Harvard prof, Glenn Beck on counter-terrorism ethics

This happened a few weeks ago, probably in early March. I was back home from university, exhausted; there was nothing going on on TV. A few channels later I stumbled on the Glenn Beck show on CNN, and my respect for the media and the academia hit an all time low. I'm not really into CNN. I think the way it presents information is overgloss and hype-pitched. If you don't believe me you can tune into the Nancy Grace show (she did a full investigative report on Heath Ledger's death, when the only thing that could be confirmed at that time was the fact that he was dead). Hence I didn't really intend to engage my already befuddled brain there, or anywhere. But one really needs to stop and listen when a famous news personality (is that even the right term? I really don't want to call him a journalist) accuses university students for wearing Islam-supportive or Che Guevara t-shirts, and has a Harvard prof backing him up. The reason I'm posting this so late is largely because I don't have any links I can forward you to. I've ran all across the Glenn Beck website, and CNN's website, but couldn't find anything, not even text material, that suggests that the talk even took place. But trust me, it did. As far as I recall Glenn Beck was interviewing this Harvard bigshot regarding his latest book (which Beck repeatedly said he was a huge fan of) and the then-recent shooting at a Jerusalem Jewish seminary that left eight students dead (I'm guessing this was the news they were talking about; to Israel's credit, the peace talks went on). Beck argued that university students, who have no idea who Che Guevara was, or have no idea about Islam, wear t-shirts with Che Guevara pictures or Islamic messages, thus breeding terrorism. Fantastic, isn't it? I can't help wondering which university this guy graduated from, in case he ever went to university in the first place. He reportedly makes $10m from radio shows alone, has written two bestsellers, and suggested that all American Muslims must prove they are not enemies on two separate occasions. Now the Harvard guy: talking about the seminary incident, he proposed that preemptive attacks on terrorists ought to be legalized, and rued that the UN General Assembly and the international community would never let such good things happen. I don't get it: isn't a Harvard teacher supposed to be smart? What exactly will his students learn from him? What's wrong with the world? In case you are siding with the diddlesome duo's preemptive tactics against Palestine, you might want to check out this post. Wait, there's more: the two actually concluded that civilian casualties in such preemptive strikes would be necessary sacrifices. And, while one pointed out and the other cheered, if civilians threw themselves in harms way, knowingly or unknowingly using themselves as human shields protecting the terrorists, they ought to be dealt with... Observe: if you knew who was a terrorist, wouldn't you be jumping on (I'm not using the term 'arresting' here) him/them by now? What are law enforcement agencies for? If you're asking to legalize preemptive strikes against terrorists, in that case, aren't you acting on suspicion? Isn't that like searching for WMDs when there are (were) none? Thoughts? I know a team of one bad prof and an irksome newsman can't ruin the world. But here in the West, being on exile prompted by fancies of higher education, things almost always appear more troubling than they usually are. And it generally permeates your writing, and somehow leaves you downtrodden.