About us Login Get email updates
Quick Clip
Print

Beck, Napolitano say Faisal Shahzad should be promptly mirandized; "You don't shred the Constitution ever"

May 04, 2010 8:55 am ET

From the May 4 edition 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.

EMBED
Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by MiniTru (May 04, 2010 8:56 am ET)
      13 1
      "You don't shred the Constitution ever"
      Unless you're named Bush or Cheney, of course.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by stevensm (May 04, 2010 9:16 am ET)
        8 1
        Or unless you're Glenn Beck who was originally in favor of the Patriot Act.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by IRONY 101 (May 04, 2010 8:59 am ET)
      9 1
      But, but...but he has to be waterboarded immediately!

      We need to find out who his accomplces are...and what other terrorist plots are afoot!

      Beck and Naolitano are weak-wristed liberals who hate America and WANT the terrorists to win!

      [i<sarcasm>[/i]
      Report Abuse
      • Author by soze169880 (May 04, 2010 9:03 am ET)
        7 1
        Well, Beck wants domestic terrorists to win, simply because if they lose, he won't have anyone to watch his show.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by txthinker (May 04, 2010 10:28 am ET)
          1  
          He hardly has anyone left to ADVERTISE on his show.....
          Report Abuse
          • Author by wwjbd (May 04, 2010 10:34 am ET)
              2
            yes, not everyone is funded by George Soros. How nice you can celebrate free speech and open debate cause three adviser to the president are running boycotts of his show.

            "I'm sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you're not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we're Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration."
            Hillary Clinton
            Report Abuse
            • Author by marco21 (May 04, 2010 11:01 am ET)
              1  
              Could you tell Soros to send my check. I am still waiting.

              Report Abuse
      • Author by marco21 (May 04, 2010 11:03 am ET)
        2  
        Wingnuts and consistency never go hand-in-hand.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by aj6525 (May 04, 2010 9:10 am ET)
      6 1
      I'm glad we have a President that can walk and chew gum at the same time. I would say his plate has been pretty full lately.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by The_Cat (May 04, 2010 9:16 am ET)
      7 1
      If you are arguing in favor of making sure his Miranda rights are observed, then you are also implicitly saying that you want him tried in civilian courts. Miranda warnings, so far as I understand the law, are not required during military investigations or for the arrest of suspects in those cases.

      But, weren't you just arguing a couple of months ago that the civilian court system wouldn't be able to try and convict a terrorist? C'mon, guys. At least tell consistent lies.

      I guess it's true. The most radical thing in America right now is in fact the long memory.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Andy Kreiss (May 04, 2010 9:45 am ET)
        1 1
        That's what I was thinking, Cat, haven't the wingnuts been screaming outrage about Miranda rights for suspected terrorists ? I think you're right, there's a significant number of Americans who forget everything when they go to bed at night.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by blk-in-alabam (May 04, 2010 9:20 am ET)
      5 1
      "He should have a military trail" I got a peep at a future republican party media talking point
      Report Abuse
      • Author by bintx (May 04, 2010 9:50 am ET)
        5 1
        Actually, if Beck and Napolitano are saying that the Constitution can't be shredded, then no, he should NOT have a military trial. He's an American citizen who is suspected of committing a crime on American soil. If you don't want to "shred the Constitution," you give him a trial before a jury of his peers, just like any other American citizen who has committed a crime on American soil.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by wwjbd (May 04, 2010 11:30 am ET)
            3
          Exactly.
          Cause you never know who will be in power. Cause if you do shred the constitution, One day it's old lady's in the tea party being arrested. A couple years down the road, it's kids on their mother's computers playing on mmfa.

          And conversly those who are NOT american citizen, (Underwear bomber, illegal immigrants) do NOT get constitutional rights.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by raddave43 (May 04, 2010 11:38 am ET)
            1  
            What part of, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any personof life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws," do you not understand? By your logic the Constitution wouldn't apply to Alien residents and tourists
            Report Abuse
            • Author by The_Cat (May 04, 2010 2:10 pm ET)
                 
              The part where the law has to consider even undocumented immigrants as people, raddave43. That's the part that wwjbd doesn't get. Just doesn't square with a certain world view, I'm afraid.

