digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at thinkprogress.org

CNN's Beck: Don't Detain Terror Suspects, Just Kill Them

thinkprogress.org — Today on his radio show, CNN host Glenn Beck expressed his disdain of the recent Supreme Court ruling granting terror suspects the right to challenge their detention in civilian courts, exclaiming that if he were President, he would do away with detaining and prosecuting terrorism suspects altogether.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • sjug, on 06/26/2008, -34/+371Don't listen to what he has to say.. just kill him.
    • homiczek, on 06/26/2008, -19/+3hah!! yeah! for sure!!
    • jemka, on 06/26/2008, -9/+19I wish we had this policy for politicians.
      • rugrat54, on 06/27/2008, -1/+1We do, its called free will...

        I wish more people would use it.



        Yes, I'm aware that I'm a hypocrite.
    • j1ggy, on 06/26/2008, -6/+40People with radical biased views should not be expressing them in the media when they work for a "cable NEWS network." Period. Kill his career.
      • taffyhealscrowd, on 06/26/2008, -8/+9Why not? CNN clearly wants him to express his radical views, or else they wouldn't have hired him. The fact of the matter is, news on tv is still tv, and tv is a business. It doesn't matter if they if they call it a sitcom, a drama, or news, it's still just tv, and it will always be about making profit. But that's the right of the company; Anyway, if you're relying on TV and cable news networks for your general information, I think the problem is with them.
        • j1ggy, on 06/26/2008, -3/+12Because it's not news and it's being squeezed between actual news stories. Discussions like that should take place at the dinner table, not on the news network you tuned into for real news. How is this any different than an arab network putting their Jihadist spokesman on every day, who calls for the deaths of US soldiers?
        • Monk22, on 06/26/2008, -13/+9if you dont like whats on CHANGE THE ***** CHANNEL.
        • chalkboy, on 06/26/2008, -14/+5liberal so accepting until a viewpoint does not match theirs then they want to kill the person. Wow so tolerant
        • blarneypete, on 06/26/2008, -9/+5Glenn Beck states at least 2 or 3 times a week that he is not a journalist, and he is a conservative, and that his show is an opinion show and NOT NEWS. If you have a problem with his show being on the air at all, complain to CNN. Or you can just CHANGE THE CHANNEL, because nobody is shoving the show down your throat. It's your choice to watch it or not.
        • tyho, on 06/26/2008, -5/+1OMG "j1ggy"
          If you were a turkey, you would have died the first time it rained.
        • STPZ, on 06/27/2008, -0/+3People are influenced by what is labeled NEWS, the label comes with the baring of the responsibility that what is being said is true and not known to posses bias.

          Many people follow the news as a guide to what they should think and this is a well known fact to media outlets. Abuses run rampant.
        • j1ggy, on 06/28/2008, -0/+2Myself seeing it on tv is not the problem, it's the idiots out there that believe everything they see on tv and take it to heart. People are influenced by what they see and hear. Especially the computer illiterate. Why do you think people on the other side of the world hate the west so much?
      • tyho, on 06/26/2008, -7/+4What about if they are a Democratic candidate for president?
    • canUdi9it, on 06/26/2008, -2/+27If the innocent are never arrested and detained, why not do away with all of the courts? Let's just trust the government to arrest and detain only the guilty, and then label them all as "enemy combatants" so they don't need to be charged or tried in court. That's the hidden assumption in that kind of argument.

      In the real world, innocent people are arrested all the time, especially in foreign countries during times of war. Calling them "enemy combatants" doesn't change that. Whether US citizens or not, they all have habeus corpus rights to know what they've been charged with and why.
      • jezsik, on 06/26/2008, -0/+16Amen to that! I just heard about a guy who was released from prison twenty years after being wrongfully convicted for assault. The kicker is that the real perpetrator actually confessed to the crime -- THREE YEARS AGO. Man, justice is slow, but injustice moves like greased lighting.
        • STPZ, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1don't say greased lightning... its two steps after water boarding
      • masterm1nd, on 06/26/2008, -12/+2Well, people are also wrongly convicted by courts as well. It is a fact of life and a part of civilization. It is a bad thing that sometimes happens which is justified for the greater good. I don't see how a court room is going to be more accurate to judge the actions of an individual than a trained soldier who witnessed the actions. In fact, court lets a lot of guilty people out on technicalities which ends up in more dead innocents. Would you guys agree with beck if it only applied to the people they physically watched murder civilians in cold blood? I think the question would be, would doing this combat terrorism more effectively thus ultimately saving more innocent lives than were took wrongly by bypassing the courts. By the way, anyone know which percentage of terrorist suspects are found guilty, after having a trial of course?
        /devils advocate
        • dforty3, on 06/26/2008, -1/+6I think life in prison is a worse punishment than instant death. Besides that, your point is flawed because it relies on the honesty and integrity of people to not take advantage of instantly killing people and framing them or just saying, "I saw him do it". The Justice system is by no means perfect, but it's the least that can be done to ensure justice. People have a right to know what they are accused of and defend themselves in a public setting.
        • whatever01, on 06/26/2008, -1/+6Many of the detainees were not captured on the field of battle by US soldiers, they were turned in by people for bounties. Do you think someone might turn in their neighbor as a terrorist for some cash because their neighbor stole their goats? Damn straight they would, chump.

          Hell, you could be turned in tomorrow and without the opportunity to challenge it, you couldn't prove you were a citizen, that you never were in Iraq, that you didn't mail that vial of anthrax. You'd just "disappear". Or, what if a commander decided that all political opposition to him was from potential terrorists, and had them all executed? Then what?

          Freedom isn't free, life is not without risk. Americans have died for freedom before. And if patriots with a pair of stones will do it again. People who will throw away their freedom out of fear don't deserve it.
        • masterm1nd, on 06/26/2008, -5/+2Ok, so why then are you OK with courts wrongly convicting people/wrongly letting them go? I want to know why that is where the line is drawn. That would also be "flawed' by your logic. So what is the difference. If it took multiple soldiers or a whole team of soldiers to agree on the actions of the terrorist, I think it would eliminate the 'just killed him for fun' factor. You can't get 10 random people to agree to convict and murder an innocent person. I think you are blurring war with crime, they are not the same and have never been treated the same. It just seems like by your arguments, any court/law enforcement is also wrong because it is erroneous.
        • dforty3, on 06/26/2008, -1/+4What are you saying? That's there's little to no difference between rights of Habeus Corpus and just shooting on sight? How about the war on drugs? That's just as vague as the war on terror. Why am I wasting my time. You can't be serious.
        • masterm1nd, on 06/26/2008, -5/+1I thought habeus corpus only applied to actual soldiers? Why didn't you answer my questions?
        • dforty3, on 06/26/2008, -1/+3It applies to soldiers and citizens since the 13th century. Enemy Combatants is a word made up by this Administration to usurp the Geneva Conventions. Most of the them in Gitmo were just turned in for money without any justification required. By using a group of soldiers to establish guilt, you are recreating a justice system in the field. No one is saying that public trials are perfect,but they are a hell of a lot better than what you are suggesting. Under the Military Commissions Act, you can be picked up erroneously or even intentionally and denied the right to prove you are innocent or even make a phone call to let a family member you've been picked up. Is that OK with you?
        • masterm1nd, on 06/26/2008, -5/+1"It applies to soldiers and citizens since the 13th century. Enemy Combatants is a word made up by this Administration to usurp the Geneva Conventions"

          Ok let's clarify this, habeus corpus does not apply to terrorists.

          "Most of the them in Gitmo were just turned in for money without any justification required."

          Me thinks that's your guess and has no bearing in reality. So I'll ask for some evidence to back up that statement.

          "By using a group of soldiers to establish guilt, you are recreating a justice system in the field."

          That would also apply to Beck's original proposal. So again, I ask what's the difference.

          "No one is saying that public trials are perfect,but they are a hell of a lot better than what you are suggesting."

