About us Login Get email updates
Quick Clip
Print

On would-be civilian KSM trials, O'Reilly charges that AG Holder "thinks America's on trial"

March 05, 2010 8:33 pm ET

From the March 5 broadcast of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:

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 Bongo Fury (March 05, 2010 8:52 pm ET)
         
      Shut up Bill and take journalism classes.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by the Grey Path (March 06, 2010 12:52 am ET)
        5  
        He's right ... America is on trial.

        Can we act on our values?

        America is strongest when acting on our superior values. Too bad Bush and his buddies couldn't understand that.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by richardsimones (March 06, 2010 1:17 pm ET)
             
          I would argue that values has little to do with civilian trial/tribunal. The problem with a civilian trial is that it is incompatable with a war/martial situation.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by internet soldier (March 07, 2010 11:22 am ET)
            1  
            Can you envision a situation in which our "war" against an adjective would be over?
            Report Abuse
    • Author by juliajayne1 (March 05, 2010 8:56 pm ET)
      6  
      Is there a bigger whiny ass titty baby than O'Reilly? ;-0)

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Bongo Fury (March 05, 2010 9:07 pm ET)
        6  
        Hannity.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by richardsimones (March 06, 2010 1:19 pm ET)
          2  
          You won't be expecting this from me, but... GLENN BECK!
          Report Abuse
      • Author by richardsimones (March 06, 2010 1:51 pm ET)
          1
        You debate with a lot of substance.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Bongo Fury (March 06, 2010 2:31 pm ET)
             
          Don't get yout IZOD polo in a ruffle.I'd debate you,but what I've seen and done in my life,would make it unfair.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by richardsimones (March 06, 2010 4:43 pm ET)
               
            What's IZOD?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Quicksilver M.S (March 06, 2010 10:04 pm ET)
                 
              richardsimones :
              What's IZOD?
              richardsimones , you must be very young not knowing "What's IZOD?"
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Bongo Fury (March 06, 2010 11:06 pm ET)
                   
                He is Quick.He's a person in college that belongs to some Republican club and take polysci.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by richardsimones (March 06, 2010 11:49 pm ET)
                   
                Me not knowing of a clothing brand totally discredits and invalidates everything I've ever said. Good call brah.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Bongo Fury (March 07, 2010 12:28 am ET)
                     
                  You spelled bra wrong like I spelled faux nous wrong.Finish your education and get back when life becomes something more than your indocrination.
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by Quicksilver M.S (March 07, 2010 12:34 am ET)
                     
                  What's IZOD?
                  If you did not know of a clothing brand makes you an Infant in Politics !
                  You do not know:
                  1. duck and cover
                  2. Cuba .. all of it's joys
                  3. ML King's marches
                  4. Kennedy death
                  5. Viet Nam.. and later waiting to be drafted
                  6. M L Kings death
                  7. Bobby Kennedy's death
                  8. Space race
                  9. RICHARD NIXION
                  10. ronnie reagon
                  11. gasoline shortage
                  12.Iran Contra
                  13. and so on!
                  richardsimones -- you just do not as of now have enough Life under your Belt to fully understand the World! You are allowed your voice what you believe( Glenn would say " IT IS NOT A RIGHT " ! Just be ready to deal and debate with OLD GOATS of Politics!

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Ruby (March 07, 2010 10:53 pm ET)
                    1  
                    I'm sorry but that's BS.

                    I don't usually agree with richardsimones, but being young doesn't make your opinion any less valid than anyone else's.
                    Report Abuse
    • Author by pete592 (March 05, 2010 9:22 pm ET)
      3  
      Figuratively speaking, yes, and the world is the jury.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by richardsimones (March 06, 2010 1:30 pm ET)
          5
        Who cares what the world thinks. Us seeking the world's approval is not leadership; it is purely a charitable act that some of us (you) feel is compulsory.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by christopher howard (March 06, 2010 4:34 pm ET)
          4  
          The idea that we should not care about world opinion is dangerous and, frankly, idiotic. Are you familiar with soft power, blowback, international military and economic cooperation, the concept of international law? Should we scrap our foreign department? Does diplomacy serve no value? The idea that you think that our being concerned about world opinion is some matter of "charity" is bizarre.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by juliajayne1 (March 06, 2010 6:35 pm ET)
            2  
            I say get a preadator drone after Richie. ;-) Use some language he can understand!
            Report Abuse
        • Author by Bongo Fury (March 06, 2010 11:11 pm ET)
             
          "Ususususus and themthemthemthemthemt and after all we're only ordinary men."
          Report Abuse
    • Author by Kikabi (March 05, 2010 9:41 pm ET)
      2 1
      How does O'Reilly know "Eric Holder thinks our anti-terror strategies must be justified to the world?" What evidence is there that Holder "thinks" this, or does O'Reilly has the ability of mind-reading?

      I've never seen any evidence that Eric Holder thinks this. But if we change how we do things and decide to hold military tribunals instead of civilian court trials, the terrorists will win this round. After all, they want us to react in fear and do things against our actual principles.



