More Evidence from Obama and Holder That KSM's Trial is Political

More Evidence from Obama and Holder That KSM's Trial is Political

RUSH: I want you to listen. Let me check the sound bite. Do I have time to squeeze this in? We do. I want you to listen to this. This sets up what's coming next. September 27, 2006, Washington, DC, Senator Barack Obama on the Senate floor.

OBAMA, SEPTEMBER 27, 2006: The irony of the underlying bill as it's written is that someone like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is going to get basically a full military trial, with all the bells and whistles. He's going to have counsel. He's going to be able to present evidence. He's going to be able to rebut the government's case because the feeling is is that he's guilty of a war crime and to do otherwise might violate some of our agreements under the Geneva Convention. I think that's good that we're going to provide him with some procedure and process. I think we will convict him and I think he will be brought to justice. I think justice will be carried out.

RUSH: Again, now, that's September 27th, 2006, when Obama was still in the Senate. Did you catch the drift of that? In this, Obama is supporting a full military commission trial, a military tribunal. He's in full support of it because he's convinced it will be fair. He's also convinced the guy is guilty. I guess Eric Holder didn't see this video.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Ladies and gentlemen, I want to turn to the Khalid Shaikh Mohammed trial for just a moment here. There are two things out there. First there's a story in TheHill.com concerning former Attorney General Ashcroft, and let me just read you some excerpts of what Ashcroft said in this story. "Attorney General Eric Holder lacks authority to make a decision on moving terror detainees to civilian courts for trial, one of his predecessors said Wednesday. Former Attorney General John Ashcroft, who held his position during the Bush administration from 2001-2005, said that Holder lacked the legal standing to decide to move alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed..." What is alleged? Obama's already pronounced him guilty! The guy's already confessed. What is this alleged business?

Anyway, the attorney general doesn't have the authority to mandate that the Secretary of Defense turn somebody over to him and yield jurisdiction so that something that would have been done in a military setting is done in a civilian setting. Now, this happened on a talk show in Kansas City where Ashcroft made these statements. People sent me notes about this, a lot of people did, and I think a lot of people are misunderstanding this. Ashcroft is essentially saying it wasn't Holder's decision because Holder can't make it. Therefore, what we have said all along is true: It was Obama's decision. Obama can do whatever he wants. He's the president. He can order anybody in a military prison to a civilian court. He can do it. Holder can't. He can only do it on Obama's authority, and that's the point. Because Holder is out there saying that Obama didn't know anything about it until the decision was made; which is all BS because the governor of New York, David Paterson, let it slip that he was told six months ago that this was going to be the decision from the White House.

So what they're doing is continuing to give Obama plausible deniability on this. They're dumping it all on Holder. But the point is that Holder can't do it on his own, which I think is Ashcroft's point, if you read the whole story. If they disagreed, for example, Obama would have to resolve it. Let's say that two members of the administration, Holder and somebody else, want to bring these terrorists up to New York for a civilian trial. Somebody else -- let's say it's Gates, secretary of defense -- says "No, you can't take them out of there." Obama would have to resolve it. Neither one of those two guys can make the call. Now, they've been considering this for ten months. Everybody knows where everybody stands. If Obama told Holder to make the decision he was effectively making the decision himself. It boils down to the fact that Holder is lying and everybody else in the administration is lying about this when they say that it was Holder's decision and that Holder consulted his wife and his brother, who was a cop in the Port Authority back when this all happened.