              Good thing people like wwjbd weren't in charge of framing the Constitution, huh?
              Report Abuse
    • Author by epkklk851 (May 04, 2010 9:20 am ET)
      5 1
      I'll agree, you don't shred the Constitution for anybody! Glennie wants to restrict the Constitution to citizens, but not to non-citizens. Here's the thing that makes our Constitution so great, it doesn't restrict the rights it extends to just citizens. It is to all people. Trying to restrict it is to rewrite the Constitution! And as the judge points out, any information garnered before the warning can't be used in court. Interrogating a prisoner and not being able to use the information against them is a waste of time.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by stevensm (May 04, 2010 9:47 am ET)
        5 1
        Yeah but Beck doesn't want to hear that, does he? He gets on Kilmeade for wanting to shred the Constitution in this case but he's not above shredding it himself for those that HE doesn't believe deserving of its rights (like non-citizens). Beck is cherry picking with regards to who within our borders gets Constitutional rights which makes his chastising of Kilmeade ring rather hollow.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by bintx (May 04, 2010 9:51 am ET)
          3  
          But this guy, from earlier reports, is a naturalized American citizen. He is afforded the SAME Constitutional rights as any other American citizen.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by stevensm (May 04, 2010 10:36 pm ET)
            1  
            Yes, he is a naturalized citizen and thus gets the same rights as the rest of the citizens born here. I don't think anyone here has denied that. Even Beck realizes that simple fact.
            Report Abuse
    • Author by IRONY 101 (May 04, 2010 9:25 am ET)
      4 1
      So, are the right wing nuts going to object to this guy being tried in New York?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by LibLieDestroyer (May 04, 2010 9:55 am ET)
           
        This guy is an American citizen... KSM is not an American citizen.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by wwjbd (May 04, 2010 10:28 am ET)
      1 6
      Why is this even on mmfa?
      I think this is the one thing the mmfa clones and Glenn Beck agree on. American Citizens get the rights afforded by the consitution.

      Underwear bomber, wasn't an American Citizen though.
      That is a pretty clear distinction that countries have made since the time of Christ. If Jesus was a Roman Citizen he would have never been cruicified.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by bintx (May 04, 2010 10:32 am ET)
        3  
        Real question, why are you here and why do you come on here with different names?

        Remember, I caught that little switcheroo in mid-thread, so don't deny it. What was the other name? matthew.raines or something similar.

        How are things on Politico, where you are listed as a "Democrat"?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by wwjbd (May 04, 2010 10:42 am ET)
            5
          Yes. You caught me changing the default handle based upon my email to something hip and trendy, so I could be one of the cool kids.
          Do you want a cookie sherlock?
          And as I told you before Politico is blocked at work and mmfa is not.
          Much like Facebook and Tagged. Facebook, well known therefore blocked. Tagged, a little obsecure so not blocked.
          [http://images.afmo.com/products/milspecmonkey/small/WWJBD-2T.jpg]


          Report Abuse
      • Author by raddave43 (May 04, 2010 11:14 am ET)
        2  
        What part of, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive [b]any person [/b]of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws," do you not understand? By your logic the Constitution wouldn't apply to Alien residents and tourists.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by MidnightWriter (May 04, 2010 11:38 am ET)
          1  
          And, just in case there's somebody out there who wants to make the tired, old, "the Constitution shouldn't apply to terrorists who aren't citizens," argument,

          Rasul v. Bush

          Hamdi v. Rumsfeld

          Hamdan v. Rumsfeld

          It's settled. This nation has higher standards and, yes, they are extended to even the lowest of the low.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by wwjbd (May 04, 2010 11:55 am ET)
            3
          Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

          You do realize that you missed a sentence. And the "Any Person" was specific to undo the Dred Scott ruling that "Black People could NOT become united States Citizen."

          Does the 19th apply towards Alien residents and tourist?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by raddave43 (May 04, 2010 12:11 pm ET)
            3  
            I do realize that I did miss a sentance, since it only defines what a citizen of the country is and has no relevance to this thread, and THAT sentance is what was used to undo the Dread Scott decision. ANY PERSON means just that.

            No the 19th Ammendment does not apply to Alien residents and tourist because it states "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
            Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."
            Report Abuse
          • Author by MidnightWriter (May 04, 2010 12:13 pm ET)
            2  
            The 19th Amendment

            "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."

            So, no, the 19th Amendment does not apply to alien residents and tourists.

            Those last few lines of Section 1. of the 14th. . .

            "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,""

            Do apply to alien residents, to undocumented workers, to tourists, and even to terrorists.

            Read the links I've provided above. The Supreme Court explains it in better detail.
            Report Abuse
    • Author by dimes (May 04, 2010 2:21 pm ET)
         
      Fox News is now questioning the entire naturalization process.
      Report Abuse