Glenn Beck Sub Holds Sane Discussion On Gitmo With Ron Paul (VIDEO)

Well, you have to give credit where credit is due. Glenn Beck takes time off from his eponymous Fox News show, no doubt to nurse the scars he received on The View, and guest host Judge Andrew Napolitano and Congressman Ron Paul come on the show and hold what may be the only non-demented discussion of the closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility you're likely to see on the non-Jon Stewart side of the teevee. Seriously! Where else on cable news have you seen a discussion on this issue transpire that ends in the unanimous opinion that these detainees are flat-out being denied their legal rights and it's wrong? Kudos to both men, who honestly have decoded this B.S. correctly.

[WATCH]

NAPOLITANO: Should Guantanamo Bay be closed as a prison camp for detainees?

PAUL: Yes.

NAPOLITANO: Why?

PAUL: Sure it should be closed. We don't need it. It was unnecessary the way these prisoners were captured were very questionable. They haven't had really due process, so the real thugs that need to be tried, they ought to be tried, but they have deleted the funding mainly because the Republicans have won the argument because they turned this into, you know, if you don't support the continuation of these military tribunals and you don't support Guantanamo, maybe you support sending them into your district and they will be your neighbors, and the Democrats were convinced of that. They won the P.R. fight, and so therefore, they all became squeamish, and even the President backed down, so that's why there's no funding for closing Guantanamo, and I guess it will be open for an an indefinite future.

NAPOLITANO: I visited Guantanamo about three years ago. As a physical plant, it is extraordinary. It is better than many prisons...in the United States of America, but the issue is not the physical plant. The issue is not the three square meals a day. The issue is why are these people there, and how can we keep them without proving that they have done something wrong and some legitimate, recognized court of law?

PAUL: I think that's the key to it, and so far, they don't have an answer, because they're not allowing them to be tried in a legitimate court of law. I think a good example was set with the individuals that were involved with the bombing of the towers in 1993. I mean, we even went into Pakistan, arrested them, brought them over here and tried them in our court system, and they're not our neighbors. They are in a federal prison and nobody feels threatened by them. I'm not sure why they are so determined not to pursue the law. Anyway, it has been politicized enough and it looks like the politicians are going to win this argument and the rule of law will not win.

Comments

[egaeus]

The fact that you've identified Glenn Beck as fair and balanced immediately calls anything that follows that statement into question. Sixty percent of the people held at Gitmo were innocent of any wrongdoing and were there because the US military offered money to locals. These innocents (some in their mid-teens) were held for years. In addition, prisoners at Gitmo are routinely subjected to harsh treatment, whatever this Beck sub thinks. They are subjected to psychological torture ona regular basis and their treatment has worsened since Obama took office.

You should also note the effect torture has had on radical Islam in the past. It does not make you safe. It makes people hate you more. Sayyid Qutb, the man usually attributed with starting the radical Islam movement, became much more radical in his views after imprisonment and his being tortured. One of his followers --and one of the people responsible for the assassination of Sadat, as well as an architect of 9/11--Ayman Zawahiri turned his hatred for leader to civilians after being imprisoned and tortured. The torturers were Egyptian, but were trained by the CIA.

[American50]

everything," including human rights, Beck is fair and Balanced
Guantanamo Bay detention facility needs to remain...... Period

http://wwwamericanpatriot-vance.blogspot.com/

[research]

Well, I guess you settled that.

Gitmo creates far more terrorist enemies, than it houses.

Period.

[goozidi]

If we had Ron Paul for president, lots of problems would be gone by now.

[realtorgal]

I have new newfound respect for Jason Linkins. Thank you sir for using this discussion as your blog on the Huffington Post. The discussion of GITMO between a former Judge -Naplitano and a current US Congressman- a Republican at that was really refreshing fromthe usual Dems versus Repubs dialogue that is so tiring. Even the comments are fun to read.

[CurtisTalls]

Too bad he can't permanently sub for Glenn

[backekuchen]

It was good to hear a sensible discussion for a change. Glenn Beck and the rest of them are usually trying to shout down opposing views. In fact Barbara Walters asked Beck if he checked facts before he gave his opinions. He said, "No, I'm a commentator not a reporter."

[JulieSA]

I don't remember Beck shouting down people he disagrees with.

[eden4barack08]

No surprise by Ron Paul, but clearly Napolitano had forgotten he was subbing for Glenn Peck on FNC. Napolitano is obviously a judge and knows the rule of law, but whenever he's on Fox, he puts that aside and spews the talking points. Not this time! I wonder if that will cost him future appearances or subs.

[JulieSA]

"Not this time! I wonder if that will cost him future appearances or subs."

No. They have people on all the time with different views, and Napolitano is on everyday on Fox, as well as a lot of Democrats.

Beck is sort of a libertarian, too, but not a "big L" libertarian like Paul and Napolitano.

[GOBsaysCOMEON]

In Napolitano's defense, I do remember him arguing strongly against the Patriot Act on Fox News when it was extremely unpopular to do so.

[eden4barack08]

Actually, you're right, I may have sounded too harsh. It's true, whenever he talks about the rule of law, he's strongly on the side of the law, even if it doesn't please his Fox hosts. But when they go into politics or everyday chit chat, then he definitely toes the line of their talking points.

[colah]

You will find a sensible, hard-to-refute case in virtually every topic Ron Paul chooses to speak about.

[MaxPowerXP]

Oh, is funding African warlords "sensible"?

