About us Login Get email updates
Quick Clip
Print

Discussing trials of 9-11 terrorist suspects, Limbaugh says, "Senator Durbin sides with these guys"

November 13, 2009 2:26 pm ET

From the November 13 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED
Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by wolf kotenberg (November 13, 2009 2:38 pm ET)
      8  
      Accusing an US electe official without merit or proof ? And getting paid $30 mil or so ?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by internet soldier (November 13, 2009 2:41 pm ET)
      6  
      Apparantly, in rush's mind siding with American principles and common decency is "siding with the terrorists". Who needs foreign enemies when we have people in our country who so desparately want America to betray its principles and to behave like 19th century Russia?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by pilotshark (November 13, 2009 3:00 pm ET)
      4 1
      OK rushbuttboil answer me this>>>>

      just what has Durbin done that sides with the terrorist?
      could you at lease expand on your biting statements?

      could you also answer this question

      just how old do you like your boys?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by hurricaneyankee52983 (November 14, 2009 8:08 pm ET)
        3  
        PILOTSHARK, Dont' hold your breath waiting for the coward to answer your questions, He never comes out from that protected bubble he lives in. He is a pathetic jerk.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by mjh (November 13, 2009 3:06 pm ET)
      4 1
      Discussing trials of 9-11 terrorist suspects, Limbaugh says, "Senator Durbin sides with these guys"



      Well -- it's good to know that Limpballs is apparently as adept at reading Durbin's mind as he is at reading Obama's . . .
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Handyman (November 13, 2009 3:10 pm ET)
      6 1
      I am detecting a sense of desperation in Rush's Ramblings from the Outhouse. His "Little Shop of Horrors" is beginning to collapse around him.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by liberalXtian (November 13, 2009 3:24 pm ET)
      8  
      I truly believe that these lovers of the Constitution would love to immediately execute these men without a trial.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by IRONY 101 (November 13, 2009 3:50 pm ET)
        2  
        Bingo...!
        Report Abuse
      • Author by pointofview (November 13, 2009 3:56 pm ET)
        1 5
        These men are not entitled to a trial, nor are they entitled to the protections of the United States Constitution. That is the point the radical left cannot seem to grasp.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by historygeek001 (November 13, 2009 4:14 pm ET)
          4 1
          No, POV, it is you that do not grasp the concept. The United States has laws and they apply to everybody within our borders. You and all those who believe otherwise fail to understand that we do not live in a dictatorship where the laws are essentially the whims of those in power. Once again, you show your disgust for the United States, our laws, our traditions, and our Constitution. You are worthy only of contempt.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by pointofview (November 13, 2009 4:35 pm ET)
            1 4
            Sorry, but you are simply wrong. The constitution provides NO protection for foreign born terrorists. They should be tried in a military tribunal, like we have been doing since Lincoln was president. You may be a geek, but you sure dont know your history.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by historygeek001 (November 13, 2009 4:55 pm ET)
              2 1
              Actually, I do. You don't understand that laws apply to everybody. By your logic ("The Constitition protects people born in this country. Period.") no foreigners or foreign-born citizens are protected by United States laws and we would be free to shoot anybody born elsewhere without fear of reprisal. For that matter, your absolutely insane and nonsensical position means that U.S. citizens who were not born here, including every single person who has immigrated to this country and every single child of U.S. citizens that happened to be born abroad, would not be protected by the Constitution. Once again, your ranting makes no legal sense and is directly contradicted by a basic examination of our history. The best possible thing that can be said about you is that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by pointofview (November 13, 2009 5:00 pm ET)
                  3
                Apparently you have reading problems as well. I said, and was correct in saying, that the constitution does not protect foreign born terrorists. Of course there are ways to become a citizen, and once you are a citizen, you are protected by the constitution. That however does not change the point that these men are not entitled to trials in American courts, nor are they eligible to receive the rights of citizens. Period.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by historygeek001 (November 13, 2009 5:07 pm ET)
                  2  
                  I never said that terrorists were eligible for the rights of citizenship. I did read what you wrote; in fact, I quoted you. You said below, and I quote AGAIN, "The Constitution protects people born in this country. Period." If you meant something else, fine -- but that's what you said. But your grasp of legal theory is still below rudimentary understanding, your understanding of history is sadly lacking, and your self-righteousness is absurd. You're dishonest, abysmally ignorant, or both.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by pointofview (November 13, 2009 5:15 pm ET)
                      3
                    My comment about being born in this country was in response to jjamela...who said h/she did not want to accept that the constitution did protect those who were not born here. It does not, unless one becomes a citizen or has a parent as a citizen. You have taken that comment out of context...and you know it....to try to provide rights to people who are not entitled to them.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by historygeek001 (November 13, 2009 5:32 pm ET)
                      2  
                      Your comment is indefensible in any context. Your claims about who may or may not be subject US laws are absurd to the point of parody. I would feel sorry for you if your deliberate ignorance was not so transparent, ridiculous, and disgusting.
                      Report Abuse
                    • Author by internet soldier (November 13, 2009 5:33 pm ET)
                      1  
                      No, the constitution does not protect non-Americans, but the geneva conventions do. Do you believe nations can hod prisoners from other countries as long as they without trial? If you do, you should know that you are well the moral norms of the last two centuries.........
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by internet soldier (November 13, 2009 5:41 pm ET)
                        1  
                        The last sentence should read;

