Bring It On!

Once again..its all about kill, kill, kill for the lunatic right..

July 6th, 2008 | by Dusty |

C&L has the transcript of Glen Beck running his piehole about the SCOTUS Gitmo ruling. This sick demented bag of shit doesn’t even know wtf he is ranting about. He has no idea what was decided in the SCOTUS ruling and that doesn’t stop him from saying kill..kill, kill them all. But listen to the fuckwit foam at the mouth anyway. It’s only a minute and then you will know what the loony riechwing nutjobs are spewing to the masses.

If you wish to tell CNN that this sumbitch should be committed to the nearest mental hospital along with the producers of his here.

Crossposted at Sirens Chronicles and Leftwing Nutjob

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google
  • e-mail
  • YahooMyWeb
Sphere: Related Content

  1. 15 Responses to “Once again..its all about kill, kill, kill for the lunatic right..”

  2. By Dusty on Jul 6, 2008 | Reply

    All I can say is..thank Buddha this jackass isn’t President.

  3. By Craig R. Harmon on Jul 6, 2008 | Reply

    I don’t listen to him and I certainly wouldn’t vote for him. Our troops really would become like Genghis Khan whose specter John Kerry raised in reference to our forces during the Vietnam War. He’d turn our troops into flat out murderers.

    I don’t claim to have studied the decision in question and, so, cannot authoritatively say what the ruling will mean for the detainees’ future or for the future of warfare but I know enough to know that the ruling didn’t shut down GITMO or that we must let the detainees go. It ruled that the detainees have habeas corpus rights that are justiciable in U. S. civil courts.

    One might fear that the present courts might decide that the detainees have been wrongfully detained and must be released and, from some of the rulings that have been handed down (Detroit judge, Anna Digs Taylor’s ruling on the CIA wiretapping case, for example) that might seem like a likely prospect but the ruling by the SCOTUS doesn’t require it.

    But the rulings of the GWoT era SCOTUS, in spite of their rejection of Bush’s legal justifications for many of his actions, have upheld the government’s right to detain people suspected of terrorist activities, requiring only that they be given some level of rights, including the right to some due process requirements. I could be wrong but I don’t think the SCOTUS will shut down GITMO, or that it will demand that the detainees be released. They will only require that something more than a rigged kangaroo court determine the detainees’ ultimate fates.

    To posit that the only satisfactory fix for this latest SCOTUS decision is to take no prisoners, or to question them in secret and then shoot them in the head is so far out in right field that it’s no longer in the stadium. Indeed, to suggest that that IS a satisfactory fix is pretty outrageous.

  4. By Dusty on Jul 6, 2008 | Reply

    Afternoon Craig,

    The SCOTUS ruling doesn’t even come close to shutting down Gitmo. And as you state, it gives them “some rights” within the US court system.

    This inflammatory bullshit is outrageous, and yes it’s free speech but he is inciting individuals to hate and to kill. Its pathetic and shouldn’t be protected speech.

    thats my opinion anyway. ;)

  5. By Craig R. Harmon on Jul 6, 2008 | Reply

    Inciting to hate and to kill? Really? You have some evidence that this particular pronouncement is inciting someone (who doesn’t already hate) to hate or is inciting anyone to kill? I’m not aware of any so I ask you.

    And I disagree. It should be protected speech. If the first amendment only protects popular speech, it is superfluous. If it doesn’t protect unpopular speech, it is useless. If it only protects speech that I agree with, it is partisan and biased.

    No. In my opinion, the first amendment MUST protect unpopular speech lest my speech become unpopular and, thus, at some point in the future, become unprotected.

  6. By Craig R. Harmon on Jul 6, 2008 | Reply

    Besides, I’m not for unprotecting speech that might merely cause someone to hate someone or something. After all, much of the derision published here on BIO! and directed toward President George W. Bush might easily be said to be inciting hatred of President Bush. I’m quite certain you don’t mean to suggest that criticizing President Bush in ways that might cause others to hate President Bush out not be protected by the first amendment. So if speech that incites hatred of Bush is protected speech, why should speech that incites hatred of Supreme Court Justices not be protected?

    As for inciting to kill, I just see no direct cause and effect between this guy’s programming and instances of people killing other people. Even if there were to be a case of someone killing a judge and citing this very speech as what caused him to kill the judge, there is nothing in the speech that directs people to kill judges so what we would have is a case of a nut-job murdering a judge and scapegoating someone else as the causative culprit. We wouldn’t have a case of this speech causing someone to murder a judge. This isn’t a death warrant on liberal judges.

    That’s my opinion.

  7. By Craig R. Harmon on Jul 6, 2008 | Reply

    Or perhaps you mean inciting people to kill those whom we detain and who would normally go to GITMO or some other detention facility. Certainly that is what he is saying would be his policy were he commander in chief but he is not telling our troops to go against the Uniform Code of Military Justice and against international laws of warfare by killing people that they would normally detain, nor is he telling those who guard detainees to kill them (or even to let them go). He’s merely saying what he would do as president.

    I guess I’m just more tolerant of speech than you are. I respect your right to think such speech should not be protected but I think that any policy making such speech unprotected to be very dangerous to every Americans’ liberty.

  8. By Dusty on Jul 6, 2008 | Reply

    You tell me what he is advocating Craig, here is the transcript:

    Beck: This court has done some frightening. frightening things….If I’m president of the US, I would go on National television and say—’ladies and gentlemen, the Supreme Court said that we don’t have Gitmo so that is over. We’re going to release all of them, but I want you to know from here on out our policy is to not have prisoners. We’re going to shoot them all in the head.’

