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

06/20/2009 05:12 am ET | Updated May 25, 2011

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.


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

PAUL: Yes.


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 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.