                        If you do, you should know that you are well outside the moral norms of the last two centuries.........
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by pointofview (November 13, 2009 5:54 pm ET)
                            4
                          Do you believe nations can hod prisoners from other countries as long as they without trial?


                          In short, Yes
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by internet soldier (November 13, 2009 6:43 pm ET)
                            3  
                            Thank you, sir. It's good to know that you fully defend Nazi Germany's right to round citizens up all over Europe and simply hold them indefinately, the Russian labor camps (at least when it comes to foreigners) and the Otomman capturing of Janissaries.

                            I'm just curious though, do you think nations should follow any rules at all? Is there such a thing as war crimes? Because if you've already gone so far as to defend some of the worst atrocities ever committed, what's the point?
                            Report Abuse
                      • Author by mescal (November 15, 2009 3:37 am ET)
                        1  
                        In truth, the Constitution refers to persons, not citizens.

                        It applies to all.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by John Paradox (November 15, 2009 8:43 am ET)
                          1  
                          Doing a quick search in an online copy, Citizen is used for:
                          determining who can be a Representative (federal)
                          who can be a Senator (ditto)
                          who can be President
                          Report Abuse
            • Author by liberalXtian (November 13, 2009 5:26 pm ET)
              2  
              So a non-citizen robs a bank, he has to go to a military tribunal?
              Report Abuse
        • Author by jjamele2880 (November 13, 2009 4:15 pm ET)
          2  
          I don't want to "grasp" the "point" that certain suspects are not entitled to the rights the founders placed in the Constitution, simply because they didn't happen to be born in the United States. Take your frightened, fascist rants elsewhere, please.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by pointofview (November 13, 2009 4:36 pm ET)
              4
            I could really care less what you want to grasp. The Constitution protects people born in this country. Period. It is not fascist to state the facts.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by historygeek001 (November 13, 2009 5:00 pm ET)
              2  
              You are completely wrong. Again. Epic fail. As I said above, the best possible thing that can be said about you is that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by pointofview (November 13, 2009 5:08 pm ET)
                  3
                The only epic fail here is your attempt to convince people that terrorists born in other countries, who attack and kill Americans, are entitled to the rights and protections of the American Justice system. Please show me where in the constitution it states this.....oh thats right....YOU CANT!
                Report Abuse
                • Author by internet soldier (November 13, 2009 5:44 pm ET)
                  2  
                  Do you think no laws should be applied to the behavior of nations? Do you think it's ok for a country to imprison foreigners for as long as they want without trial?
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by jjamele2880 (November 13, 2009 7:10 pm ET)
                  2  
                  Sooo.....if a person not born in the United States comes here and kills an American, where does he stand trial? OH THATS RIGHT, he stands trial in a US COURT with ALL THE RIGHTS AND PROTECTIONS of the American Justice system.

                  You are beyond misinformed. At your level, its just called rank stupid.

