Michael Moore, Elisabeth Hasselbeck Clash Over Bin Laden Death On 'The View' (VIDEO)

Michael Moore and Elisabeth Hasselbeck had a fierce argument about whether it was right not to try Osama bin Laden in court on Wednesday's "The View."

Moore was on to promote his new book, but the conversation turned to his controversial comments about bin Laden that drew so much attention in the wake of his death in May. Moore said he believed bin Laden had been "executed" and that America had "lost something of our soul" by not trying him for his crimes.

Hasselbeck came to the "View" desk ready for a fight, and she cut Moore off midway through his first sentence.

"I think that we did a very smart thing putting the Nazis on trial," he began. "That was after the war was over," Hasselbeck cut in.

"The war is over," Moore said. "Michael, we're still at war!" she snapped.

"No, we're not, actually," Moore snapped back. He said that the U.S. has spent countless time and money fighting things that have "nothing to do with the real threat," and that the country should not be in Afghanistan.

"My point is that the way we show the world that we're different is that we give even the most heinous person their day in court," he said.

"You're telling me Osama bin Laden deserves a trial?" an outraged Hasselbeck replied. "Where? In New York City? Absolutely not! How dare -- and why, because Casey Anthony's trial went so well?"

"What are we afraid of?" Moore said. "We're Americans, man!" "Our rights are not afforded to him!" Hasselbeck shot back. The argument continued in that vein until a reluctant Whoopi Goldberg was forced to cut to a commercial.

WATCH:

Comments

[RufusJenny Triplett]

01:06 AM on 11/09/2011

Michael Moore needs his own show. Elizabeth Hasselbeck talks everyday...be quiet and let your guests have their say...

[helorisc]

06:15 PM on 10/27/2011

i don't care if she's right or wrong i still the b

[HerbertfromNYC]

10:01 AM on 10/17/2011

For once I agree with EH.

[billywms]

08:10 PM on 10/13/2011

"That is the right gratitude"--HA!,Elisabeth's so cute when she's trying 2 sound smart!

[Penscott]

05:48 PM on 09/22/2011

I consider Bin Laden's execution similar to our deliberately shooting down Admiral Yamamoto's plane. They were both commanders that waged war on the US. Moore's position is completely predictable - a criticism of the US. btw he badly needs to go on a diet.

[George Howard]

11:39 AM on 10/11/2011

Your low personal attack on Moore detracts from any point you may have concerning the issue at hand. I hardly think a person's weight has anything to do with you or this issue. Do you point out everyone's weight issues, well, just stop it, right now.

[Patricia Nolan]

03:34 PM on 09/19/2011

Hasselbeck attributes herself with much more sense & savvy than she really has. Any educated person can pick apart her arguments without too much problem. I wouldn't take her word for the time of day!

[Berettasskeeter]

02:00 PM on 11/09/2011

And what would you do upon finding that she is correct?
Semper fi

[reasonshouldrule]

10:21 PM on 09/18/2011

Although I don't agree with Moore on this issue, I can see his point, and it is quite valid. Hasselbeck, on the other hand, is simply atrocious. She did not make any of the strongest points for her side of the question, and she always sounds like a high schooler talking about the prom.

[shylove2]

08:09 PM on 09/18/2011

We have no idea if bin Laden was the real deal or if he is a retired agent who seuccessfully got us into Iraq and Afghansistna. We have no idea and no picture can prove if we got him, killed him, or retired him or jiust took him prisoner... this is the country that brought us the invasion of Iraq for disinformation and faked claims. It has happended before for many wars so what reason is there to believe it is any different now... fool us time after time then...

[WorkInCanada]

04:51 PM on 09/18/2011

Ahhh, the old Elisabeth is back!! She must have brushed up too close to Palin this summer and was infected with the republican intellect once again. Here's looking forward to some entertainment this year.