          First of all, you have no idea if it's better or not, that's just you're hunch, and I'm not suggesting it. So now you're moving the goal posts. First your argument was it wouldn't be perfect, and now it's that it would be less perfect than the current system. Again, you are basing this on you're hunch.


          I don't doubt that Beck's proposal could be more erroneous. And I also don't doubt that it could be tweaked to be less erroneous than the current system. You don't seem to grasp that the goal in war is to efficiently win thus saving lives, not provide the most accurate court system for your enemy as possible.
        • dforty3, on 06/27/2008, -1/+3"Ok let's clarify this, habeus corpus does not apply to terrorists."
          - Yes it does. The Supreme Court just reconfirmed this last week, again.

          "Me thinks that's your guess and has no bearing in reality. So I'll ask for some evidence to back up that statement."
          - Do some research. This is old news. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic ...
          FTA: Adel is innocent. I don't mean he claims to be. I mean the military says so. It held a secret tribunal and ruled that he is not al Qaeda, not Taliban, not a terrorist. The whole thing was a mistake: The Pentagon paid $5,000 to a bounty hunter, and it got taken.
          And... http://www.modbee.com/opinion/letters/story/331276 ...
          FTA:Hundreds are hapless victims of greed, turned in by fellow countrymen for the $5,000 to $25,000 bounties the U.S. military offered for members of al-Qaida or the Taliban.

          "That would also apply to Beck's original proposal. So again, I ask what's the difference."
          - Uh, yeah. Your and Beck's suggestion are both equally ridiculous.

          You have fallen for this phony war on terror, hook, line and sinker. Even if the official 9/11 conspiracy was true, do you think that's the first time suicide attacks have been a threat to the US? Have you ever heard of the Japanese kamikazees? That's no reason to stray from Geneva conventions. If you are willing to throw out the US constitution (part of the US constitution says we have to honor international treaties like the Geneva Convention) to fight a war, what exactly is left for the soldiers to fight for and protect? If they hate us for our freedoms, why is our government the ones taking them away?

          Get a clue.
      • canUdi9it, on 06/27/2008, -0/+4masterm1nd, you seem to have this naive idea that everyone in law enforcement and the military are automatically the "good guys", incapable of corruption, error or evil intent. Do you really think that once someone is labelled as a "terrorist" by the "authorities", they must therefore be guilty? You've been watching too much "Law and Order".

        The US was founded on the exact opposite principle: distrust of government and the people in power.

        Quoting George Washington:

        "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

        and Thomas Jefferson:

        "Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."

        "Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories."
      • winampman2, on 06/27/2008, -0/+4Yup, I'd love to see Glenn Beck get arrested for something he didn't do. Then he'll be begging for all of his rights, including habeus corpus.
    • Stormwern, on 06/26/2008, -2/+13"All suspects are guilty, else they wouldn't be suspects, would they?"
    • Hangly, on 06/26/2008, -4/+7I want to keep this policy for when the Bush admnistration finally gets indicted for 9/11.

      Swing *****, swing.

      Just like El Duce here
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDMTJ5ctA3Q
    • rz8472, on 06/26/2008, -3/+6According to TVNewser, Beck consistently gets the worst ratings of all with a grand total of 10-12% of Olbermann's audience. When is CNN going to fire this guy?
    • BossKey, on 06/26/2008, -2/+8The easiest way to change his opinion would be to declare him a suspected terrorist.
    • prometheanspark, on 06/27/2008, -0/+2This is taken a little out of context, he's saying the result of giving them the right to remain silent and a trial in the US will remove most all of the benifits of capturing terrorists, while creating some liabilities - resulting in the military choosing to kill them rather than try to capture them.

      I don't think that's really true though, blowing people up in another country isn't a crime in the USA so terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan haven't really committed a crime they can be convicted of in the US unless they kill a US citizen. Most likely captives will now be handed over to the local government, where the can be interrogated in the manner that local rules allow, because that's the jurisdiction in which their crimes are committed.
    • pitlord, on 06/27/2008, -8/+3Beck is 100% correct. Do you think any of the "detainees" would hesitate to murder ANY of you if he thought he had the chance?
      >.>
      These are not criminals who need to be detained until they get a fair trial. These are ENEMY COMBATANTS who are LUCKY they didn't get killed in battle. ThinkProgress and the rest of you who are supporting these enemy combatants are engaging in treason by providing aid and comfort.
      o.O
      Keep this up and we will be forced to ACTUALLY declare WAR against you and all of your complaints about the last eight years will pale in comparison to what will happen next. I sincerely hope that we do NOT have to walk down THAT road to finally have Shalom (true peace). Unfortunately, my faith in mankind – that we might be capable of realizing Shalom – is gone. It seems the only road left is the one that will make G-d most angry.
      -_-
      Don't make G-d angry, you won't like Him when He's angry.
      • dr34m, on 06/27/2008, -2/+3"Enemy Combatants"...so says you and Bush. How the ***** do we really know who these detainees are, unless they're tried in court? Go read up on the writ of habeas corpus before you spew again. It amazes me how you uneducated, backwater lots keep finding your way to the Internet. Why don't you stay with your talk radio where everything is simplified and fed to you...and leave the thinking to the big boyz.
      • STPZ, on 06/27/2008, -1/+1Open your mind to the fact that a person can never be 100% correct, and then maybe someone somewhere will take your opinion seriously,

        Go read a book...one that doesn't start with "Once upon a time" or "In the beginning"
    • whyknot2k, on 06/27/2008, -3/+0Brilliant point, sjug. Sad you can't tell the difference between a guy who talks on the radio, and a terrorist.
    • manicmarvin, on 06/27/2008, -0/+2Never kill people wearing Magical Mystical Mormon Underwear. It's bad karma.
    • LeandroMan, on 06/29/2008, -0/+1Not just the world. Americans hate America too, they're just too brainwashed to realize it.

      http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/december2005/ ...
  • otis80hobson, on 06/26/2008, -30/+294Yet another example of why the world hates America.
    • dshPls, on 06/26/2008, -10/+17It's clearly true that one TV host speaks for every single American, I mean look how ignorant and uneducated he looks!
    • DreKor, on 06/26/2008, -3/+4Our poor penmanship must not help matters either. I mean, look at the sign that woman is holding. It looks like calligraphy, our protesters just scribble things on refrigerator boxes with a giant sharpie.
    • masterm1nd, on 06/26/2008, -10/+4That's ***** retarded. That's like me hating the world because of what one person said.
    • GassyTurd, on 06/26/2008, -3/+25I'll admit it, I went through an American hating period. I realize it was stupid and I now want the best for America. I have met quite a few Americans and they have all been top-shelf people. To hate a whole country of people shows a lot of cold-blooded ignorance. You guys just happen to be going through a rough patch but you'll sort it out. You have before. Good luck.
      • chaos7, on 06/26/2008, -1/+3thank you (from an american)
      • Warbick, on 06/26/2008, -2/+3This site could use more posts like this, dugg.
      • charm803, on 06/26/2008, -3/+3If only us Americans can follow your lead and stop hating all Muslims for the acts of a handful.

      • tyho, on 06/26/2008, -1/+2Thank you and good luck with your indigestion Mr. Turd.
      • mickstephenson, on 06/27/2008, -1/+1If only we could get the same posts about the anti-British phenomena, and the tendency of Americans to label us as being imperialistic at every turn, and our "relish" in that history, even though the only people who seem to think about that history are Americans
        • davidprost, on 06/27/2008, -2/+2I must've missed all the 'British bashing'. I know quite a few of them and they are wonderful people. I even have some family living over there at the moment, and they love it. Always telling me what a wonderful country it is. (I'm American by the way.)
      • jlfb, on 07/05/2008, -0/+1I agree, and those of us who love America are doing our best to turn around the attitudes of our America-hating fifth column, the GOP. Pray for us!
    • jabberwolf, on 06/26/2008, -16/+5Wow...
      can you actually play the entire 2 minutes prior and 2 minutes afterwards??

