Orlando Shooting

Why Shouldn't We Deport or Imprison Muslim Citizens Who Celebrate Terrorism?

Tom Shillue asks, Matt Welch answers, on Fox News' Red Eye at 3 a.m.

|

I will be appearing tonight on the Fox News current events/humor program Red Eye w/ Tom Shillue at 3 a.m., along with former Reagan foreign policy hand K.T. McFarland, libertarian comedian Dave Smith, and Democratic political consultant Julie Roginsky. The main topic, unsurprisingly, will be the Orlando shooting, with Shillue promising to come out of the gate with some "new rules" for dealing with Muslim bad guys who say and do bad things without quite committing crimes. I will provide some disloyal opposition. 

The last time I appeared on Red Eye can be seen here:

NEXT: Illegal Dealers Owe Thanks to Washington State's Marijuana Regulators

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Matt is becoming quite a TV star, no?

    1. Then he shouldn’t puss out like he did on Bill Maher recently.

      1. Did you catch where he was talking about Bernie Sanders and he actually said “He is a Marxist, and I’m somewhat sympathetic to that?”

  2. “Why Shouldn’t We Deport or Imprison Muslim Citizens Who Celebrate Terrorism?”

    ‘Cause A1?

  3. So if you have some guys who are jumping up and down and celebrating in the streets after a terrorists attack, while that is disgusting, it can’t possibly be illegal. Bad speech is still free speech.

    Now if you find out that the guys are involved with actually plotting attacks themselves or assisting anyone who is doing so, then, I think that is already quite illegal and then you do something.

    Simple as that.

    1. “Bad speech is still free speech.”

      If bad speech were illegal, how would HRC, Trump and Bern still be on the streets?
      For that matter, how would congress still find a quorum? I mean, you’ll have to search diligently to find a congress-asshole that hasn’t engaged in bad speech.

      1. Find a leftist who doesn’t engage in hateful speech, yet they’re the ones wanted to outlaw it. Self awareness is something they do not have.

    2. Re ISIS at least. Why isn’t supporting them considered treason? I don’t know what the legalities are to deem them an enemy of the US but they have clearly and formally declared war against us. Do we have to formally declare war back at them for them to be an enemy? Granted the bar for a treason case is high – but just putting that out there as the possible penalty for siding with them would put a crimp in their recruiting.

      Or is this all too politically incorrect now?

      1. Yes, if you’re actually supporting or assisting them, I’m pretty sure it’s treason. If you can get Captain Bathroom Nazi to let anyone say it’s terrorism, instead of prattling on months later about how we still don’t have the facts. He’ll be gone soon anyway.

        But some asshole dancing in the streets happily because ISIS killed someone, that’s not treason, it’s just disgusting.

      2. JFree|6.14.16 @ 12:42AM|#
        “Re ISIS at least. Why isn’t supporting them considered treason?”

        Please define “supporting them”. I have no idea what that means.

        1. Providing material support, assistance, aid in any form. It can’t just be saying ‘I support ISIS’. That maybe should get you under close scrutiny, but it’s not supporting in a way that constitutes any type of criminal activity.

          That’s what I think it means.

          1. Hyperion|6.14.16 @ 1:02AM|#
            “Providing material support, assistance, aid in any form.”

            Would killing people (presumed to be non-bleevers) qualify? If not, why not?

            1. Is that sarcasm?

        2. I don’t know either. But Lord Haw Haw, Tokyo Rose, Axis Sally, Herbert Burgman, Robert Best, and Douglas Chandler were convicted of treason for ‘overt acts’ that consisted of speaking into a broadcast microphone during WW2. Martin Monti technically joined the SS – but his actual activity there was propaganda leaflets. There is a point where speech itself turns into treason – but the big question seems to be who is an actual ‘enemy’ of the US. Obviously North Vietnam didn’t make it into that category otherwise Jane Fonda would have found herself in a heap more trouble.