[Jerry Barry]

04:00 PM on 09/18/2011

Ms. Hasselbeck is wrong. Mr. Moore is right, everyone no matter how evil should have their day in court even if it is in New York City.
We did it after World War II and this is what makes America great that we are not just a bunch of animals killing evil people for revenge but executing them for the crimes they committed.
If you fail to give war crimes justice in court then we will become like Iran, North Korea, China and many other backwards countries.

[bovine13]

07:24 PM on 09/18/2011

He had his court...and we all found him guilty...case closed.

[maddogjohnson]

09:25 PM on 09/18/2011

Pointless and rude.

[Hope42]

12:13 PM on 09/18/2011

Conservatives profess to believe in the Constitution but then do not really follow it. Very perplexing. What are they thinking??
The same applies to how they feel about a woman's "right to choose".

[John David Redux]

03:10 PM on 09/18/2011

So, shooting an enemy combatant that gladly would have killed you before surrendering is somehow "not following the Constitution"? Are you delusional?

[bovine13]

07:26 PM on 09/18/2011

Didn't know our Constitution applied to those foriegn combatants who were attacking our people and military.

[Hope42]

05:14 AM on 09/19/2011

Maybe you both need to learn a little more about our American history and our forefathers?
John Adams, though at the time roundly scorned for it, defended British soldiers who participated in the Boston Massacre and at the end of his life wrote, "one of the most gallant, generous, manly, and disinterested actions of my whole life, and one of the best pieces of service I ever rendered my country." .
See here: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/bostonmassacre/keyfigures.html

[Lee Samaha]

09:39 AM on 09/19/2011

The Constitution does not limit itself to US citizens: the scope is universal.

The fifth amendment says "No person shall . . . be deprived of life . . . without due process of law." Assuming Bin Ladin was attacking our military/citizens, one might have a point if they said that exception "in time of War" phrase applied to that particular day he was killed. But had he just destroyed the twin towers, the Pentagon and downloaded illegal porn, he would still be constitutionally protected by the 5th amendment. Even though he is not a citizen, he is a person -- which is all that matters to the Constitution.

The sixth amendment says "all criminal prosecutions" shall be trial by jury, speedy, etc. Unlike the 5th amendment, there is no exception. Your above comment about us all finding him guilty falls short of this standard, I'm afraid.

[oopsiedaisy]

11:22 AM on 09/18/2011

I have to say that this argument always surprises me. I am not sure why so called "Patriots" have NO faith in our judicial system. The system apparently sucks, except when Texas kills more than 200 citizens annually. Then it is "fool proof" of course that doesn't take into account the exceptional fools residing in Texas.

[John David Redux]

03:14 PM on 09/18/2011

Right. Because when they walked into that mansion he was hiding in, he quietly and peacefully put his hands above his ahead, and cooperated fully. What part of "he would have killed the SEALS if he had the chance" do you not seem to understand? The mansion was a battlefield. The priority on a battlefield is to make sure that THEY'RE the ones that die, not you.

[stape45]

08:19 AM on 09/18/2011

Liz makes Shannity proud.

[Mark Colwell]

12:10 AM on 09/18/2011

Remember this: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" be sure to look up unalienable if you don't know what it means. I don't get this "be a citizen" stuff to enjoy basic human rights. OBL may have been a reprehensible human being, however he was still a human being and all humans are granted these rights by Nature and Natures God according to our Declaration of Independence.

[John David Redux]

03:15 PM on 09/18/2011

Newflash: that's the Declaration of Independence, which isn't a set of laws. It's a set of complaints. Try again.

[reasonshouldrule]

10:25 PM on 09/18/2011

Mark Colwell says he's quoting the Declaration of Independence. And he's not suggesting these are laws but rather the philosophy that underlies the Constitution. A perfectly acceptable opinion as an American, imo.

[George Howard]

11:54 AM on 10/11/2011

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"
This is not a "complaint". This states what we believe. You may now "try again" yourself.