      He was saying about how POW suspects are captured.... if they are going to be given protection under US courts.. even when not in USA and not from USA... why bother putting them in prison, just shoot them.

      That article shows that GITMO prisoners have already been released.. why?
      Because they did a military investigation - NOT US courts but POW manner.

      If we are going to protect them like this, the military really isnt given much of an option, be politically correct or do the right thing and take no prisoners.

      I swear, do libtards EVER read the full article or full information? I mean, you're basically making yourselves look like complete retards!
    • solid12345, on 06/26/2008, -8/+7Yeah because we all know Russia, China, Africa, Turkey, and the middle east doesn't take terrorists and criminals out and shoot them, right?

      I love how people think everywhere besides America is some liberal place where people are all kind and nice to each other.
      • goblindegook, on 06/26/2008, -3/+5So because Russia, China, Africa (surely you don't mean all of Africa?), etc. do it, that makes it okay? Unfortunately for your ***** argument, America is the only country I know bent on policing the world and spreading "freedom" and "democracy" at gunpoint. If you want to be a beacon for all that is good, you start by setting the example instead of stooping to the level of criminals.
        • RRJackson, on 06/26/2008, -5/+4What he's suggesting is that the world outside your parent's basement doesn't always play by Marquess of Queensberry rules. Hugging foreign aggressors and telling them America is their friend won't be met with the reception the Left seem to imagine.
        • NickFury, on 06/26/2008, -3/+6Um, no, the point is that the US supposedly holds itself to a higher moral standard. The argument that because other countries behave unethically, then the US should too completely shoots down that idea. You don't become the shining example to the world just by saying you are - you have to lead by example, no matter how difficult it may be.
        • RRJackson, on 06/27/2008, -4/+3Because somewhere in Uganda or Libya they're going to wake up one morning and see the United States bowing to foreign aggression on the news and that will inspire their leaders to call an emergency meeting so they can adopt our code of ethics. It must be fun to identify yourself as a comic book character and think the world works like the Marvel universe, "Nick Fury."
      • CrudOMatic, on 06/26/2008, -2/+6Yup... but aren't WE supposed to be, say, BETTER?

        I thought we were supposed to be an EXAMPLE for the world, and freedom in general.

        But I guess I'm old fashioned.

        When we start stripping away rights because of fear, or some other malady, we stop being an example and start becoming more like "THEM"
        • NickFury, on 06/26/2008, -2/+5My comment got eaten, but CrudOMatic, you basically summed up what I was going to say. You can't lead by example just by SAYING you're the land of freedom, you have to live it.

          The right seems to have an alarming desire to be more like the "terrorists" - if they do it, hell, so should we!
    • RRJackson, on 06/26/2008, -6/+4It's fine if they hate us, just as long as they also fear us.
    • tyho, on 06/26/2008, -10/+5Yup they all hate us here in the US.

      Now if we can just stop the zillions of people flooding into our country...
    • tumatakuru, on 06/26/2008, -4/+5It's not so much hate as fear ....
      To observe America from the outside is to see (to quote a great American poet) "guns and sharp swords in the hands of young children".
    • SoulDrift404, on 06/27/2008, -1/+2This is why some Americans hate other Americans, for sure.
    • whyknot2k, on 06/27/2008, -4/+2The people who hate America do so because, trapped in the sewage of their own crappy country they are jealous of what they see here.
      • goblindegook, on 06/27/2008, -2/+3You have no idea how much I've come to appreciate my country after seeing what Bush did to yours.
        • whyknot2k, on 06/27/2008, -3/+1Good stay there. You would lower our property values if you moved here.
  • GrogInOhio, on 06/26/2008, -48/+168And America slides just a tad further down the road to absolute fascism...

    • dshPls, on 06/26/2008, -9/+39From ONE TV hosts comments? I know it shouldn't even be necessary to call you an idiot, but you have 11 thumbs up and that's amazing for such a simple minded conclusion to this article.
      • DigitusAnonymus, on 06/26/2008, -6/+1It's the Idiocracy syndrome, It's good for business. See this ad that says "Cats: All your base are belong tu us"? That's one example of how we can apply a ridiculous yet popular line of text to a black t-shirt manufactured by a starving chinese kid for less than 50cents and sell it to the Americans for 20 bucks.

        Good business it is. To see the Ad refresh your page a few times until you see it over there --->
        • dshPls, on 06/26/2008, -1/+2Yes a dumb t-shirt (that you can choose to ignore) really shows that we're sliding towards fascism, you've nailed it. I mean sheesh, America is the only place you could buy such a shirt, I'm sure there's no comparison apparel that's sold in the rest of the world. But hey, you're making that claim.
        • obsolite, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2Furthermore, let's stop producing that shirt for the purpose of your example. What happens to that starving Chinese kid now? Oh wait, you don't actually give a *****.
      • rendersan, on 06/26/2008, -0/+8Glenn Beck obviously doesn't have any political power, but things said in the media do slowly infect people's attitudes. The more people we have that are willing to publicly condone murder without due process, the farther we do slip down to becoming society that will accept fascism.

        After all, terrorists deserve to die. And all Arabs are terrorists. Just like all Mexicans want your job. Just like all Blacks are criminals and seducers of white women. Just like the Jews burned down the Reichstag. Just like every persecuted minority ever. Clearly, all must die without due process until the world is clean. That's where this is going.
        • obsolite, on 06/26/2008, -1/+0Nazi reference: Check!

          Stereotypical viewpoints: Check!

          Vague descriptions: Check!

          Backhanded insult: Che--- oh ***** oh ***** you forgot to say Bush or Fox News do you still have time to edit your post?
        • sinrtb, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1I uh dont see any mention of Nazi's nor do I see stereotypical viewpoints other then viewpoints that are currently shared by many Americans on either side of the party line.
        • ExitMoose, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1@sinrtb

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire
      • jezsik, on 06/26/2008, -0/+5Someone suggests that we should do away with due process of the law and you don't see how that's approaching fascism? Sure he's one guy, but he's one guy with a HUGE audience and I don't see CNN smacking him down for this comment.
        • bababoosh, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2I can see both points, He is just one T.V and radio host so it isn't accurate to say that he is representative of the attitude of the majority of Americans. That being said, he has a huge following on the radio and at most a large one on television and he is representative of that slice of the American demographic. The scary thing is that a lot of those people agree with him.

          Also, in regards to how this affects the way people from other countries see the U.S... comments like this from a popular host will probably make more headlines around the world than those of the people here, on this digg, that are voicing what is the attitude of the vast majority of sane Americans. They will never hear our voice and will probably hear his a lot.
    • obsolite, on 06/26/2008, -5/+6Let's only allow freedom of speech for those who love everything. Everyone else has to place a request and file a permit. That'll put America back on the right track!
    • Stormwern, on 06/26/2008, -4/+4Thankfully Beck is not in charge, sadly his mentor is.
    • bradysdaman, on 06/26/2008, -8/+4and if Obama wins he will complete that road
    • Hangly, on 06/26/2008, -3/+3Fascism is at least organized. This is more like barbarism.
    • tyho, on 06/26/2008, -2/+3Grog
      Learn from your parents' mistakes - use birth control.

      Oh and read a book sometime, I suggest you start with the definition of fascism.
    • WileEPeyote, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1ARGH! This is not facism...for the love of gawd can people please stop using fascism to mean jack-booted thugs or Islamic Fundamentalists.
  • roadtripguy, on 06/26/2008, -24/+154Glenn Beck cares for nobody but himself, and he appeals to the most selfish of Americans to support his rhetoric. He wouldn't last 10 minutes in a debate with a well informed, well educated group. Hell, on his show it's just him talking nearly the whole time, as well as his radio show. Sort of like Fox news folk, if you start to make more sense than he does, he talks over you and does whatever he can to make sure you don't get in too many coherent sentences.
    • Pillage, on 06/26/2008, -17/+11Beck devotes a lot of his time on air to talking about his family and especially his love for his children. He talks to almost all of his guests about their families and their children. Friday he usually devotes the entire hour to one guest, like the marine who was severely wounded in Iraq and made a very long and painful recovery.
    • Monk22, on 06/26/2008, -11/+5you should avoid making baseless assumptions since you clearly dont listen to his show. it just makes you look like a dumbass.
      • PeppermintPig, on 06/26/2008, -1/+3Agreed. Though I recommend you not listen to his show.

