Your time in special forces is completely irrelevant to the discussion. (Why do you bother bringing it up? Why do you bother trumpeting it in your sig ::)
How many times did you listen to it? Did you replay it even once?
If and when the transcript becomes available I'll post a link to show you to be full of crap.
Copyright 2004 Fox News Network, LLC
Fox News Network
SHOW: THE O'REILLY FACTOR (20:41)
October 6, 2004 Wednesday
Transcript # 100605cb.256
SECTION: News; International <byline: Bill O'Reilly, Laurie Dhue
LENGTH: 2305 words
HEADLINE: Interiviews with Jonathan Turley, Eric Haney
GUESTS: Jonathan Turley, Eric Haney
BODY:
LAURIE DHUE, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: From America's newsroom, I'm Laurie Dhue. The FBI and Homeland Security Department giving guidance on protecting schools, following last month's deadly terror attack at a Russian school that killed more than 330 people, including 172 children. Fox News has obtained an agency bulletin suggesting secure locks for school doors and windows and establishing a safe area inside schools. Now, officials were careful to point out there is no imminent threat to our schools.
A Canadian submarine is drifting in the Atlantic after a major electrical fire. Nine sailors had to be treated for smoke inhalation. One sailor died after being airlifted off. British ships are battling rough seas to get to it and tow it ashore. Canada bought the secondhand sub from Britain just days ago.
Rush Limbaugh says he'll appeal a Florida court ruling that says investigators had the right to seize his medical records. Florida prosecutors wanted to prove that the radio talk show host was doctor shopping for painkiller prescriptions. Limbaugh has not been charged with anything.
And can you believe Howard Stern is getting Sirius? Well, in a little over a year the radio shock jock is leaving the free airwaves for Sirius satellite radio. Because it's subscription only like cable, Stern's often raunchy show won't have to answer to the feds.
I'll have more headlines for you coming up just after the top of the hour. THE O'REILLY FACTOR continues after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
O'REILLY: Thanks for staying with us. I'm Bill O'Reilly. In the FACTOR Follow-Up segment tonight, all along my objection of gay marriage has been twofold. It goes against the will of the vast majority of Americans who favor traditional marriage as a stabilizer for society. And if civil unions are established, that's what we were talking about, there's no rights issue.
And number two, if you allow marriage for one alternative lifestyle, homosexuals, you have to allow it for all. We don't want to open this door because then O'Reilly can come in with the McGuire twins and marry them as a triad. And you laugh. But under equal protection I would win that all day long. Now there's a case in Utah where a guy with five common law wives and 31 children wants legal status. And some constitutional experts believe he should have it.
Joining us now from Washington is Professor Jonathan Turley who teaches law at George Washington University. Now you wrote a piece on this. Why don't you define your thesis for the audience and then I'll destroy it, as I always do with you. Go ahead.
JONATHAN TURLEY, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: Well, the piece in "USA Today" basically said that after Lawrence vs. Texas, the case where the Supreme Court said that anti-sodomy statutes are unconstitutional; there is this inherent conflict now with the criminal prosecution of polygamists.
Now, remember, this, is separate from the issue of recognizing polygamy in a marriage. That is, the state can still refuse to recognize a polygamist marriage. What's at issue here is whether the state can go into polygamist families, drag someone before a court, have them declared under the common law as married, and then prosecute them for polygamy. And that's where we were with the Green case.
O'REILLY: OK. Now, isn't it true that in most states, perhaps all, there is a definition of what common law marriage is, isn't that correct?
TURLEY: That is correct.
O'REILLY: All right. So the state would have a right if you have six babes that fit under that statute of common law marriage, cohabitating, having sex with you, whatever they're doing, bearing your children. And the state would say, wait a minute, one of the problems with this guy Green, and this is what -- and other polygamists is, that a lot of times the welfare system has to go in and pay for them because he can't afford 31 children, and he can't.
