The video says it all.
These days it’s hard to differentiate between the foreign and the domestic enemies…although I think the domestic ones are a little more dangerous.
The amendments "reserve" some very basic "natural rights" to the people. The list is not meant to be exhaustive, just some of them deemed most necessary to protect them and the people that exercise them from the government. More were added later as they were found to be necessary.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8z1buym2xUM (Video embedded)
The Constitution, law of states, and federal government are not meant to protect criminals. The ideas are an attempt to protect only the potentially innocent and wrongfully accused. Reference the term "reasonable doubt" as evidence. The concept is meant to explore doubt. It does not apply to the case in question. There is no doubt about the guilt of this man, and very likely the ones in his immediate company also mentioned.
Keep in mind also, that once you are convicted of a crime you LOSE various constitutional rights as part of your punishment and in trade for those you have taken from others. These may range from simple property up to and including your life.
By that same line of logic, the more extreme the crime, AND the more witnesses / overwhelming evidence there is of a crime i.e. a good recent example is a few dozen soldiers/cops seeing themselves and colleagues being shot at, the LESS the Constitution (i.e. government) needs to get involved, and the MORE *NATURAL* right can prevail in the situation.
If a police officer puts a bullet into a perpetrator WHILE they are committing the crime, in front of many reliable witnesses, is there ANY doubt that person was the one that was there? Gunfire is a very straightforward marking and identification technique.
If someone generates video taped evidence of themselves COMMITTING murder, backed up by voice prints, backed up by witnesses of a radical ideology, backed up by spy agency tracking of communications, human intelligence of locations, and who knows what else, you should get the picture.
There CAN come a point far surpassing "reasonable doubt". There also comes a point that blatant criminals collect protection due to human error in processing the case. Just as the innocent can be convicted due to error or fraud, the guilty can be set free due to error or fraud.
Oreilly is, in that respect, far more Libertarian than you give him credit for. I gather he is effectively of the opinion "We know they did it, take these animals out, torture the hell out of them to get as much information as possible, and then shoot them in the head". They do not negotiate, they will not subjugate, they choose death.
His concern could be argued to be about Natural rights - self defense - the very rights that form the basis for writing the Bill of Rights. Read your beloved Amt10 where the words "or the people" are a FAR more important set of words to me than "to the states".
Amt2, the right is self-protection and preservation is protected. (Not GRANTED, protected as existing BEFORE the constitution) The same exact concept exists on a national scale, thus the provisions for national defense and war.
These NATURAL rights are not GRANTED by the government, they are meant to be (supposed to be) PROTECTED from the rest of the document (Constitution / i.e. government) because they are considered to exist BEFORE the Constitution existed.
What is the entire BASIS for dealing with these terrorists? Are you familiar with "castle doctrine"?
If someone comes after me or my property using violence or threat of violence, I do not have to worry about any concept of Constitutional protection for the "defendant", I merely have to invoke the right of NATURAL (NOT Constitutional) defense and pull the trigger or swing the baseball bat.
In that situation, you could say that I
"do not care about the constitution",
and that would be how I really feel, perfectly legitimately, even against a fellow "citizen" of the United States. My personal safety in the face of aggression.
Context is a VERY important thing. The statement is valid and inoffensive in the face of a threat. They represent a threat.
[youtube 8z1buym2xUM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8z1buym2xUM youtube]
"The Constitution, law of states, and federal government are not meant to protect criminals."
you are correct. In fact, the constitution isn't meant to protect ANYone.
The constitution doesn't apply to you, it doesn't apply to me, it doesn't apply to any person at all.
It applies to the federal government. And those limits on the feds apply in every situation. If you don't like the constitution, so be it. There's a lot of people - like Obama, and Reid and Pelosi - that feel that special circumstances mean that the strict rules that the founders and ratifiers left for us don't need to be obeyed.
In fairness the Judges argument is pinned upon certain contentions, namely that the people in question actually committed a crime in the United States rather then simply conspired to help others commit a criminal act from aboard. an act of war.
In other words their "crime" was not committed in the united states, but rather a conspiracy to commit a "crime" which took place over seas. with the Support of a host government. in other-words an act of war, on the part of Afghanistan against the Untied States.
Their Right we should have declared war formally, but if it is to remain in the territory of "criminal" act then it was an act that by these particular "criminals"/terrorist which was committed against the United States overseas, NOT in New York.
Hi, I actually personally e-mailed O'Reilly the same night I heard in him say that. I was also very upset by the way he talked down to Judge Nap. I really like O'Reilly. but he sounds like a big federal government guy.
My big problem with Bill O'Reilly is that he talks way too often about how government ought to "do something" about a class of crime, a financial crisis, etc. Bill is not a Libertarian, not truly a Conservative, and doesn't care a fig for constitutional limits - he's a populist demagogue - a darned good one, and very entertaining, but a populist demagogue nonetheless.
© 2013 Tenth Amendment Center Blog. All Rights Reserved.
Powered by WordPress. Designed by 