[Panglos]

Like the age of the Earth? 6000 years, according to Mr. Paul.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JyvkjSKMLw

[GOBsaysCOMEON]

This is the most disturbing thing about Ron Paul. I have doubts about anyone who doesn't believe in evolution. Just because he's dead wrong on one issue doesn't mean his other views should be ignored. As silly as his view seems, many smart people do a lot of compartmentalizing when it comes to religion.

[rightsize2005]

Please Mr. Paul only wants Gitomo closed because of the money it costs directly and indirectly. He is a true fiscal hawk and wants to spend no money on anything that gov has their hands in.

He seems to be for cause of shutting down Gitmo, but he is only saying it for different reasons, plus he as a libertarian he does not think that the US should interfere in other countries' business, not for that of moral or legal principles.

[LeCanadien]

The title is wonderful. Worthy of The Onion.

[realpolitic]

The two had one of the more sensible and intelligent discussions of Guantanamo I've heard. Napolitano should remember he works for Fox and is supposed to just yell "treason" at people!

[wgsalter]

Napolitano has worked at Fox for many years, and never been shut down for his very consistent pro-consti­tutionalis­m. I have had the chance to meet him, and he seems very personable as well.

[Yermammy]

Thanks for showing this, Jason. Everyone on the right isn't moon howling nutzoid. Ron Paul is more principled than 90% of the Democrats. A Democrat is saying this sad truth.

[DAdvocate123]

I keep telling my friends on the left that Fox News' ratings are good because Fox is actually a good network with a variety of views.

Even with the partisan shows, everyone knows where people stand and there is no hidden agenda. If someone is a Conservative, everyone knows. If someone is a liberal, everyone knows. That is more honest and good for debate.

[realpolitic]

You missed the enitre point! Their discussion is noteworthy because it is not nearly as hysterical, histronic, and of the name-calling variety as almost all discussions are on Fox. It is almost serenely reasonable, which never happens on Fox.

[FatBoysComedyClubs]

The Faux news crowd must have thought this was a commercial! 90 seconds and no bloviating or non-questions...

'Erlene, sumtins wrong with teevee again, make sure it's not that evil MSNBC again'

[wgsalter]

Well, if you're a fan of Olbermann, you're a fan of bloviating.

[leonel]

LIBERTARIAN PERSPECTIVE NEEDS TO BE UNDERSTOOD BY DEMOCRATS.

Ron Paul makes complete sense but it applies to a small country or even a small village. The US would have to be pretty much disbanded if his pure natural law type concepts were adopted. At least 10 per cent of the public agrees with him so he should be listened to, the libertarian viewpoint. The Democratic Party will sooner or later expand by adopting the better points of this outlook and not getting rid of programs that society has to have.

In addition, Democrats do not completely understand the gun control issue. Democrats do not appreciate that there is a deep basic value that says, "Americans don't take orders from anyone." Regarding gun control, traditional, especially rural, Americans believe that they have to defend themselves as the last resort. In other countries, such as Europe, people have had so many wars that they just are not as individualist as Americans. In addition, gun control is seen as authoritarianism and not as democratic. Liberal groups are starting to see that they are running up against this distinction that is deeper than liberal vs conservative. Means no gun control except as exception to the rule, like in cities and high crime areas.

[LunaPark]

I think there is a lot of common ground for progressive liberals and libertarians. Like ending the idiotic war on drugs that imprisons millions(generally minorities) at huge tax expense for non-violent crimes. OR, embracing a non-interventionist foreign policy and ending the empire built on fear stop and subsidizing the military industrial complex.

[Gib]

Noam Chomsky calls himself a left-wing Libertarian.

Paul is a fascinating figure. He is routinely dismissed as a nut by both Dems and Repubs, and some of his ideas do seem unrealistic. But on some really important issues he speaks the truth, and shows a strong sense of morality. He was heroic in opposing the Iraq invasion when speaking out invited being accused of treason. How many Dems showed as much courage?

[Sam T]

Excellent comment!

[Chip W]

Somewhat related:
There's individual freedom and individuals living in society. When an individual's actions impact others, it's not just his business anymore.
I see an attitude (on the right) of freedom without regard to impact or consequences. Irresponsible freedom.

[wgsalter]

Neither side is consistent. No one can speak freely with impacting others - it's whole purpose is to impact others. But would you constrain it? Abortion and gay marriage impact others. But that's where libertarians and progressives would see eye-to-eye.

Economic regulation, increasingly interpreted to mean regulating EVERYTHING (even the air we exhale) would NOT be an areas where libertarians and progressives agree. There is such a thing as irresponsible freedom (also called license), but the tricky part is where to draw the line. You have drawn it too broadly, when you suggest that anything that impacts anyone is no longer "just his business".

[Renee27]

I like some of the things Ron Paul says but when I examine his view closely I realized that he is a wrong but everything except the war

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfuvndfA1jw

[Renee27]

*about everything except the war

[LunaPark]

I hope your not basing your comments on the Schultz interview. There was no real debate there. Paul is right. The Dept of Ed is a major failure. Trillions have been spent and we're still near the bottom in the world. And the Dept of Agriculture is a tool for corporate farming and it kills off small farmers. ADM, Con Agra, Monsanto, all love the Dept of Ag. What other Paul views don't you like?

[ObjectiveRealist]

Teachers need to be paid more, not psychologists developing tricky new "pedagogies" or social scientists describing the minutiae of the failed US educational system in ever-more excruciating detail. Start school teachers' salaries at $60k and then top college students will want to consider it as a career path. I appreciate Ron Paul's commitment to Constitutionally limited government, but I do not believe that in this century K-12 education can be considered optional. What are people going to do, live off ADM's land? No, to promote the general welfare the federal government must make education and health care universally available. Making either available only to the rich means solidifying the caste system which Ronald Reagan and the Bush family have created.