And the state wants to say, look, there's a health problem here, there's a financial problem here, we have an obligation to keep a stabilization in society, which is a big thing against gay marriage, but say this guy Green moves to Massachusetts, OK, and he says, hold it, Professor Turley, I want you to come down from Massachusetts, up from DC, and tell these judges up here you can't have one alternative lifestyle lifted to the status and not my alternative lifestyle, what do you say?
TURLEY: I would say that he's dead wrong because there's a leap of logic there. There's a difference between Green claiming a right not to be prosecuted for the crime of polygamy and his claiming the right to have the State of Massachusetts or any other state recognize a polygamist marriage with a marriage license. And you're right, when we look at common law marriage; we have to redefine that right. My problem, Bill, is that polygamy is a religious-based belief, that is these are people who are carrying out what they believe to be the biblical...
O'REILLY: So is Rastafarianism, and you can't run around with a joint in your mouth. That argument never holds.
TURLEY: I think the difference here is that if Green is guilty of child abuse, he should be prosecuted for child abuse.
O'REILLY: Well, I don't know if he is or not but the State of Utah doesn't want to have to deal with a guy with 31 children and five wives. And I understand it. But you didn't answer my question. If Green moves to Massachusetts and he makes the case one alternative lifestyle, homosexuals, have their status elevated where they can marry, why shouldn't his alternative lifestyle under the constitution, isn't there equal protection for all?
TURLEY: No, under the constitution I believe that states make that determination, so he can go to Massachusetts and try to convince people to embrace polygamy, but I expect it will be waste of a ticket.
O'REILLY: But why? What would the argument be if O'Reilly goes to South Boston and gathers up the McGuire twins and goes in and says, look, I have an alternative lifestyle, I am a triad, I want to have these as my wives, and you're giving Lenny and Squiggy that but not giving Bill and the McGuire twins that, you're violating my equal protection.
TURLEY: No, I don't think you can argue you're violating equal protection. I think that when you look at recognizing through a license of marriage, you're looking at a core state right. And I think that Vice President Cheney is right about this, that the State of Massachusetts, the State of Utah can define marriage as its public believes it must be defined.
O'REILLY: I'm not talking about that. I'm just talking about equal protection under the constitution. If there's one alternative lifestyle being elevated you can't shut out the commune people, the polygamists, the triads unless you...
TURLEY: I'll agree that in one sense and that is I believe whether Green is in Utah or Massachusetts, if this is a mater of consenting adult living in a polygamist relationship, that that should be protected under Lawrence vs. Texas. I think that is the natural extension of that.
O'REILLY: As long as it doesn't meet the definition of common law marriage. And that of course is on the books to protect women, primarily, from, you know, being abused and not getting any rights when the guy dies and it can go the other way as well.
TURLEY: Although I have to say there's often a discussion about how polygamy needs to be banned because it involves child abuse and other forms of abuse. But that's like banning marriage to get rid of spousal abuse.
O'REILLY: But I don't buy that argument. I agree with you if there's child abuse in any -- whether it's polygamy or whatever it is, then you go in and prosecute the child abuse. Just because you have a lot of children doesn't mean you're abusing the children. However, in most cases it means you can't support the children and the state has to come in and do it. But I'm confused, I know I'm dense, about equal protection and how you can get gay marriage to be legal but all of the other alternatives are not legal. You have not explained that to me. I'll give you one more chance.
TURLEY: That's because there is no basis saying is a state must recognize a gay marriage as a constitutional matter. The constitution says the opposite, that is it says the states will decide that issue. So you're not making equal protection in terms of gay marriage. Where gays have been found to be protected is from the criminal prosecution of their consensual relationships.
O'REILLY: Nah, you know what I'm talking about, it's civil rights that homosexuals have fallen back on in getting the State of Massachusetts, the Commonwealth up there, to recognize their right to marry. And I would say it's my civil rights to marry the McGuire twins. All right, professor. Mull that over in your classroom.
TURLEY: OK.
O'REILLY: Maybe somebody has a -- nobody has successfully refuted that argument, by the way. And we've been doing this debate now for about a year and a half. Next, a provocative thought to winning the war in Iraq. Why not use highly trained, highly paid mercenaries in place of American troops? Directly ahead.