    If we think they are against us, we’re going to shoot them and kill them—period because that’s the only thing we’ve got going for us—cause we can put them away and get information. If we can’t put them away and they’re going to use our court system—kill them.

  9. By Craig R. Harmon on Jul 7, 2008 | Reply

    First things first: whoever made the transcript, in my opinion, missed some words at the beginning: “I’m saying this in jest…” Without fuller context of what led up to the video’s beginning I can’t tell just what he’s saying in jest but it’s possible he’s saying that what follows is not to be taken seriously.

    Second, In my listen to the video, whoever made the transcript erroneously broke the hypothetical quote from the hypothetical President Glen Beck at the end of the first paragraph. In my opinion, the quote should be continued all the way to the end of the second paragraph.

    Third, what he is not advocating. He is not advocating shooting the GITMO detainees. He is advocating releasing them all.

    Fourth, He is advocating a policy for this country in view of his reading of the Supreme Court ruling on habeas rights for GITMO detainees, which reading erroneously posits that the Supreme Court says we can no longer detain them. The policy he is advocating is that we let the current GITMO detainees go and that, henceforth, our policy should be to take no prisoners but to shoot those we think are against us.

    That’s what he’s advocating.

    Fifth, that is not the present policy and that will not be the US policy no matter who gets elected this November. I suspect that neither Glen Beck nor anyone like Glen Beck will ever get elected to the presidency to enact such a policy and no Congress would ever remove the laws in place already in the UCMJ that would punish those who would act upon such a policy and would immediately impeach any president who would enact such a policy.

    Sixth, in this country, people get to have opinions on the policies of our nation’s government and others get to criticize that policy recommendation. That’s the foundation of democracy. That’s the marketplace of ideas. That’s what newspapers, radio stations, television networks and internet information dispersal mechanisms exist to foster. The solution to the advocacy of policies with which one disagrees is advocacy of other policies and debate over same in public fora so that the people can decide for themselves which policy to pursue via the political system.

    Seventh, this is not incitement; it is policy advocacy. Incitement is telling a mob of white good-ol’-boys, “Found this nigger tryin’ to rape my wife; here’s the rope, there’s the tree; string ‘im up, boys!”

    That last is incitement and is NOT protected speech under the first amendment. The difference is that between policy advocacy and incitement to immediate lawless action. The first is, and in my opinion ought to be, protected; the second has long been unprotected speech.

    That’s my impression.

  10. By Lisa on Jul 7, 2008 | Reply

  11. By Dusty on Jul 7, 2008 | Reply

    How can you say he’s not advocating to kill them? He says it twice.

    Thats MY impression Craig..He says if they are going to use our court system-Kill Them.

    If they want due process then he wants them killed. Its disgusting, no matter how you slice and dice up the words he spewed.

  12. By Lazarus Long on Jul 7, 2008 | Reply

    Wow. Good thread.
    Glad to see I’m not the only one who likes to poke the left with a sharp stick from time to time.
    Dusty; Glen Beck is a talking head whose sole mission in life is to get in front of the TV camera and say stupid stuff JUST TO GET FOLKS LIKE YOU RILED UP!
    and it worked

  13. By Craig R. Harmon on Jul 8, 2008 | Reply


    I haven’t said he isn’t advocating killing people whom our troops pick up in our war on terrorists if we think they are against us and the Supreme Court will not allow us to detain and question them — again, he gets his facts all wrong on that part but that’s the frame he’s placing his advocacy in. In fact, I explicitly said he WAS advocating killing people whom we think are against us. What I am saying is that mere advocacy of killing people under those circumstances is and ought to be protected speech. I’m not saying it isn’t disgusting. I’m saying that the remedy for such advocacy is not removing first amendment protections but, rather, speech against such advocacy.

    Let me illustrate. Suppose I were to advocate the death penalty for some guy who repeatedly raped a girl over a number of years beginning when she was nine years old. I would be advocating killing someone. You may be against the death penalty and, therefore, against capital punishment even for child-rapists but surely I have (and ought to have) a first amendment right to advocate killing said child rapist, no?

  14. By Craig R. Harmon on Jul 8, 2008 | Reply

    Or take another case. Suppose I say, of said child rapist, “If he ever touched my child, I’d kill him.” Now I’m not talking about due process in meting out the death penalty after ten or twenty years of appeals; I’m talking about immediate street justice delivered on the spot from the business end of a .32. You might consider THAT to be disgusting but should I not have protection of the first amendment to advocate protecting my daughter against a child predator without due process? Again, the issue is not whether you agree with the policy I would be advocating but rather whether I should be allowed to advocate such a policy, whether merely advocating such action should leave me open to punishment by the government.

  15. By Craig R. Harmon on Jul 8, 2008 | Reply

    And again, he isn’t advocating killing those detained in GITMO. He’s explicitly advocating letting them go. It is future suspected bad guys that he is advocating killing rather than capturing and, again, I’m not advocating for that policy. I’m advocating that such advocacy should be protected speech under the first amendment.

  16. By Craig R. Harmon on Jul 8, 2008 | Reply

    I’m also distinguishing between advocacy (”Such and such ought to be the policy of this country.”) and incitement (”String the nigger up!”. As a legal matter, the two are not the same and I’m saying that Glenn Beck’s comments are the former and not the latter.

Post a Comment