  4. So what happens when there’s an Islamic terror attack on a church and the left not only say it’s justified but are whooping it up on all their retard sites. Would they actually do something that evil? I wouldn’t put it past them, seriously.

    1. Well, if it’s a black church, they’ll blame white people, slavery, conservatives, Republicans, guns, the NRA and the confederate flag. If it’s a white church they’ll blame white people, conservatives, Republicans, guns, and the NRA. So, you see, their response will be completely nuanced.

    2. Well, if it’s a black church, they’ll blame white people, slavery, conservatives, Republicans, guns, the NRA and the confederate flag. If it’s a white church they’ll blame white people, conservatives, Republicans, guns, and the NRA. So, you see, their response will be completely nuanced.

      1. The squirrels concur, apparently.

      2. This thing with them trying to blame Christians for this attack is really going to come back to haunt them in this election. Do they not believe that even non-Christians who have Christian friends or family might be extremely offended by such hateful and retarded stupidity as that?

  5. “Thousands attend London vigil to mourn Orlando shooting victims”
    http://www.reuters.com/article…..SKCN0YZ27Z

    Well, isn’t that just SPECIAL?!
    Fuck off, all you signalers; you offer nothing other than some minimal amount of your worthless time.

    1. I think this is a Brexit issue for them.

      I think leaving the EU would mean no longer being subject to EU rules on immigration both within the EU and accepting immigrants under EU conditions from around the world.

      So, yeah, the son of Muslim immigrants committing mass terror becomes a Brexit issue for the, I guess.

  6. The reason we shouldn’t deport or imprison Muslims who celebrate terrorism is because punishing people for what they believe or say is the very definition of totalitarianism.

    Authoritarians want to use the government to control what you do. Totalitarians want to use the government to control what you believe and say.

    It isn’t enough to say you love the government in North Korea. You have to mean it.

    We don’t do that to people in America, and that’s what’s great about being American.

    I should say we don’t use the government to control and punish what people say and think–but progressives do. And that’s what makes them totalitarian shitheads. They’d punish Christians for what they believe and say, and they’re proud of it. It’s disgusting.

    1. It isn’t enough to say you love the government in North Korea. You have to mean it.

      I think progs actually do say this and mean it. Can we deport them all now?

      1. As awful as they are, we should only punish people if they violate someone’s rights.

        And speaking your mind and feeling things just doesn’t violate anybody’s rights, damn it!

        1. I was joking, of course.

          1. Yeah, but it gave me a chance to say what I really meant to say the first time.

            The reason we shouldn’t deport or imprison Muslims who celebrate terrorism is because celebrating terrorism doesn’t violate anybody’s rights–but deporting people for what they think and say does violate people’s rights.

            1. I do think it shoul be an issue for immigration status. We can’t do anything about our homegrown jihadists, but why the fuck are we importing foreign jihadists?

        2. “Well, we did give her the wart……” “…and the nose.”

  7. I’ve decided I need to stay off Twitter a bit longer. A short visit there netted “Show me anytime someone defended a crowd with their AR-15. Waiting.” and (from an Aussie) “For those who say gun control doesn’t work, please note the number of gun killings since gun control was passed in 1996.”

    While not feeding the trolls, Of the first, I thought, “Get an NRA membership, subscribe to ‘American Rifleman’, and you’ll get a list of them every month, right at the front of the magazine.” Of the second, “A) How many gun deaths did you have BEFORE you passed the law? And B), It’s culture, you twit. Australia’s never been like the US as far as guns are concerned” (OK, maybe waaaaaaaaay back in the formative years as part of the British empire).

    I get so tired of this idiocy – “show me where someone’s ever done this.” “Little hard, seeing as how all these killings keep happening in ‘gun-free’ zones, you fucking moron.”

    Fuck, I hate people. Especially assholes who shoot up gay bars and kill a bunch of people, leading to idiot responses to punish the rest of us for their evil.