      Report Abuse
      • Author by Bongo Fury (March 05, 2010 9:51 pm ET)
           
        It worked during the shrub years.Fear is what the right thrives on to accelerate their dogma.Having a person of color in power eats on them.I'm dignified by people that call me a "lefty".It's all I know about left of what.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by richardsimones (March 06, 2010 1:24 pm ET)
          2 3
          I'm not going to defend the right, but the left does it just as much. For instance look at the healthcare debate. Senator after senator throws out these sob stories that are purely anecdotal. Anecdotal evidence is good at one thing, pulling heartstrings (like Bush anti-terror rhetoric). Anecdotal evidence, however is acceptable if it works with a presented fact; the problem is many politicians (of both stripes) refrain from using the fact and move to move us to tears (they cut out the middle man). It is wrong for any side to debate using this tactic, which is why I call out right wingers as much as left wingers.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by usappa00 (March 07, 2010 1:22 am ET)
               
            You confuse compassion with fear. Every year 40,000 die because they are uninsured. Should we just ignore their plea? Or, just laugh at them like Beck or Rush?
            Report Abuse
      • Author by richardsimones (March 06, 2010 1:49 pm ET)
          2
        Tribunals are not against our principles (were they against our principles, then we would have tried Nazi war criminals in civilian cout. Did I throw out the straw man? I think so!). Tribunals are just better suited for martial cases dealing with the military, or a warfare situation.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by usappa00 (March 07, 2010 1:25 am ET)
             
          Why are tribunals better suited for martial cases dealing with the military or a warfare situation?
          Report Abuse
    • Author by aj.physics (March 05, 2010 9:51 pm ET)
      4  
      I don't get it... Why is Holder's vision scary, and how would it get American's killed? Why would it be better to try them in the military? Why not let our justice system do what it was built to do... When did they all decide the the Bush presidency had so many things wrong with it. I thought they were for most of GW's plans. Why is winning done by imposing pain. I thought it was by getting them to stop attacking us or by them coming around to our point of view. He makes us sound like a big bully.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Bongo Fury (March 05, 2010 9:58 pm ET)
           
        America has shown itself time after time time of being a bully.Our military budget is absurd when considering what could happen if that that hate cash was put to inner American betterment.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by worrierking (March 05, 2010 10:13 pm ET)
        6 1
        Today's self described "patriots" and "Great Americans" believe that talking is a sign of weakness. To them, the only way to to bring someone else around is to conquer them.

        And all of these pantloads who feel that talking is a sign of weakness and military campaigns are a sign of strength, make their living talking and showed their own strength by letting others serve their country and do the fighting.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by aj.physics (March 05, 2010 10:27 pm ET)
          2  
          To true. I wonder what they would say to mandatory service for all Americans. I wouldn't want it, but you wonder if it would make the talking heads think before saying things like we must inflict pain to win.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by Bongo Fury (March 05, 2010 10:34 pm ET)
          4  
          What you said.I drew high lottery during Nam and was talked out of enlisting by Nam vets.The right seems to think that might makes right as long as someone else satisfies their ends.Peace is the answer and it's long overdue.To speak of peace and love is blasphemy to those who believe American objectives can only be met by bullying people of color.America's hard earned money belongs at home,Viva Obama.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by worrierking (March 05, 2010 10:44 pm ET)
            7  
            I had a pretty low number but it didn't mater since i had been drafted six months prior to the lottery.

            I'm glad you were talked out of enlisting by some smart vets. Peace is the only answer. Todays wars are not for territory but for fundamentalist ideology. In a war based on that type of ideology, the only way to win is to completely destroy your enemy.

            In that type of war, the winner would and should be an international pariah. I would not want to be on the losing side in such a war, yet I sure as hell would not want to be on the winning side.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by Bongo Fury (March 05, 2010 10:54 pm ET)
              5  
              Thanks worrierking,Not only did these real patriots talk me out out of it,they literally didn't have an arm or leg to stand on between them.If this is the price of imperialism,then I have no contribution.Peace,love,understanding isn't funny at all.
              Report Abuse
        • Author by richardsimones (March 06, 2010 1:27 pm ET)
            3
          Not necessarily, they just feel that it is useless to talk to people whose starting point is killing people. I however am a little closer to a libertarian as far as foreign poli... well most issues.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by richardsimones (March 06, 2010 1:42 pm ET)
          4
        Bill was being melodramatic. The reason I'd rather see military tribunals is: 1. The costs of additional security in New York are quite high. 2. The infrastructure of a tribunal situation is designed for martial situations (ie. military service, war), so there are special dispensations granted. The civilian court system, while able to handle cases such as these, is not designed for trying these matters.

        I guess my point is, the cost is not worth the potential benefit.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by usappa00 (March 07, 2010 1:10 am ET)
          4  
          Completely false. How is our civilian court not able to try terrorist suspects? In 2008, the Justice Department submitted a budget request citing "319 convictions or guilty pleas in terrorism or terrorism-related cases arising from investigations conducted primarily after September 11, 2001."

          Military tribunals will end up costing more because of the long appeal process that would result. We don't have to try the terrorists in NYC but we must use our civilian justice system.
          Report Abuse