        Glenn Beck often makes conflicting statements, which makes him borderline insane, at the very least. I think that's why he's always talking about duct taping his head together.
        • WhiteMike87, on 06/26/2008, -3/+2and he's a drunk too
        • Monk22, on 06/26/2008, -2/+2i listen to his show everyday. its quite entertaining. doesn't mean in the slightest i agree with everything he says. and every time i see an article about something he said its completely taken out of context. since you've cited that twice now about his conflicting viewpoints, by all means id love to see some examples. id also like you to find someone who's never contradicted themselves ever.

          and to whitemike: he was an alcoholic about 10 years ago and was on the verge of suicide. its good to hear every once in a while someone can pull themselves out of that and be successful in business and in your family life.
        • PeppermintPig, on 06/26/2008, -1/+1I know that he is taken out of context often, but this time he looks rather guilty by projecting that kind of statement as it assumes the captives are guilty.

          Plenty of people say contradicting things. That's not the same as changing one's mind. And I believe Glenn has been changing his views and, at times, inclined to resist government interference more often. It just happens that between segments he turns around and advocates government. It's unprincipled and contradictory. Sorry I do not have a specific quote. Perhaps his views on drugs, or how he calls himself libertarian thinking then turns around and bashes the ideology.
      • bababoosh, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2I agree partially, I do listen to his show because it's the only thing that the local talk radio stations will play. Though roadtripguy's comment's may not have been completely accurate they were by no means off base. I used to love his show until he started to become a sounding board LDS (which I am sure I am going to get burried for that one but it is not at all ignorant and blanket). I'm not even sure how much "end of the world" crap we hear on his show. He has the slogan " The Fusion of Entertainment and Enlightenment ," that used to be so true until he bang to become popular. He found his base, and just like Hannity, he began exploiting their ignorance and fear, which is why he is or was the third most listened to talk radio program in the country. Been listening to him for almost 8 years now, so I've listened to him progress. Monk22, heed your own advice.
      • HMMcKamikaze, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1I'm not liking Monk Chat nearly as much as I thought I would.
    • AngelBunny, on 06/27/2008, -0/+2isn't this how most republicans in power are today, unfortunately?
    • stilesja, on 06/27/2008, -0/+6I saw Glenn Beck arguing with one of his guests about oil one time. He prefaces "common man assertions" with this: "Hey I'm just a recovering alcoholic who couldn't get through 2 weeks of college ex radio dj.... but why don't we just, blah blah blah".. So the guy who he is interviewing is a Geologist and tries to explain why we could never be energy independent on the oil on our own country for very long without coming up with something else. But Glen just won't have any of it. He then proceeds to tell this guy, who is an expert, why he is wrong. I mean if he was telling him how to do a Keg stand or drop out of college it would be one thing, but the dude just admitted he doesn't know jack ***** but still argues until the commercial, presumably just to hear himself talk...
    • loganrapp, on 06/27/2008, -0/+2But he isn't Fox News; he's CNN.

      Once more, with feeling: News organizations in general are largely full of *****.
  • dinobot, on 06/26/2008, -19/+67Well, thank Joe Pesci he isn't the President... I seriously hate Beck, just looking at him is enough to give me a headache
  • someguyouknow, on 06/26/2008, -23/+30Doesn't he have some sort of mental problem?
    Hasn't he admitted to abusing alcohol and drugs?

    That would explain a lot.
    • PeppermintPig, on 06/26/2008, -2/+12Yes, he used to abuse alchohol if I'm correct. But now he's an earthy pious man with a sense of moral superiority that he conceals with self deprecation. He's an unprincipled git.
      • stilesja, on 06/27/2008, -1/+1Recovering alcoholic... but worse than that he was a radio dj, so he just loves the sound of his own voice.
  • pintomp3, on 06/26/2008, -12/+251isn't that what terrorists do?
    • WiseWeasel, on 06/26/2008, -2/+45Yeah that seals it, Glenn Beck is obviously a terrorist. Hang him by the balls!
      • drunkmonkey01, on 06/26/2008, -1/+8ouch. i like that idea
      • identifiedlogo, on 06/26/2008, -0/+5ouch indeed.
      • kevinwiz, on 06/27/2008, -0/+4Yup. Glenn BEck is a terrorist. He is interested in killing innocent people.
    • shig, on 06/26/2008, -2/+4There's a story out of Britain about a caucasian elementary school boy accused of being a terrorist because he showed beheadings of Westerners to his classmates, had an unnatural obsession for guns, wanted to be a sniper, and wondered what killing a person felt like.

      I can't decide if whether they have apprehended a terrorist youth or just a poor American kid.
      • sulthernao, on 06/26/2008, -1/+1He also helped rape his sister... that is one ***** up kid who needs help.
      • shig, on 06/28/2008, -0/+2If that's true, it's disturbing.
    • pitlord, on 06/27/2008, -7/+1Are you stupid or something? The terrorists would kidnap you and use you as a bargaining chip until they decide to slowly separate your skull from your spine with a dull spoon for the camera so they can upload your execution to YouTube.
      >.>
      • WiseWeasel, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1And on the door handle was A HOOK!!! AAAAAAAAAAH!!!
  • chicofaraby, on 06/26/2008, -11/+70There is no answer too simple for the extreme right. Apparently all problems can be solved by killing someone.
    • jellyfishes, on 06/26/2008, -1/+7Indeed. "Occam's Razor" is not a weapon!
    • Monk22, on 06/26/2008, -11/+4apparently you can solve all your problems by making assumptions and looking retarded. he frequently jokes about how anything he says is taken out of context by mediamatters he says ***** on purpose just to see if they pick it up. low and behold another article about something he said that is misconstrued yet you eat it up like a fat kid on cake.
      • chicofaraby, on 06/26/2008, -2/+9Jokes are funny. Murdering prisoners is not.
        • PeppermintPig, on 06/26/2008, -2/+2Another rare time I agree here. Monk does make a valid point that he is taken out of context once in a while, but Glenn blindly supports the state and contradicts his own positions. Such a fat bastard.
        • Monk22, on 06/26/2008, -1/+2i never said murdering prisioners was funny. i appreciate it, as im sure mr. beck would, if you would not misquote and make assumptions about my stance on things i didnt comment about.
      • Terr01, on 06/26/2008, -1/+5Apparently you're a knee-jerk "OMG OUT OF CONTEXT" person who doesn't bother to read the dang context.

        You can listen to the audio, and there's plenty of context and run-up to his comments.
    • djasshat, on 06/26/2008, -2/+1In other words, "Death solves all problems, no man, no problem."
  • MrSketch, on 06/26/2008, -4/+33Reminds me of Troopers: "All suspects are guilty. Period. Otherwise, they wouldn't be suspects.'
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=tcoZBDIPDP8
    • eth3l, on 06/26/2008, -5/+1fine plan by me.Under this plan or the plan to give them habaes corpus we arent getting intel anyway. eff it.
      • ZenMojo, on 06/26/2008, -0/+3By the way, eth, what were you doing on the night of August 16th?

