GLENN: Our new Supreme Court, our new Supreme Court pick has been named as a progressive, Biden's chief of staff Ron Klain told reporters yesterday, she is clearly a legal progressive. She's someone whose scholarship has won praise from both the progressive side and those on the conservative side... of the progressive movement. She comes from the progressive side of the spectrum. There's no mystery to the fact that she is, as I said, more a progressive than not. Oh, good.
Let me ask you this question: Here's somebody who has known Barack Obama, taught in Chicago, comes from the Chicago clan, comes from the same group of people. Now, we are told that this group of people loved the fact that they are going to close down Guantanamo, that you can't hold people without a trial. In fact, we are told that their principles are so strong on this, that they are so adamant about this that they will close down Guantanamo, move people to a Chicago suburb, to a prison there so we no longer have Guantanamo, and we will try some of these people not in the court of justice from the military. No, no, no. We will try them in New York City because everyone deserves a fair trial. That is their principle. If that is the principle, why would Barack Obama nominate somebody who said way, way, way back, about 90 days ago, when she was the nominee for solicitor general that someone suspected, someone suspected of helping finance Al Qaeda should be subject to battlefield law, which is indefinite detention without trial. Her words, not mine. Even if captured in a place other than a physical battle zone.
Hang on just a second. Your principles of this administration is that we don't hold people indefinitely, that everyone deserves a fair trial, even those caught on the battlefield. And yet our new Supreme Court justice nominee said just as she was being cleared for solicitor general, she said that if you are suspected, suspected of financing Al Qaeda that you could be held indefinitely without trial. Help me out on that one.
I believe we have a Supreme Court nominee, I believe we have a president of the United States, I believe we have a senator in Joe Lieberman, I believe we have a lot of people that are now going on guilty, of American citizens, guilty until proven innocent. This is one of our chief building blocks. Why did I come out and say last week "We must read him his Miranda rights; he's an American citizen"? Why did I say that? Why did Jon Stewart and everybody else on the left, Rachel Maddow, come out and say Glenn Beck seems to be the sane one on this issue, but no one is questioning. Where is the outrage on the other side?
Okay, so they pointed out that I was sane on this, but where are they pointing out what is happening? Let's not make this about Al Qaeda. Let's make this about — because it's really about terror really, isn't it? Al Qaeda's just the chief terror organization. Or is it? Remember this is an administration that doesn't even believe that we're in war. When they came, we're not even at war. We are in the, what is it, the —
PAT: It was the Overseas Contingency Operation.
GLENN: Overseas contingency operation, that's right. Overseas contingency, we're not even at war. They come out and they defend: Let's not jump to conclusions. Fort Hood: Let's not jump to conclusions. So now they are pushing for if you finance, if you are suspected of financing, held indefinitely without trial. A citizen.
Now let's see who they do think they are at war with. Well, we know that as soon as Barack Obama got in, Missouri had a study, a report that came out that said you could be in a possible terrorist organization if you are a — you have a snake flag, if you have a Ron Paul bumper sticker.
PAT: Pro life.
GLENN: If you are pro life. You may be part of a movement of some sort of a terrorist organization.
GLENN: Now, let me ask you this. Let's say you write a check to the tea party and Timothy McVeigh somehow mysteriously comes back from the grave and blows a building up, and on his desk is, "Hey, I want to go to that tea party thing next week." Do you really believe that someone in our government wouldn't try to make the case, do you really believe that the media wouldn't make the case for them that the tea party movement is now a terrorist organization because some whack job out of their mind blew up a building? What if you wrote a check? Could you be taken off the streets? Could you be held indefinitely without trial? Nobody wants to think these things. We have gone from a country where we all said to each other, "Okay, I don't like the PATRIOT Act, but we need something." Okay, all right, but we have Sunsets in it. We've gone from an administration who says they are against the PATRIOT Act; the first thing they are going to do is shut down Guantanamo, reverse the PATRIOT Act, make sure — Barack Obama campaigned: We no longer will just scoop people up off the streets because they're Muslim. We never have! Now, those are their principles. We've seen their principles in action when it comes to terror overseas, part of the contingency operation. We see how seriously they take that. They don't. So why are all of their legal actions going so far beyond the PATRIOT Act which, by the way, they didn't repeal; they took the Sunsets out of. Why? I don't have an answer, but until things make sense, stand guard, America. Stand guard. This is your new Supreme Court justice nominee who said this about 90 days ago. You have an effort in congress to take away the rights of citizens if suspected. If suspected. Excuse me. Innocent until proven guilty. You are on the battlefield? I got all the information I need. You're a citizen in the United States and now we're not talking about holding a gun or anything else. We're talking about writing a check. I don't think so.