Home Store In Memoriam Deborah Newsletter Forum Topics Blogfeed Blogroll Facebook MySpace Contact Us About

O'Reilly says defense of KSM in open court would just be attack on Bush

Reported by Chrish - March 17, 2007 -

Bill O'Reilly was not a happy camper last night 3/16/07. Whether it was being in St. Louis to speak to a group of nuns or just general rage of impotence as he watches things spiral out of control, he was disrespectful and ruder than usual to his guests who dared oppose him. First up was Attorney John Flannery, former Federal Prosecutor, who contends that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) did not get a fair trial and the confessions made public yesterday may have been the product of abusive techniques.

O'Reilly set him up to be badgered (a la Hannity) by saying he had simple questions, because he is a simple man. (This phoney posturing comes and goes as he finds it necessary. He plays dumb to lay a trap and harngues on a "simple yes or no" question, and then wham! His alter-ego Mr. Know-it-all comes in for the kill.)

Flannery said right off the bat that he doesn't believe the US Military is capable or competent to conduct a fair trial, and the rules that are set up will not permit a fair trial, and gladly enumerates: KSM has no right to an attorney; what he tells his "personal representative" is not confidential; his witnesses are not necessarily allowed to testify; etc. O'Reilly was trying to sum up "simply" and rather than explore what his expert guest was trying to tell him. BOR shrugged it off with "I don't know, I wasn't there..." and Flannery said "I wasn't either" and waved a fat sheaf of papers, the transcript of the proceedings, which he had clearly read. In sum he said they can't and didn't give KSM a fair trial.

O'Reilly's second question was preceded with a statement: "many on the left" want KSM to get a trial in the civilian courts to actually put the Bush administration on trial. Does he (Flannery) believe that? (Not 'does he agree with that' - does he belieeeeve). Flannery just wants to see KSM get a fair trial. If there were hearings on the world stage, we wouldn't be expected to believe KSM did everything he admitted to - there's no evidence, for example, that points to KSM as the true perpetrator of the Bali bombings.

O'Reilly commenced to imagine what Flannery would do if he was KSM's defense attorney, and when this earnest attorney shook his head "no..." O'Reilly insisted, yes you would, and continued his fantasy. O'Reilly wins! He proceeded on to yet another ugly, angry rant (and yes, they are getting worse). His point is, essentially, that if these cases were heard in open court according to US law, the defense attorneys would "put Bush on trial" and the military, and the CIA, and charge them with torturing confessions out of KSM. On the one hand O'Reilly is saying that a transparent legal process might indict the government, so he blames the messengers who would put that distinct possibility out for all to explore. On the other hand, he claims he believes in his country - but he has confused the Bush administration with the country, forgetting about the principles of the Constitution. (A favorite bumper sticker reads "I don't have to like Bush to love America.)

Kudoes to Flannery for keeping his cool throughout the abusive "interview", and for making his principles known in spite of O'Reilly's tirade.