        *blam*
  • TheMachine1, on 06/26/2008, -8/+69Terrorist use unlawful means to obtain an end. If you deny them the right to a fair trial it make the entire reason you are opposed to them a hypocrisy.
  • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 06/26/2008, -26/+29Meanwhile in the real world:
    http://digg.com/world_news/Released_Guantanamo_det ...
    • PeterODactyl, on 06/26/2008, -13/+21See what torture gets you?
      • dshPls, on 06/26/2008, -15/+14Yes it's always somehow our fault...
        • lived666, on 06/26/2008, -7/+4Do you think it is ever our fault? If so when?
        • publiclurker, on 06/26/2008, -7/+3Not always, but thanks to losers like you, it is the odds on bet.
        • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 06/26/2008, -4/+3"Do you think it is ever our fault? If so when?"

          Congress' refusal to allow the United States to join the League of Nations after World War I, left the organization powerless to evenly adjudicate the Treaty of Versailles, stop Germany's re-militarization or halt Imperial Japan's conquest into China.

          That was our fault.
      • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 06/26/2008, -9/+10Please tell me you forgot your sarcasm tag.
        • publiclurker, on 06/26/2008, -6/+8What sarcasm. If you pick an innocent person off the street and lock him in a box for a few years of torture, don't you think he's going to be a little pissed at us?
        • Monk22, on 06/26/2008, -4/+5every single one of them is "innocent" now eh? now way they could actually be terrorists since they dont exist at all.
        • ssn697, on 06/26/2008, -3/+5@pubiclicker

          The following primary factors favor continued detention:

          A. Al Ajmi is a Taliban fighter:

          1. Al Ajmi went AWOL from the Kuwaiti military in order to travel to Afghanistan participate in the Jihad.
          2. Al Ajmi was issued an AK-47, ammunition and hand grenades by the Taliban.

          B. Al Ajmi participated in military operations against the coalition.

          1. Al Ajmi admitted he was in Afghanistan fighting with the Taliban in the Bagram area.
          2. Al Ajmi was placed in a defensive position by the Taliban in order to block the Northern Alliance.
          3. Al Ajmi admitted spending eight months on the front line at the Aiubi Center, Afghanistan.
          4. Al Ajmi admitted engaging in two or three fire fights with the Northern Alliance.
          5. Al Ajmi retreated to the Tora Bora region of Afghanistan and was later captured as he attempted to escape to Pakistan.

          C. Al Ajmi is committed to jihad.

          1. Al Ajmi went AWOL because he wanted to participate in the jihad in Afghanistan but could not get leave from the military.
          2. In Aug 2004, Al Ajmi wanted to make sure that when the case goes before the Tribunal, they know that he now is a Jihadist, an enemy combatant, and that he will kill as many Americans as he possibly can.

          D. Upon arrival at GTMO, Al Ajmi has been constantly in trouble. Al Ajmi's overall behavior has been aggressive and non-compliant, and he has resided in GTMO's disciplinary blocks throughout his detention.

          E. Based upon a review of recommendations from U.S. agencies and classified and unclassified documents, Al Ajmi is regarded as a continued threat to the United States and its Allies.
          ________________________________

          You mean like that "innocent" person we released, and is now involved in bombings again?
    • madfrogurt, on 06/26/2008, -5/+23That's part of the cost of liberty. You know that nice patriotic jingle "freedom isn't free"? Well that means the bad guy sometimes gets away (through court cases and due process) so that we don't screw over more innocent people. The alternative is locking away suspects for life or, like Mr. Beck states, a summary execution.
      • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 06/26/2008, -8/+5You are quite cavalier with the prospect that others get to die for your beliefs. Its almost...chickenhawkish.
        • whatever01, on 06/26/2008, -2/+9And you are quite cavalier with killing people who you think may disagree with you. Pot, kettle, black?
      • jezsik, on 06/26/2008, -2/+7"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." - William Blackstone (1723-1780)
    • MammasMilk, on 06/26/2008, -6/+17If we had legal reason to detain him and a case to successfully prosecute him, he would not have been released. That is a failure of your Bush administration not doing their work making their case.

      • charm803, on 06/26/2008, -1/+3I was going to say the same thing.

        Who were their freaking lawyers?!?!??!?!
    • swrostmore, on 06/26/2008, -7/+6Meanwhile, in the real world:
      http://www.mcclatchydc.com/detainees/
    • Qyasogk, on 06/26/2008, -6/+4I have no doubt that he was released for just that reason; to give the Neocons the propaganda tool to say "We didn't want to let them go, but the democrats and those activist judges made us!"
    • pintomp3, on 06/26/2008, -3/+6what about the other 399?

      MYTH: The detainees at Guantanamo are the “worst of the worst."

      Fact: Few of the men sent to Guantanamo are the high-ranking al Qaeda or Taliban members the US government alleges them to be. Hundreds were not even involved in the conflict, but rather sold to the US by bounty hunters or turned over by rival clan members trying to settle a vendetta, while high level al Qaeda operatives with the money to buy their freedom got away. According to Michael Scheuer, head of the CIA’s bin Laden unit from 1999 until 2004, no more than 10 percent of those brought to Guantanamo Bay were considered high-value detainees.

      http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/guantanamo/2007/myths ...
    • Origin415, on 06/27/2008, -1/+1http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=2 ...

      They werent released from our courts, take it up with the Kuwaitis.
  • wynja, on 06/26/2008, -18/+43One word describes this man and the bastards that let him on the air: traitors.
    • Charun, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2One word describes what Glenn Beck said: Opinion.
      You shouldn't toss about a word like traitor in regard to someone as insignificant as Beck.
    • obsolite, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2trai·tor
      - 1 : one who betrays another's trust or is false to an obligation or duty
      - 2 : one who commits treason

      Who is he betraying? Why are there 33 diggs up for this comment?

      All it takes is a buzz word around here like this and people are all "Yeah hang him for his opinion! God bless America!" Open your eyes.
  • chicoer2001, on 06/26/2008, -15/+37This guy has no idea how the legal system works.
    • conservmyusa, on 06/28/2008, -0/+0We have a legal system,FOR US!The legal system in this country does not apply to POW's.Just kill them is stupid.They are POW's.They should be held like any other POW.We certainly treat them pretty well for POW's.Enemy Combatants,is a politically correct way to say POW.Many thought we should have done something with them earlier to avoid this crap,there is no "do something".Right or wrong,we are in a war,that doesn't mean they have a right to our legal system because we captured them..Any politician,celebrity,whoever,that would go to another country and ***** on us should be made to stay in that country.Look at these celebrities,making millions in this country,what can they really say against a country that affords them the life style they have?We are shifting our freedoms to many other people also,that don't have any right to it.Illegals in this country are offered health care, schooling,etc.Where do we draw the line?
  • obliviousfool, on 06/26/2008, -18/+52Glenn Beck is a *****.
    • conservmyusa, on 06/28/2008, -0/+0Would your family be proud of you if they heard you talk like that?Never mind send it to people you don"t even know.
  • carolinaws, on 06/26/2008, -15/+84YEAH, GLENN! RIGHT ON!

    Why stop there? Accused of a crime? Public execution - on the spot. Innocent? Doesn't matter. Do away with the courts. Save society from having to deal with lawyers.

    (Yes, this is sarcasm).

    Beck is such an ass.
    • ostracize, on 06/26/2008, -8/+4Well I thought Beck was being sarcastic in the same vein?
      • j1ggy, on 06/26/2008, -1/+4Expect for the /sarcasm tag he didn't use...
    • thedogfatherx, on 06/26/2008, -7/+5Dude look at you. You are being sarcastic and calling him an ass. Well, Beck was also being sarcastic.

      *slap yourself
  • GhostyBoy, on 06/26/2008, -15/+81He belongs on Fox.
  • angusm, on 06/26/2008, -16/+54"Yes, Glenn, that's very sweet. Now, run along - grownups are talking."
  • PolishLogic, on 06/26/2008, -18/+10Glenn Beck never ceases to make me laugh.
  • sweeneypng, on 06/26/2008, -11/+35Dear Glenn,
    Define "suspect".
    • OffPiste, on 06/26/2008, -16/+4The haji running from the IED having just dropped the initiating wire.