                  Just because you hate people, that doesn't deprive those you hate of their rights. Thank God, because my bet is, your hate is close to infinite.
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by jjamele2880 (November 13, 2009 7:10 pm ET)
                  1  
                  Sooo.....if a person not born in the United States comes here and kills an American, where does he stand trial? OH THATS RIGHT, he stands trial in a US COURT with ALL THE RIGHTS AND PROTECTIONS of the American Justice system.

                  You are beyond misinformed. At your level, its just called rank stupid.

                  Just because you hate people, that doesn't deprive those you hate of their rights. Thank God, because my bet is, your hate is close to infinite.
                  Report Abuse
            • Author by John Paradox (November 14, 2009 4:53 pm ET)
              2  
              Amendment V

              No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

              Okay, where's the limit to: people born in this country. Period.
              Report Abuse
          • Author by WhatImlost (November 13, 2009 5:57 pm ET)
            1  
            we dont try non citizens what about the the terrorists behind the 93 trade center bombing?

            Or say for example our long history of trying native americans in US courts even if they were memebers of tribes living outside the jurisdiction of the US? (granted those trials werent exactly fair but still)

            And you know Lincoln might not be the best choice to hide behind as an example as much of what he did was unconsistutional...for example arresting confederate sympathizers without cause in the state of maryland included elected members of the legislator who had committed no crimes to ensure Maryland wouldnt vote to leave the union
            And that doesnt even begin to cover his suspension of habius corpus ect

            I might suggest reading about the alien and sedtion acts of 1798 especally the part about the legallity of denying the rights of trial to an illegal alien (specifically the alien friends act) and then read about why the act was found to be unconsistutional by pretty much everybody alive at the time (which would be 98% of the founding fathers including Jefferson and Madison) and you know learn alitte about the scope of the right to fair trial that the founders intended

            you also might want to take note of the 5th 6th 7th and 8th amendments (those 4 all having to due with the right to due process in front of a court) and note specifically the fact that the 4 amendments NEVER use the word CITIZEN they instead use the word PERSONS....so citizen ship is not a requirment

            Also might want to read the 14th amendment which extended the protections in the bill of rights to protect people against the state governments voilating the Bill of Rights as well as the National Government...and once again they make no reference to someone needed to be a Citizen to have those protections....



            be nice if every so often one of you conservation consistutionalists actually read the thing first...
            Report Abuse
            • Author by jjamele2880 (November 13, 2009 7:11 pm ET)
              3  
              Why bother? Pointofview is too busy putting his fingers in his ears and chanting "I cant hear you I cant hear you they don't have rights just put a bullet in their brain."
              Report Abuse
        • Author by liberalXtian (November 13, 2009 5:25 pm ET)
          3  
          What the right cannot grasp is that our rights are meaningless unless we apply them to all people!
          Report Abuse
        • Author by internet soldier (November 13, 2009 5:29 pm ET)
          2  
          How about the geneva conventions? Do we still care about them?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by pointofview (November 13, 2009 5:55 pm ET)
              3
            Do we or should we? Does it matter?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by internet soldier (November 13, 2009 6:45 pm ET)
              1  
              I think you answered my question......
              Report Abuse
            • Author by hurricaneyankee52983 (November 14, 2009 8:20 pm ET)
              2  
              POV,to put it quite simply from observing your posts here i have toconclude that you are a FAR RIGHT WING IDIOT that does not know what he's talking about.
              Report Abuse
    • Author by dnbrn (November 13, 2009 3:34 pm ET)
         
      when I served on juries, I belonged to different socioecobiologic groups and was of different educational levels and had different religious beliefs from both the prosecutor and the defendent. Rush needs to listen to how stupid he sounds. Peers does not mean identical backgrounds, ethnicity or religion....at least to me. I wonder what his definition of peer is?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by DAWUSS (November 13, 2009 3:41 pm ET)
      1  
      OMG - he said "Keith Olbermann" -- I thought people like Limbaugh say "MSNBC" instead of "Keith Olbermann"
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Sharpe (November 13, 2009 5:31 pm ET)
      2  
      If it squawks like a duck, walks like a duck and rants like a lunatic, it must be Rush Limbaugh
      Report Abuse