, need them.

one item is missing though...nambla is a organization that advocates people breaking the law and getting away with it, think of it as a mafia of sorts. the end result of their "freedom of speach" is potentially the harm of little kids by sick perverts. in one of your examples you stated that if a preacher gave a anti-abortion speach and one of his clergy went onto bomb an abortion clinic, if that happened yes i would be a fan of placing that preacher under arrest, but only if his homely went as far as to advocate bombing of clinics, and how to get away with it...or somthing along those lines. Free speach has its limits.

[SonomaCat]

It is my understanding that they were fighting for make any information gathered by law enforcement agents from the NAMBLA web site inadmissable in court. That isn't really a free speech issue.

I don't really know that much about the legal manueverings of the case (nor do I really want to -- it doesn't sound like a pleasant case to read about), so I'm just keeping my points based on the 10,000 foot perspective. This is a blurb that I found from an ACLU guy that suggests that they saw it as a First Amendment thing:

As ACLU of Massachusetts Legal Director John Reinstein sees it: "Regardless of whether people agree with or abhor NAMBLA's views, holding the organization responsible for crimes committed by others who read their materials would gravely endanger important First Amendment freedoms."

I do admire that they are willing to take on the cases that they know will get them ripped viciously in the press. It would be much easier (and probably much better for their fundraising) if they only took cases that were popular with at least a decent portion of the population as opposed to cases that nobody can sympathize with. But like I said, the places where most civil liberties are going to be tested the most are these extreme cases where our natural instincts are to toss out civil liberties in favor of our personal views of justice. We just have to remember that the law is supposed to be blind, so if we toss out civil liberties for somebody else, they might not be there when we, in turn, need them.

one item is missing though...nambla is a organization that advocates people breaking the law and getting away with it, think of it as a mafia of sorts. the end result of their "freedom of speach" is potentially the harm of little kids by sick perverts. in one of your examples you stated that if a preacher gave a anti-abortion speach and one of his clergy went onto bomb an abortion clinic, if that happened yes i would be a fan of placing that preacher under arrest, but only if his homely went as far as to advocate bombing of clinics, and how to get away with it...or somthing along those lines. Free speach has its limits.

Agreed. But people must be defended to make sure that an adequately high threshhold for guilt is held. If nobody defends these cases to the full extent of the law, then the legal test of what is legal or not may be moved in the wrong direction.

There is a big difference between defending a client and supporting a client's actions or views. That's what many people fail to understand.