      The haji with the rocket launcher in his trunk as seen from a Warrior


      • BoneheadFarker, on 06/26/2008, -1/+9Funny...I was unaware that people were planting IEDs and using rocket launchers in the US. It must be a new thing there...
      • swrostmore, on 06/26/2008, -0/+6The haji (Muslim) turned in in return for a bounty payment. The Muslim captured because his name is similar to a "known terrorist." Ah, ***** it, lets just get rid of due process for all Muslims.
      • shig, on 06/26/2008, -1/+4Too bad a court will never be able to hear such an eyewitness testimony, isn't it? And it's mostly not because they weren't given trials, but because most of the suspects were never seen before being handed over to the detaining authority in exchange for money.
    • MemeWarrior, on 06/26/2008, -0/+7Anyone doing anything the federal government doesn't like.
      • whatever01, on 06/26/2008, -0/+9Anyone accused or rumored to be doing anything the federal government doesn't like.
        - fixed that for you
    • Charun, on 06/26/2008, -0/+4Brown people?
  • InvisibleInk, on 06/26/2008, -10/+23Rule of Law. It's what republic literally means and what the U.S.A. is. Do away with laws protecting individuals from the State or the mob and you'll have anarchy. It's a slippery slope; let's not walk down that path.

    Violaion of international treaties is against federal law, and is an impeachable and imprisonable offense. The administration has been violating the Geneva Conventions with impunity for far too long.
    • j1ggy, on 06/26/2008, -4/+4Doing away with laws that protect individuals from the state != anarchy, quite the opposite actually.
    • ZenMojo, on 06/26/2008, -0/+3Republic literally means "Thing of the people." But close enough.
    • jabberwolf, on 06/26/2008, -8/+1Now retard,,, were these detainees in the USA?

      Answer me that, and then get back to the mental clinic!
    • conservmyusa, on 06/28/2008, -1/+0We have been keeping these people as POW's.How does that violate any law?How many POW's have had trials in any country at any time?
  • zephyear, on 06/26/2008, -10/+33why doesn't CNN kick beck off, he does incredibly terrible in ratings
    • jabberwolf, on 06/26/2008, -10/+5Actually he has HUGE ratings more so then compared to MCNBC at that time slot compared to any other.
      You might be trying to argue 2007 ratings then I would agree.
      So nice try, but your a libtard, and facts don't matter to you, but they do to everyone else living in reality.
    • Stormwern, on 06/26/2008, -3/+3Beck average around 130k in the advertisement demo as of may 2008, Olbermann for example had 550k the same month.
  • staxofmax, on 06/26/2008, -9/+43Wait a minute, I thought the terrorists hate America because of our freedom? So if Glenn Beck hates freedom, then he probably hates America. And if he hates America, then he's probably a terrorist! And if he's a terrorist, then he has access to our courts!!!
    • TGrimace, on 06/26/2008, -3/+16Then by using his own logic, I guess we have to kill him. *sigh* Maybe he should save us the trouble and just kill himself.
      • staxofmax, on 06/26/2008, -2/+17It would be the patriotic thing for him to do.
    • FolkTheory, on 06/26/2008, -1/+4then if we implement his plan...we'll have no more freedom...terrorists will love us? but then we'll kill our lovers?

      *headache*
    • jlfb, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1Stax, T, and Folk, u hit the nail on the head. Beck is nothing more than a slick weasel. Wat an @$$!!!
  • rebotfc, on 06/26/2008, -13/+117This is insane, how does this person have a show on CNN?

    Don Imus only made a reference to 'Nappy headed hoes' and got vilified for it, Beck is seriously advocating murder of potentially innocent suspects.

    America is ***** ridiculous.
    • samthurston, on 06/26/2008, -3/+10You're confusing me... are you saying we should kill nappy-headed hoes too?
    • Scrappy1850, on 06/26/2008, -8/+4revrend Al is your pal
    • cryptomystic, on 06/26/2008, -2/+7You are just finding this out now?
    • Monk22, on 06/26/2008, -11/+3"Beck is seriously advocating murder of potentially innocent suspects."

      and your a ***** moron if you think he actually thinks we should do that. try listening to his show once in a while hes a pretty resonable guy. he jokes all the time about how you douchebags take everything out of context, chop it up, and make it sounds completly different that what was actually being talked about. but who needs context?
  • Hetman, on 06/26/2008, -14/+14I would not expect anything less from glen beck.
  • Pillage, on 06/26/2008, -10/+34If you actually listen to the entire clip, instead of the carefully clipped edited version they transcribed you'll see the context of why he said " We’re going to shoot them all in the head. If we think that they are against us, we’re going to shoot them and kill them, period." He is talking about how the military is going to either be to scared or unwilling to capture terror suspects that instead they are just going to kill them out of fear that they get let out and kill more Americans.
    • madfrogurt, on 06/26/2008, -7/+17That thinking justifies summary executions of legitimate prisoners of war, and that is a flat out war crime.

      I think soldiers at this point, after 5 years in Iraq, are used to being shot at and news of shutting down Gitmo won't cause them to drop all pretenses of law. The only people really scared that the few hundred detainees left in Gitmo are personally chomping at the bit just to kill more US soldiers are politicians and commentators who thrive on fear.
      • Pillage, on 06/26/2008, -2/+6What I got out of it was the question: Would you rather a terror suspect be shot or captured? That's the point of what Beck was making (albeit in an embellished way) he believes that this ruling will cause soldiers to kill terror suspects rather than capture them. That could very well be the case or it could not we don't really know and all we have now at this point is speculation.
      • GreatSunJester, on 06/26/2008, -4/+6HERETIC! BLASPHEMER! How dare you use reason when reaction is all that is desired? Taking a quote in full context .... that is just...... just....... un-mutual!
      • whatever01, on 06/26/2008, -1/+2No. Commentators and politicians are not scared of any released detainee killing Americans.

        I think they want it, actually. Not on a personal level, obviously. But they know that fear and anger in the masses gives them power, and, well, it's a price that needs to be paid.
      • Bologner, on 06/27/2008, -0/+3I am no soldier, but this line amazes me:

        "I think soldiers at this point, after 5 years in Iraq, are used to being shot at"

        What kind of lollypop gumdrop world do you live in? Soldiers get USED to getting shot at? Are you out of your ***** mind?

        I shouldn't have to say this, but I ain't no neo-con. Than line just shocked and amazed me.
    • DryMaltExtract, on 06/26/2008, -9/+5A real man takes no prisoners.
      • nycmac247, on 06/26/2008, -1/+4especially in your gay sex fantasies
    • Saikou, on 06/26/2008, -6/+9I listened to the whole clip, and Beck is a lunatic who advocates the killing of suspects because they have access to our courts. He doesn’t like the supreme court or the rule of law, nor does he understand that access to courts is not an automatic get out of jail free card. Beck does not understand the if he were in Iraq, a mere soldier could detain him and have him shipped off to detention for YEARS without the benefit of Habeas Corpus. Beck is a dry drunk, who believes his own BS with the assurance common to idiots. He doesn’t understand that making a cowboy BS statement about doing away with taking prisoners would
      galvanize more people against the US. That tactic put into practice would harm our own soldiers when captured. Terms of engagement, I guess, are too hard for Beck to understand, which is why he is on radio
      screaming to the unwashed.
    • rebotfc, on 06/26/2008, -2/+6As stated above, murdering prisoners of war is a war-crime.
      • Pillage, on 06/26/2008, -3/+2No one is arguing that, the argument is that they will never become prisoners of war because they will be killed on the battlefield.
  • OffPiste, on 06/26/2008, -24/+12Finally, some common sense.
  • madfrogurt, on 06/26/2008, -14/+15I thought for sure that the headline would misquote or exaggerate what he said, but no, he really is that twisted and pandering to the worst parts of people.