    Fuck them.

    1. Who was it who called them cry bullies? That’s exactly what they are. They think they can just have some feelz about something, no facts, no statistics, just feelz and that by screeching, whining, and demanding, they can just get their way on anything. They’re like totally undisciplined toddlers. You cannot have people like that dictating how a society works, it’s a recipe for complete disaster. They need a spanking and to go to their room.

    2. There are 100 million households with guns in this country, and my understanding is that the AR-15 is the most popular rifle in the country.

      I pity the local police departments if they’re sent out to confiscate all those rifles. How much extra pay are you gonna demand to do that job?

      They think they’re gonna walk up to the front door, knock, and demand your rifle? I think we’re talking a million Ruby Ridges, there.

      1. I’m guessing it would be more like Canada. Yeah, I owned that gun, but I was out duck-hunting, and woopsie, I accidentally dropped that gun in the lake. Have fun proving that I didn’t drop that rifle in a lake.

    3. A short visit there netted “Show me anytime someone defended a crowd with their AR-15. Waiting.”

      Garland, Texas. The initial responding officers may not have used patrol rifles, but I’m pretty sure the SWAT guys used them.

      The same kind of people who ask the quoted question, would absolutely shit themselves to see someone carrying an AR around in public. Which is why you usually don’t see private security walking around with rifles, absent places like nuke plants and the like. Since causing the hoi polloi to shit themselves is counterproductive, most armed ordinary people out and about rely upon handguns for their personal safety.

      It’d have been nice if a few people in Pulse had a handgun, instead of relying on the off-duty cop working the door. Who promptly ignored what we so painfully learned after Columbine, and let the armed spree shooter into the gun free zone. I get that the off-duty cop was in an absolutely horrible position, reacting with a handgun vs a nut with a rifle. But that’s what the job entails sometimes. You can’t let the armed nut into the building. Even if it costs you your life. Or else you get what happened Sunday morning.

      1. You assume their job is to do anything, when in reality it’s their job to appear like they’re going to do something as a deterrent.

        Much like the TSA, front door security is there to intimidate rather than activate unless you’re talking about unruly drunk people and fist fights.

        That’s all any security is for unless, as pointed out above, you’re talking about nuclear facilities or sensitive locations that demand actual security to deter actual attacks/espionage. These locations are also not protected by those boys in blue that issue your traffic tickets, or by some big guy that may or may not know a single damn thing about fighting let alone how to handle a firearm. They’re protected by guys who probably have orders to shoot first and ask questions later, and they’re the kind of guys where ‘standing orders’ are an actual thing.

    4. Regarding the Australia thing, the proper response (IMO) is to note that firearms deaths were declining BEFORE the latest set of laws, and continued declining at the same modest rate afterwards. That would seem to suggest to anyone of reasonable intelligence and goodwill that the laws didn’t actually make much of a difference.

    1. Fundamentally transforming America, one vanload at a time.

  8. Since 1971 OPEC is bullied to sell Oil exclusively in US dollars resulting in friction between 1.8 billion Muslims Worldwide and The West;
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/…..ebt-secret
    http://qz.com/562128/isil-is-a…..eneration/

    1. OPEC is bullied

      Did you read the article?

      The US didn’t exactly start that agreement with the upper hand.

    2. The Saudies agreed to price oil in dollars in exchange for the US giving them protection. It’s what has been propping up the US economy since coming off the gold standard.

  9. Collect all the cheering crowds, put them on a plane headed out over the Altantic. When the pilot bales out record the cheering on finally getting to meet Allah. To harsh you say. Anyone of any religion or nationality who can delight in the mass execution of 50 people has the potential of committing the very same act. A ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

  10. I’ve known two or three green card whores (from friendly Christian countries) whom I almost feel should be deported for behaving as total cunts, but it’s always better to walk away and let them get into real trouble with someone else.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.