Cavuto claimed British allow tougher anti-terror laws than the U.S. because they "have a tradition of wanting to live"
SUMMARY: On Your World, Neil Cavuto suggested that the British have "been pragmatic" in their efforts to combat terrorism and that they have enacted some counterterrorism laws that would be unconstitutional in the United States because the British "have a tradition of wanting to live."
Discussing the balance between civil liberties and security during the August 22 edition of Fox News' Your World, host Neil Cavuto suggested that the British have "been pragmatic" in their efforts to combat terrorism, adding that they have enacted some counterterrorism laws that would be unconstitutional in the United States because the British "have a tradition of wanting to live." Cavuto made his comment in response to Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano's explanation that the United Kingdom can enact strict counterterrorism measures because "the British don't have a constitution" but instead "have a tradition that allows their legislature to rewrite the tradition." Earlier in the segment, Cavuto had responded to Napolitano's claim that "it would be bitterly ironic ... if in the name of national defense, we had to give up the very freedoms that make the nation worth defending," by asking: "But would you risk losing some of those freedoms or having them curbed if you could live?" Referring to the United Kingdom's "Terrorism Act 2006," which allows the British government to detain terror suspects for up to 28 days without charge, Cavuto asserted that Britons "put up with sometimes aimlessly going to jail for no reason because the greater good is protecting the greater amount of people."
From the August 22 edition of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto:
CAVUTO: Do Americans have to give up a certain amount of privacy in order to secure their safety in this age of terrorism or whether on a plane or below? Well, you bet. That was according to two former Reagan and Bush administration officials I spoke with only yesterday on this program. But Fox News' senior judicial analyst, Andrew Napolitano, heard what they said, was throwing things at the TV while they were saying it, and said: "Cavuto, I want to get on to refute." Refute.
NAPOLITANO: Well, look. It would be bitterly ironic, Neil, if in the name of national defense, we had to give up the very freedoms that make the nation worth defending. The Constitution is not a suicide pact. The Constitution gives the government leeway. The Congress has written laws that give the government leeway. But the basic floor of civil liberties -- of guaranteed liberties -- has to be maintained in time of war, in time of peace. That's not me; that's at least four or five dozen Supreme Court decisions written from 1803 to 2006.
CAVUTO: But would you risk losing some of those freedoms or having them curbed if you could live?
NAPOLITANO: I would not want to live as a slave. The idea of defending America means defending our values. I don't live here and I don't think you live here because of the real estate. We live here because of the freedom that enabled us to develop the real estate --
CAVUTO: But you also have to be --
NAPOLITANO: -- and the other creature comforts that we have.
CAVUTO: Be a realist too, right, Judge? I mean there are some things that we have to be a little bit more flexible on because people want to kill us.
NAPOLITANO: Agreed. And that's why the Congress has written something like the FISA law, Foreign Intelligence Security [sic] Act which says to the president, "If they're bad guys and they're foreigners and you want to listen to them, go get a warrant. The court sits 24/7. There are many judges and many clerks. There's no waiting, Mr. President."
CAVUTO: But time's a wasting.
NAPOLITANO: "If it's an emergency, Mr. President, we'll allow you to tap the lines first and give you three days to go get a warrant."
CAVUTO: But what if you don't have the time even to do that? You are following a network of chatter, of people who are sending funds back and forth.
NAPOLITANO: Then the Congress should provide for more judges and more FISA courts so that time is not the issue. If you're talking about time versus security, American -- the American people will always give up a little bit of time for security.
CAVUTO: Well, the British are apparently pragmatic on this issue.
NAPOLITANO: Yeah, the British don't have a constitution, Neil. They have a tradition that allows their legislature to rewrite the tradition. They also don't --
CAVUTO: No, they have a tradition of wanting to live, right?
NAPOLITANO: Yeah, they have a tradition of wanting to live. They also have a tradition of --
CAVUTO: They put up with it. They put up with sometimes aimlessly going to jail for no reason because the greater good is protecting the greater amount of people.
NAPOLITANO: What the British have done would never be permitted here. The British enacted a statute last year that allows the government to lock up anybody it wants without stating a reason, without even having a suspicion, for 28 days. Our constitution prohibits that. Because we have a constitution, in order for that to happen here, we would have to amend it first. Because the British do not have a constitution, Parliament can allow that.
CAVUTO: I see. All right. Well, we disagree. But you're a lawyer. All right.
NAPOLITANO: Aren't you glad we have the First Amendment? We make our living on the First Amendment, Neil.
CAVUTO: I guess just the image of you throwing things at the TV was enough to say, "Bring him in."