    The major problem he and other Gitmo-apologists is that they all assume everyone inside there has killed and conclusively been found guilty. Luckily for them, there are not many court cases to prove them right or wrong. Well, no court cases other than the ones for those who have already been released after found not guilty.
    • pitlord, on 06/27/2008, -2/+2Do you seriously expect our soldiers to start "arresting" the enemy instead of just shooting them dead?
      o.o
      Do you honestly expect us to prosecute and try every enemy combatant who fires a weapon or tosses a grenade at our guys instead of just shooting them dead? These aren't even U.S. citizens. These people have never even SEEN America. They were picked up after they surrendered to us during combat in a foreign country and you want us to bring them here for a court trial?!?!?!
      WTF is wrong with you freaks? Seriously!
      ><
      THIS is why other countries hate us. Because the see us even THINKING about something this STUPID and they it makes us look weak and pathetic! They think that we are so messed up that it will be easy for them to just walk in and take over.
      -_-
      If we don't start listening to guys like Glenn Beck, then they are right and we deserve the contempt of the Nations.
      • madfrogurt, on 06/27/2008, -1/+3Ever heard of a straw man argument? Probably not. Anyway, no one is asking that the soldiers try to arrest the people shooting at them. I expect them to try to kill those people. The people at Gitmo though were mostly captured outside of combat (most people caught during combat have open and shut cases and are sent to actual PoW camps).

        The problem is in the guys who we capture who may or may not have information and who may or may not have done something wrong..

        I expect us to treat these prisoners of war (the guys we capture or who we arrest) to get an eventual trial to confirm if they were in fact doing something wrong.

        Keeping something so simple as trial by jury and giving PoW rights isn't something contemptible either. These are virtues of a society that doesn't need to resort to a bullet to every head that could possibly threaten them just to keep safe.
  • dougerdo, on 06/26/2008, -10/+3Speechless.
  • yuokool12, on 06/26/2008, -16/+8I agree we should kill everyone in the middle east!!! Nuke them!!!
  • RespectableGuy, on 06/26/2008, -7/+9Right when you think he can't get anymore retarded he says this...
  • msmayhew, on 06/26/2008, -12/+7Beck is to CNN what Colmes is to Fox...
    • anachronaut, on 06/26/2008, -2/+2Totally inaccurate comparison, which is why you're being dugg down.

      Colmes sits there looking like the weak, pathetic punching bag that he actually is, soaking up verbal abuse and making the liberal and/or progressive positions look weak and untenable (which is why he's there in the first place, after all); Glenn Beck runs his own show (and his mouth) -- he doesn't have some big liberal bully there to help make him look weak and stupid every time he regrettably opens his mouth.
  • jlhoben, on 06/26/2008, -9/+13Why not just force them to listen to Glenn Beck?

    Nah, that would be a war crime for sure.
  • david76, on 06/26/2008, -7/+10This reminds me of an episode of the Simpsons, Treehouse of Horror VI...

    Lisa: If your advertising agency created all those giant characters, you
    must know how to stop them.
    Man: Well sir, advertising is a funny thing. If people stop paying
    attention to it, pretty soon, it goes away.
    Lisa: Like that old woman who couldn't find the beef?
    Man: Exactly. If you stop paying attention to the monsters, they'll
    lose their powers.
    • awtripp, on 06/26/2008, -2/+4Brilliantly relevant. "Man: Exactly. If you stop paying attention to the monsters, they'll
      lose their powers."

      Unfortunately, for both ***** products and ***** news, half or so of America ***** loves it.
      • Scrappy1850, on 06/26/2008, -1/+2hahahahha... "where's the beef?" ahhh... i miss those commercials!
    • moyn, on 06/26/2008, -1/+1The problem is, MORE people are listening to this stuff ... as we all continue this slide into the darkness...
  • fletchsd, on 06/26/2008, -5/+6I am sure that is the same reasoning our captors in WWII, Korea, Vietnam, etc. had. We look back on their actions as barbaric, yet as a country we are doing much the same thing (holding without due justice, for the most part not killing) as they did in those wars. We justify the holding of so called terror suspects and torturing them as a necessary means to preventing further violence, but how does that differentiate the actions of our captors in other wars. Their means of interrogation may be much harsher and wicked, but it all amounts to torture and undue process in many instances.
    • lewscroo, on 06/26/2008, -1/+2I guess the only good thing about Beck's policy if it was applied by all countries is that John McCain wouldn't be running.
  • mikethejohnson, on 06/26/2008, -22/+19Go GB!! The problems like these would end.....Why not attack a country that lets you get away scot-free from their legal system? No one suffers the consequences. Kill a terrorist and you send a message, and that leads to less terrorists. We're giving our rights away to people who don't deserve them and who are trying to take your own away from you. There is no "bigger man" in war, you kill the people trying to kill you. end of story.

    Go ahead, digg me down. Keep reading your beloved huffington post.
    • madfrogurt, on 06/26/2008, -7/+11"Kill a terrorist and you send a message, and that leads to less terrorists."
      Because entering Iraq has caused less terrorism in the area than before the war right?

      And stop perpetuating this ***** about how the terrorists want to "take away our freedom." The only people who can do that are in our own government. All these terrorist assholes can do is complain and try to kill soldiers overseas.
      • Scrappy1850, on 06/26/2008, -1/+3overseas? like terrorists have never tried to do anything here?
      • Apophis574, on 06/26/2008, -1/+3I distinctly remember a day in 2001 where they did something here...

        Maybe thats just me though...
      • infernal6, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2Well, we are over seas from them I guess...
    • shig, on 06/26/2008, -2/+2"Why not attack a country that lets you get away scot-free from their legal system?"

      There are more justified reasons to attack a country that does the opposite. Are you saying America should be attacked because the justice system is based on proving guilt?
    • KanameTosen, on 06/26/2008, -2/+5Good God, I though people like this weren't allowed to use the internet.

      Why not identify the problem in the legal system that allows you to "get away scot-free"? Because all I see in that is pointless *****.
    • aelias, on 06/26/2008, -2/+1There's only one problem with your impeccable logic. These guys sort of want to die for the cause.

      "Guaranteed martyrdom? Sign me up!"
    • SoulGrub, on 06/27/2008, -2/+0You're an embarrassment to America
  • Ummagumma, on 06/26/2008, -7/+5If Glen Beck were President, I'd... ooof, I don't know if there's a quick enough or absolute enough way of doing myself in at that turn of events... well, I'd jump into the beam of the Hadron Collider, I guess.
    • ZenMojo, on 06/26/2008, -1/+2Who knows, maybe you might appear in the past...AND the future!
  • joshuasawyer, on 06/26/2008, -8/+18He should lose his ***** job!
    • ProUSADigger, on 06/26/2008, -5/+4Yeah, no kidding. ***** Freedom Of Speech, right???! Wait...
    • kapmahn, on 06/26/2008, -2/+3Why? He's a comedy opinion guy. So his opinion doesn't jive with 99% of the people on here. It's still his opinion, or don't people have freedom of speech. If CNN wants this kind of comedy commentary, let 'em do what they want. If he succeeds, guess that's what capitalism is about, and if he fails, the same.
      • JinnRikki, on 06/26/2008, -2/+2Please there are impressionable 30 year old chidren he may sway with his craziness. Some own guns and may think you're lookin' a little too brown and terroristy someday.
    • Monk22, on 06/26/2008, -1/+3for being misquoted and slandered on a daily basis?
    • letherial, on 06/29/2008, -0/+1might not agree with what he says, but freedom of speech and all....i mean, people still listen to him, CNN is making money off of him, so why should he lose his job.
  • Turbojugend27, on 06/26/2008, -12/+6While saying kill them is a little harsh, society has become WAY WAY to forgiving to criminals and it shows in a terrible way.

    Eye for an Eye!
    • Waiting2awake, on 06/26/2008, -2/+2leaving the world blind?