O'REILLY: "Back of the Book" segment tonight, the creator of "60 Minutes" Don Hewitt watches the factor and suggested the following story. By the way, Mr. Hewitt will be on this broadcast tomorrow night. With U.S. casualties mounting in Iraq and most of those killed and wounded, the victims of sneak attacks or suicide bombings, why not used paid mercenaries to rid out the terrorists, men who are trained to do that kind of thing and let American troops provide security? Joining us is Sergeant Major Eric Haney, the author of the book "Inside Delta Force, the Story of America's Elite Counterterrorist Unit."
There is an outfit that has now gone out of business for political reasons called "Executive Outcomes," it's out of Pretoria, South Africa. When I was over in South Africa a few years ago I checked these guys out. That's the outfit that's actually overthrown governments in Africa and provided security and basically run countries on that continent. Now, couldn't you hire people like Aegis Defense Services, Blackwater USA, CACI International, Custer Battles, all these people to fight these terrorists and allow the National Guardsmen, the reservists, who are now getting grinded up sometimes to pull back and do security? What's wrong with that?
CMD. SGT. MAJ. ERIC HANEY, AUTHOR: Well, first thing, the numbers are so low. Most of these organizations that do deploy, security organizations and security outfits for special reasons, executive protection is one of those we're seeing in Iraq and Afghanistan, they just don't have the number of people necessary to form armies, the things that we've seen in Africa. By the way, the day of the white mercenary in Africa is just about completely dead. But, you know, it's just difficult. And then historically, if you're paying mercenaries, all you need to do is -- the other side pays them a little more. They're following their pocketbook. That's where their allegiance lies.
O'REILLY: But these are pretty sophisticated outfits like Global Risk Strategies and they can recruit people, they're going to pay them money. But I see the logic in this. You don't pull American troops out, you just let these guys do a lot of the dirty work because they're trained to do it, most of them are Special Forces guys, ex-Delta guys and then the reservists and the National Guard people are people who aren't trained to do it, you put them by the oil pipeline on the borders and things like that. Do you really think this is a crackpot deal?
HANEY: Not quite crackpot but it's just not feasible, either. The total number of those kind of guys in the world, Bill, you can fit them in a decent, good-sized couple of rooms for a barbecue, there's just not that many of them. And everybody that wants to work in this sort of thing is fully and gainfully employed all around the world performing certain kinds of contracts.
O'REILLY: So you basically say that there aren't enough mercs on the planet to come in and do any kind of job that would impact a combat situation inside Iraq?
HANEY: No, there certainly isn't. And then on the -- oh, the downside of that is there's a tremendous number of wannabes and we've seen this from the '60s and the '70s.
O'REILLY: Look at the guys that got strung up in Fallujah.
HANEY: Exactly.
O'REILLY: Right. You get these guys and they think they're macho men and all of a sudden they're hanging from a bridge.
HANEY: Sure.
O'REILLY: I understand that.
HANEY: Or you look at the guys that were recently tried in Afghanistan that thought they were doing a private intelligence service.
O'REILLY: Right.
HANEY: It's mostly...
O'REILLY: And it would be hard for the U.S. government to regulate these people in atrocities and things like that.
HANEY: It's exactly so, you know, the soldier is answerable to the United States Code of Military of Justice. Who are these people answerable to?
O'REILLY: They would be answering to the Iraqi government, I would assume if it ever happens.
HANEY: They would have to be.
O'REILLY: I think you're going to see more private guys in there, because the Pentagon just awarded a $300 million contract to Aegis Defense System to go in there and oversee security. I think that's -- they're probably not going to do what the marines are doing but they're going to be involved.
HANEY: Yeah. All those fellows principally are doing executive protection kinds of work and protection of really critical facilities, small numbers.
O'REILLY: Sergeant Major, thanks as always. We appreciate it.
HANEY: OK, Bill.
O'REILLY: Next we'll wrap things up with the "Most Ridiculous Item," my appearance on "Letterman" and some of your e-mail.
LOAD-DATE: October 7, 2004