NAPOLITANO: No, no, no.
CAVUTO: All right, Judge.
NAPOLITANO: Thank you for having me.
CAVUTO: Thank you.
All we have is a bunch of jerks giving knee jerk reactions whenever they get their chain jerked.
would feel like less of a cowardly pants-wetter if he could convince everybody else that they need to be wetting their pants 24/7 too. According to recent polls, it's only working on the cowardliest 2% of our population that still thinks the litmus test for politicians is tough talk about turr.
the city with the highest suicide rate nationwide is Plano, TX which EVERYONE knows is a heavily slanted Republican city.
Sorry, there's just no other way to respond to this crap.
This guy has no creditbility that his taylor didn't confer on him.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. "
or
"Give me Liberty or give me Death" - Patrick Henry
or
"We'd rather die on our feet than keep living on our kness." - James Brown
What a bunch of terrorist-lovers.
The Patrick Henry quote was the first one I thought of when I read the transcript. The Ben Franklin quote has been a favorite across the American political spectrum for years. Why do all the pants-wetters (most of whom were nowhere near New York or DC on 9/11/2001, don't know anyone who was killed, and aren't even from New York) want to toss out over two centuries of American tradition because of one attack?
What gets me are the people living in backwater, USA who are so frightened of terrorists. The backwaters are the safest place to be.
The Godfather of Soul speaks the truth.
...but, as much as I like much of Napolitano's reasoning, I think he's got the British think all screwed up. But please correct me if I'm wrong.
The 6th Amendment only calls for a "speedy" trial - it doesn't say how exactly long you can be incarcerated pending charges. So, to say that being held without charges for 28 days without a trial doesn't seem to be inherently "unconstitutional." It may have been ruled that way by a court or legislated that way by Congress, but that doesn't mean it can't change.
Much of the debate over the Terroism Act in the UK was over the amount of time someone could be held without charge: Blair wanted 90 days, but the final act called for 28.
That's a matter of degree: no one in the UK is saying you can hold someone indefinitely without changes, like what's going on at Gitmo.
Am I wrong about this?
Yes, you have the Constitutional guarantee to a speedy (and public) trial, but you are NOT permitted to be held indefinitely. The person who's been incarcerated on whatever charge(s) must receive a date for his trial within a certain time frame after being incarcerated.
I worked in a county courthouse and was pretty familiar with the procedures. In our case, if someone was being held in the county jail, they could be held UP TO 72 hours before being presented to the judge to set the date for a trial. (We always had preliminary hearings on Mondays--people who were arrested on Fridays appeared on Monday so their trial date could be set. Preliminary hearings were even held on state and federal holidays; at least one judge was required to be available for those preliminary hearings.) Anyone who was held more than 72 hours was ordered released (though we had very, very few cases of this happening).
Jose Padilla pop into my head when reading this post?
These right wingers put their money where their mouth is:
Mr. Cavuto, I beseech you give permission to the FBI, CIA and local law enforcement to listen in on all of your phone conversations, read all of your emails, and monitor all of your web activity. If "you've got nothing to hide" it shouldn't be a big deal, right?
Please show us all how it's done.
A more simpler slogan doesn't exist:
"Vote Democrat and Die"
or
"Vote Repbulican and Live"
What genius.
I wish I could spell.
The reason why the British have no problem giving up their freedoms is that they are still remember when “terrorists” threw their tea into the Boston Harbor and those same “terrorist” started a revolution and annexed English land.
Cavuto cracks me up. He claims the English are more willing to have their privacy invaded because they have a higher desire to live. Oh yeah --that's it. However, I don't think there is a group of people who wann alive more than all of the Repub that work at Fox News. Given that everyone of the Repubs at Fox News is a punk out P***Y that would never and have never served in combat, I submit that they wanna live more than even the English.
First off, the British have a longer history of fighting terrorism than the US. I suppose Cavuto missed the quarter century of news reports featuring British forces battling the IRA. That doesn't excuse many of the methods the British used in their "interrogations"--in fact, the British government has issued formal apologies to many of those arrested on terror charges for violating their human rights.
Secondly, as Napolitano pointed out (and Cavuto couldn't seem to get through his thick skull), the British have no Constitution. They do, however, have a vast body of common law and tradition which has long offered British subjects many of the rights and privileges afforded to American citizens under the Constitution.
I think Britians greatest contribution to the modern world is their long history of respect for the law and the shape modern law has taken. As for Cavuto, I think he is upholding Faux News Commentators long tradition of being morons
actually listen to this fool on investment advice?
Would that be the same England that we had to declare our independence from because of thier overly intrusive ways?