      Doesn't sound very smart to me.
    • drunkmonkey01, on 06/26/2008, -2/+4eye for an eye is all well and fine but the point is that some of the people held suspect in guantanamo havent done ***** and therefore dont deserve to have ***** done to them.
    • BionicAntboy, on 06/26/2008, -2/+5If you really believe in "eye for an eye", then you should be fighting for the freedom of the tens of thousands of people getting 25-life for minor drug possession crimes.

      Or is it okay when the State enforced An Eye For A Hangnail justice system.
    • publiclurker, on 06/26/2008, -0/+3makes the entire world blind.
  • hamobu, on 06/26/2008, -6/+10How do you know that someone is a terrorist? Perhaps there should be some kind of a system to determine guilt. Maybe some kind of a procedure where evidence could be presented and witnesses examined. I wish there was something like that in our society. Hmmm!

    Idiots like Glen beck and Bill O'riley take and aspect of our society that took centuries to develop and start questioning it in their 30 minute TV shows. I am sorry Glen but you need to take a year of high school civics to understand why we have system of courts and individual rights in or country.
    • Monk22, on 06/26/2008, -3/+3idiots like yourself that think he was actually advocating this crack me up
      • hamobu, on 06/26/2008, -1/+1Can you prove your assertion?
        • Monk22, on 06/26/2008, -1/+1this should pretty much sum it up how this happens on a weekly basis.

          http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/ ...

          Have you ever wondered how the liberal media works? We put together this timeline of how “news” spreads in the liberal media....Take a look at this interview Glenn did on the Tuesday, March 4th edition of Glenn Beck on Headline News...
        • hamobu, on 06/26/2008, -1/+1Not quite. While it is obvious that Glen Beck does not think that Barack Obama is Anti-Christ, it is still an insulting question, and it shows that Glen beck is a juvenile idiot and "liberal" media reacted in the right way. Notice that Keith Olberman does not really believe that Glen Beck is a worst person in the world.

          if you still don't get it let me illustrate it for you. I don't really believe this, but some people might say this, and this is also said of other people, but is your mother a $1 crack whore? Now you should not be offended. It is just a humorous question.

          You still have to show that Glen Beck was not advocating shooting terror suspects without a trial.
    • conservmyusa, on 06/28/2008, -0/+0They didn't pick these people up at Walmart.They were captured by our military.If you're on one side of the battlefield,and someone is on the other side, the person on the othe side is called the enemy.Thats war 101!
  • gsarnowski, on 06/26/2008, -9/+11The neocons are on their way out and are getting desperate. It's time for traditional conservatives/libertarians to take back the GOP.
  • ninjaface, on 06/26/2008, -8/+13When glen opens his mouth ***** falls out. This guy and this type of extreme commentary (notice how I didn't say journalism) need to be removed from our media. It's all shock value and appeals to the lowest levels of intelligence. I'm sure he's got a bunch of bible spankin' fans down south. As for me, I say go eat a dick glen.
  • BaldyNapper, on 06/26/2008, -10/+7Never heard of Glenn Beck, sorry!
    • KanameTosen, on 06/26/2008, -3/+5Then run and pray that your virgin ears never have to hear about him again.
  • kosser, on 06/26/2008, -10/+12this is not only a big problem, it's a huge problem. especially since the new policy is to find blond haired blue eyed terrorists. that means us. and under things like the patriot act, we could be detained without a trail of our peers or even a trial at all. we just might be shot. this is the new talking point from the pentagon. Shoot 9/11 truthers, shoot anyone against the troops, shoot terrorists. I've heard this increasingly more. It is very sad how far down the drain America has fallen. This guy should be fired instantly. Nazi America
    • conservmyusa, on 06/28/2008, -0/+1What should we do with terrorists?Are you against our troops?What is a 9/11 truther?what the hell is a truther?Do you think the terrorists on 9/11 were just misunderstood?
  • ZeeSniper, on 06/26/2008, -7/+5I seriously cannot believe how dumb people are in this world, and then they go on TV and preach.

    • eth3l, on 06/26/2008, -3/+3Or on Digg and complain about other people.
      • kolorfast, on 06/27/2008, -1/+1Or complain about complainers, or even complain about those who complain about people that complain.
  • guitman423, on 06/26/2008, -6/+9MORON
  • sultanica, on 06/26/2008, -5/+13on that line of reasoning he should be shot for stealing when he was 12
    • FrapFreak, on 06/26/2008, -2/+4'Cuz stealing is exactly the same as bombing innocent men, women, and children. Haha.
      • MidnightRIder77, on 06/27/2008, -1/+1So we should execute every gitmo detainee off of suspicion that they did something bad? I don't understand your train of thought. You probably bitched when the MPAA said they could try you without evidence too. I ask you, is this not the same thing?
  • BaldyNapper, on 06/26/2008, -6/+15ok just read about him on wiki, your basic religious nut job ! :) bye
    • Monk22, on 06/26/2008, -4/+4once again proving for the #435873945873945783958 time that wiki is a crap source of info.
    • macgecko, on 06/26/2008, -0/+3Because we all know that everything on wiki is got to be the truth. ; )
    • unclejessie, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1What's really funny is that his comment is getting dug.....
  • usonly, on 06/26/2008, -10/+10If americans don't protest this kinda crap from beck and o'really and their like then they are just as guilty.
    A quote from WW2 "look, they're burning Jews...o well I have bread to bake."
    Wake up
    • eth3l, on 06/26/2008, -1/+6Fact: in WWII we never gave any of the prisoners we had a trial or a hearing or habeas corpus and any bitching was held to a minimum.
      • whatever01, on 06/26/2008, -1/+1Fact: in WWII we had POWs and they were treated to the rights accorded them in the Geneva Convention.
        Fact: the current administration has fought declaring many detainees either POWs or criminals, thus attempting to put them in an ad hoc category so there would be no legal status for them. The SCOTUS told them to pick a side.
        • hypertension, on 06/26/2008, -1/+2Fact:

          The POWs from WW2 were UNIFORMED SOLDIERS.

          German spies who were caught were summarily executed.

          ... to the disdain of liberals.
        • blackhappy, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1God I wish it was WWII then we can lay waste to the enemy like we did with Germany and Japan and not have to worry about being all PC when trying to fight a war.
    • obsolite, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1When we're done comparing how this war compares to World War II, can we compare how World War II was handled to how we handled the Revolutionary War?

      I'm pretty sure the evolution of combat is fairly significant thing to overlook. We're fighting people who strap bombs to kids but yet our civilians are too busy determining whether or not WE should have a choice whether to shoot or shield. I think a lot of the liberals here would be pulling triggers a lot more often than they might believe.
    • conservmyusa, on 06/28/2008, -0/+0Americans are protesting this crap.Thats why illegals can come here and kill us,and we hug them,and send them to therapy.
  • erbalot, on 06/26/2008, -6/+8He's a Christian right?
    • acirilo, on 06/27/2008, -2/+4a Mormon... some debate what that is.
    • bretwalda, on 06/27/2008, -2/+3He is Christian wrong.
    • geodebug, on 06/27/2008, -2/+2No, but he plays one on tv.
    • conservmyusa, on 06/28/2008, -0/+1His comment is out of frustration,like yours is.Does religion have anything to do with this conversation?Isn't it odd that people associate faith with being wrong,and believe that anything against this country or our way of life for the last two centuries is some to behold.
    • jlfb, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1Yes, erbalot, he's a member of the Christian Right, or the Christian REICH might be more accurate. Not like Christ, mind you, just whoring for war in the name of Christ. People like Beck and his enthusiasts are the number-one enemies of the Christian faith. If they knew what "irony" meant , they could see that. Included in his ilk would be ppl like Pat Robertson, John Hagee, James Dobson, and David Duke, among many others!
  • SuperJay, on 06/26/2008, -4/+6I'm not sure about this, but I think Glenn Beck may be the stupidest person in America.
    • lpse2000, on 06/26/2008, -1/+1I'm not sure, but I think people that take him seriously and believe everything they hear that is anti-"neocon" are pretty stupid.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 175 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.