Beck on captured Taliban leader: "Shoot him in the head"
February 16, 2010 7:30 am ET
From the February 16 broadcast of Fox News' Fox & Friends:
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.
By the way I think Beck is a bit too giddy repeating "Shot him in the head" Who the hell is he REALLY talking...
Note to Gretchen: I know you are from Minnosota, which is a lovely state, but you are also a former Miss America. I am sure you were given diction lessons.
Gretchen, years has two vowels following y. Years is not pronounced yrs. It is pronounced yEAR, sounds like ear.
Well, at least he wants to torture the guy before he kills him...so much for the Geneva convention.
------------------------------------------------------------
Whichever it it, I must say: You're really GOOD at it!
------------------------------------------------------
IMHO
--OldCon's inner voice.
First of all, how is such rhetoric any different than Beck's? Secondly, are you insinuating that someone may be "stupid" because they think the violent murder of someone they don't agree with may be going too far? The only difference between you and people like Beck and Bolling is your political ideology.
I'm just wondering who are the other 4 or 5 people you would like to have snuffed out in order to have the best things happen for this country.
From what I understand, they are getting very good, very actionable information from him.
No really, it's true, you figured me out.
you ever stop to think that if that actually happened you could be held accountable for it? nah of course you wouldn't you don't think beyond your own hate
There's no reason not to satisfy everyone's wishes. Waterboard him first, exhaust him for intel, and then shoot him in the head.
The fact is, the Taleban were wined and dined in Texas in 1997. The Taleban also offered to hand us Bin Laden provided we gave them PROOF of his complicity in 9/11. Of course, Bush refused that deal, and instead decided to go to war with them.
But the fact that we went to war does not make this man a war criminal, or even a criminal at all. So you and Beck are advocating the execution of someone for no reason other than that it helps satisfy your thirst for blood.
This way, they get everything want:
1. They get to shoot at a Taliban
2. They get actually hold guns and shoot them
3. They can feel tough
4. They can feed their bloodlust
5. And with the blindfolds, whoever's left standing can claim deniablitiy.
Hey Seahawks - we have a guiding document called the constitution - I'd suggest reading it.
Pretty pathetic, although not surprising, that the lemmings here blast Beck for his empty rhetoric, but utter not a peep about BHO's policy of killing U.S. citizens without any regard for the protections guaranteed by our guiding document called the constitution.
Please find where anyone said that policy (a Bush holdover, incidentally) is okay. If (when) you can't, go back under your bridge.
Also, you are calling Beck a "conservative." Not even Beck calls himself a "conservative." If you believe that the swill he serves up everyday is "conservatism," then you, sir, are no conservative. You're just a Fox/hate talk radio groupie. The crap these folks shovel isn't conservatism.
I could careless whether Beck personally characterizes himself as a conservative. I called him a conservative because I assume the folks at mmfa consider him a conservative -- or at least spreading "conservative misinformation". But you're correct, I certainly am no conservative.
And whether BHO is far left liberal/progressive is irrelevant to my point, which is that it's mindless and hollow to heap self-righteous criticism on Beck for his remark when Obama sanctions the killings of U.S. citizens without due process . . .
If Beck is all the things the posters on this thread have called him for his "shoot in the head" comment, then what's that make the Obama administration for carrying out their policy?
I'm a conservative and I consider Beck a self-absorbed, uneducated, unintelligent zoo radio DJ who got a good gig who is making tons of money getting people to believe his completely non-conservative BS.
We've established that the policy isn't Obama's policy, it pre-dated him, and that he has not used it although his predecessor did . . . at least twice, once in 2002 and once in 2008.
Try again and next time try reading.
Secondly, it's called the Constitution. You can't even be bothered to capitalize it. Nor, apparently, to specify which part is being disregarded.
Wanna try again?
Then take a gander at the bill of rights, and perhaps you'll see a few amendments that forbid the gov't from assassinating U.S. citizens. . .
Let's try again, since you totally ignored the main question.
Who has Obama "assassinated"?
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense."
Your text to link here...See also, U.S. Constitution Article III
Do you see anything here which limits the protections to only American citizens?
What I see here is someone deliberately misspelling words.
Most uneducated folks like you are wanting to appear would not use the English spelling for theater.
Thank you four you're serveice to hour country.
When you were in the Air Defence Artillery during the first Gulf War, exactly how many fireing squads were convened?
You're comparing terrorists' treatment of hostages to the United States' treatment of detainees and prisoners. Way to hold America to a higher standard.
But hey, you make a great point. Killing prisoners and detainees without trial has no downsides. I mean, sheesh, it's not as if we'd risk turning the executed into martyrs whose deaths would serve as a far more powerful motivator than any speech in any trial would, right? Right?
Great point. Come to think of it, why do we have trials for murderers in the United States? It's not like trials have anything to do with justice and the rule of law -- they're just big expensive chances to give murderers a soap box to speak from.
