Beck: O’Reilly, you will not out neocon me.

Posted by Jason | Posted in Miscellaneous, Video | Posted on 15-05-2010


While catching up on my Google Reader subscriptions, I came across this debate between Glenn Beck, who claims to be a libertarian and Bill O’Reilly, who claims to fight for the little guy, but I think just wants the little guy held at bay by a large police state.

To start O’Reilly says not reading Miranda rights to someone suspected of terrorism should be the law of the land, and it’s for public safety. So, what would be the difference with someone suspected of murder? What if you bust the guy in the act of murder? Do you ignore his Miranda rights for public safety? How do you know he’s not a terrorist? You may find out later he’s a Muslim. Doesn’t that automatically mean he’s a terrorist because he’s a Muslim and committed a murder? Ok, I’m rambling here, but I think you see what I’m getting at. You cannot immediately classify someone as a terrorist, and say they shouldn’t have their Miranda rights. I might have missed it, but I’m pretty sure this guy in New York did not have his “I’m a terrorist” name tag on.

When the debate begins, Beck sounds like he’s heading down the right path, but he quickly veers off into “Citizens, Bill, Citizens”.  So how do you know someone is a citizen at the moment of arrest? Shouldn’t everyone be read their Miranda rights if they are going to be tried? Now, I know this guy was arrested after they knew he was a citizen, but what if he was arrested in the act? How would the police know he’s a citizen? Beck then gives the correct point of, “When does a citizen become guilty. I thought we had to prove that.” Ah, he gets it! We can’t just take the government’s word that someone is guilty and say “to the gallows with this one”. The government must prove someone is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, or you might as well not have a constitution protecting your liberty, because you have none.

After O’Reilly starts challenging Beck though, it quickly seems like Beck is looking for an out. He’s not going to be out neocon’d by this clown O’Reilly.  How does he hedge it? He says “We’re treating this like a police action”, so until Obama starts treating it like a war, which apparently he has no problem with, he thinks we must read Miranda rights and uphold the Constitution. I guess if Obama changes it back to The War on Terror, Glenn is game for taking liberties and trashing the Constitution. Even when O’Reilly brings up Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus, Beck says until Obama declares war, don’t talk to me. What? O’Reilly is fine with suspending habeas corpus now, and Beck is OK with it when Obama declares war? Lincoln also declared total war on his fellow citizens. He burnt entire towns to the ground, and did things that horrified the rest of the world. Is this supposed to be our example of how to treat citizens when it comes to terrorism? Of course Beck, who seems completely inconsistent, falls by the way side.

Finally, Beck goes on to describe what these powers could be used for ultimately, which is against the American people when they finally tell the government “Your time is up.” O’Reilly quickly poo-poos him, and instead of Beck arguing his point, he just starts laughing and giving O’Reilly verbal nuggies. What could have been a great debate was thus lost by neocon status envy. Maybe O’Reilly will have on someone who really cares about the Constitution one day, like the Judge. I doubt it though. That would be the shortest segment in O’Reilly history.

Hot Air » It’s on: Beck vs. O’Reilly over Miranda rights.

VN:F [1.9.21_1169]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Comments (3)

Excellent post.

I want to like Beck, I really do. At times he is extremely smart and shows amazing intellect and insight. At other times I want to strangle the guy because he starts acting like Howard Stern – a shock jock who’ll say anything simply to get a rise out of both his fans and his critics.

If you are arrested by police during the act, I believe law enforcement must read you your Miranda rights. If you are later found not be here legally, this is where I think it gets murky for most people.

Me personally, if you commit a crime and it turns out you’re here illegally, I’m unsure as to why you should be granted the same rights as people who are legal residents. NYC bomber – Miranda rights and trial by jury. For KSM, who never even stepped foot on this country’s soil, I don’t see how you give him a trial by jury in this country, especially since they aren’t really his peers.

What do you think?

VA:F [1.9.21_1169]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

John, I know the feeling. I used to love Beck’s show. Ever since he setup Debra Medina, I’ve lost complete respect for him. Also, I think he can be smart on his show, but based on this debate when someone is challenging him, it seems like his intellect falls apart. O’Reilly is just useless. He has no concern for liberty or the Constitution. He reminds you of a tyrant just willy nilly making up laws as he goes.

Also, agree on not being her legally and it getting murky, but the Constitution says “No persons”. It does not say citizens.

Lastly, this is all a moot point, when you think that we are creating terrorists with our foreign policy. We should never take the gov’t's words about who is a citizen and who is a terrorist.

Here’s a great article on the topic.

VN:F [1.9.21_1169]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

O’Reilly is a fool. He claims to be right down the middle, and maybe he is, but all that makes him look like to me is wishy-washy; someone who is simply trying to please everyone (which I guess is working since he’s got great ratings).

We don’t know that someone is or isn’t a terrorist until they’ve faced a trial. You’ve convinced me on that. The problem for a guy like KSM for example, is that he’s never been here (from what’s been made known publicly), so can he ever be given a fair trial? He’s been publicly branded a terrorist and would not be tried a jury of his peers.

I know it’s all moot because our foreign policies and our desire to be the modern Roman Empire (of which we will suffer the same fate) is causing us more harm than the good we claim to be doing. *We* are responsible for a generation of haters of America because *we* want to be in everyone’s business. For a country that claims we are against countries who oppress its people, we’re certainly guilty of a lot of oppression.

That article you mentioned had the scenario straight out of the movie Rendition, which was a very good movie, btw.

VA:F [1.9.21_1169]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

Write a comment