So I'm with you, seahawks123: no more trials, no more of that silly big government bureaucracy getting in the way of good ol' fashioned executions. And who could argue with your reasoning: doing away with due process and skipping straight to the shooting will save so much money. Flippin' brilliant.
And what happened to getting information? Do you think it will ooze out of his head thru a bullet hole?
Forrest Gump was right, "Stupid is as Stupid does". Mr. Beck, Mr. Gump was superior to you intelligently without using chalk.
Just asking.
Mel Gibson is a conservative, and even he knows that only bad guys shoot prisoners.
the guy that was the primary basis of gibsons character was a guy named Francis Marion. also known as the Swamp Fox. to the british, this guy was a murder, butcher, rapist, and cannibal. but to south carolinians and most americans the guy is a hero, and what the british accuse him of can't really be proven. now on the other hand americans see banister tarleton as murderous, bloody maniac, who killed women and children and prisoners just for the fun of it. but the british see the guy as a good soldier who simply overreached himself.
I love how its fascist to want healthcare for everyone, but it isn't to torture people.
TR got a black eye because General Nelson Miles released a report written by William Howard Taft detailing atrocities committed by US troops, which included outright murder, dismemberment: of men, women, and children, and what was then called the "water cure" (anyone care to venture a guess as to what that is). all of this done by US soldiers in the Philippines.
The Pakistani civilians are being blown apart by these thugs and these crazed animals should be subjected to Pakistani justice!!
i do love how republicans like to "ACT TOUGH " when they do not have to do any of the fighting...and glen if you want to be in charge all you have to do is run for office... just like all other right wing tough guys he is just going to sith there wave his fist and spout off tough guy talk..like.. ahoot him in the head... dead or alive... and so on...the point being this...is you really are as tough as you wish you were then do not sit on faux and friends and talk big..sign up and go over there and fight...but like rush and hannity and all the reast the love war.... but the want to send other peoples childern to go and fight so they can sit back and tough guys..that never have to put any skin in the game...cowards one and all..the baggers...faux news...rush..the whole right wing media nothing but cowards
This man has absolutely no credential or demonstrated accomplishment to show that he knows jack about anything. His demonstrated ability is doing a "Morning Zoo" radio show aimed at adolescents... and transferring that ability to adult listeners.
I find it very interesting that the Big Three kooky-con conservative hosts all dropped out of college to pursue broadcasting careers... with absolutely NO training on how to think, and they feast off those similarly under-educated.
These people simply were too damn lazy to stick it out for a college degree. Of course, they're in the same boat as nearly three-quarters of all Americans who never accomplish even a college degree... and therefore are devoid of the ability to think that makes Adams, Jefferson, and Madison turning in their graves.
'Course, Beck's followers who post here have bought Beck's line that being educated is bad. Makes one less "common and unsophisticated."
In fact, so much so that Mr. Jefferson created UVa as a secular alternative to the religious schools prevalent to his times. Then he deemed that creation as his single proudest accomplishment.
Mr. Adams strove mightily for such education... and instilled it so much in his son that JQA tried to create a national university. Of course, those of the Limbaugh, Hannity, and Beck mode viewed his ideas with contempt...not having achieved education themselves... and put Andrew Jackson in office to the detriment of this nation's economic health. Took almost a decade to pull out of the Jackson fiasco... similar to what people of their mindset have created today in their 8-years of Bush and G-O-P rule.
Ashame Mr. Beck has such contempt for education... and therefore our Founding Fathers. ;o)
Why doesn't anyone pull the plug on this morroon. He is a disgrace to this great nation.
Our country has to many serious problems and cannot afford to have this idiot getting in the heads of Americans who are to dumb to realize Beck is crazy and that he is only looking for ratings.
Our troops are closer to Bin-Laden and Beck talks about shooting his commander in the head. What is this man smoking?
Because he can say things like this and legally get away with it. Why? Because the First Amendment says that he can do it. He is stating "opinion" and it is protected speech.
Answer: Because the Americans are the Good Guys(tm), so they are incapable of evil-doing, no matter what they do.
America would be so much better off if they just sucked it up and realized that their country is just one of many and that they have no absolute moral high-ground over anyone else.
I wonder if they merandized him?
Second, any George Bush groupie pretending to have a problem with the killing of civilians is just so rich it makes me think you must be a parody troll. (And no, going after civilians is not okay when Obama does it either, but he inherited Afghanistan, as opposed to George Bush, who freely chose to invade Iraq.)
to recite the Miranda warnings to (a person under arrest)
Keep up, OldFake. If you would expand your horizons and actually listen to real news or research the BS you are hearing from Fox/hate talk radio, you might understand that these folks are lying to you.
Oh, and in your first post, you misspelled Mirandize . . . nice try at a save, but it just makes you look stupid.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2010/02/04/assassinations/
For those that don't have the time to read the piece, it refers to the December 2009 Yemeni airstrikes (utilizing Saudi Arabian and U.S. Intelligence information) against al-Qaeda members in Yemen. Purportedly, Anwar al-Awlaki (a Muslim lecturer, former imam and U.S. Citizen. al-Awlaki has evidenced ties to al-Qaeda and is believed to be a recruiter), was believed to be present and killed during the airstrike, but this has not been unconfirmed. The Salon opinion piece ignores the history of terrorist connections and evidence (although, do acnkowledge that he has not been charged, put on trial, etc. - whether this is due to him being in hiding, or lack of substantial evidence, is unclear) to imply that he was solely targetted due to his political thoughts, and thus this was an assault on freedom of speech.
Most of the opinion piece focuses on the implications of how the current administration and any future administration could squash dissent by "stategic targettings" of American citizens. The piece does cite some interesting Constitutional issues regarding the original policy as discussed back during 2006-2007, and should be looked through.
The incident is certainly not reflective of an active policy of the present Administration to "assassinate American citizens without a trial."
Now what was your take on it when Bush started this policy? Or did it suddenly become wrong on Jan. 21st 2009?
Try reading.
Nobody's being obtuse . . . you're just being dishonest. This is NOT a policy of the Obama administration. Obama had opportunity to utilize it recently, and he did specifically did not.
Try reading before making incorrect statements. I know that you probably picked this link up off of another blog site; but, if you had been listening to the news, you would have learned that this was Bush policy and Obama has not utilized it.
This area of assisination is something which the administration should be very clear. Either it's permissible or not. Your obsession with Bush is pathetic. BO can categorically put a halt to this policy whenever he wants. ..
Try taking your head out of your backside for a minute. . .
I have no "obsession" with Bush, I simply stated fact. You are the one who's getting your panties in a wad because you were WRONG. You stated that this was Obama's policy. It is not. He has not utilized it, even when he was recently given an opportunity.
I disagree with the program, but I also disagree with your false characterization that it was Obama's policy.
I would suggest that you try reading and researching the things you read on the internet. I don't care how "exhaustive" Glenn Greenwald's article was.
Carry on, pong.
It is also true that the Obama administration has never utilized this policy, although its continued existence is somewhat troubling.
There are several areas where I take issue with the current administration. This is one of those, along with the continued use of predator drone attacks. This is just another reason why, when the right-wingers attack Obama for his handling of the war on terror, it is so ridiculous and so obviously politically motivated. Obama is continuing the practices of Bush in this area, he's handling the war on terror in essentially the same exact way his predecessor did. It would seem as though if anyone were to be disappointed, it would be liberals.
Umm, what happened to this?
And by the way, you have still yet to tell me who "Obama has assassinated".
It's an unconstitutional policy, which the Obama administration should do away with, which should have NEVER been implemented in the first place. In addition, I disagree with the Obama administrations continued use of predator drones, which allow for the nameless, faceless, unaccountable killing of (alleged) terrorists, but also innocent civilians who get in the way. These, and other examples, are evidence of why it's so utterly ridiculous when these conservative personalities holler that Obama's a "radical leftist". The dude's not even that liberal! Like, at all!
Has this administration ever assasinated an American citizen?
If you read Blair's testimony, you would see that while the CIA has authority to do so WITH PERMISSION, they did NOT have Obama's permission to take out the American cleric who is believed to be the one radicalizing young Muslims from Yemen.
So, try reading more, pong. You might actually learn something.
"YEAH! Let's shoot 'em ALL in the head!"
(paid for by the Beck/Palin 2012 election committee)
Get it straight, bub.
NiceguyEddie: "Glenn Beck getting 'shot in the head' would be one of 5 or 6 the best things that could possibly happen to this country. If this is how he (and his audience) thinks, it would actually save the lives of thousands of U.S. soldiers and innocent civillians the world over."
Wow, what really amazes me about liberals is the super high rating, 13 thumbs up and 0 thumbs down.
I go to this site because it is so crazy ridiculous and what I notice is the "inciting violence" "reporting" Media Matters does on Glenn Beck, Stossel, Hannity, and any other popular conservative.
NiceguyEddie's message is pretty inciteful if you ask me, just look at all of the thumbs up.
I hope this time, Media Matters will post my comment.
Yes! Yes! In the face! In the face!
That comment reminded me of Coming To America, when Eddie Murphy jumped up during halftime! LMAO! Now that was funny!
Becky comment?? Just plain ignorance!
Glenn Beck: "If I was in charge, I'd torture him and torture him and torture him and then shoot him in the head!!!"
Well thankfully you are not in charge Beck and hopefully you never are in charge.
He doesn't realize some heads have brains inside, not just Murdoch colostrum and vicodin.
My guess is that this is one of the guys who refused the carpet of gold, and 'forced' Bush to give them the carpet of bombs instead.