Rush Limbaugh Program - June 29, 2006, Thursday, Hour #1

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 29, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program

33:51

June 29, 2006, Thursday, Hour #1

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
	Well, the drive-bys are all excited, but they got nothing because Club Gitmo is still open, ladies and gentlemen, and the jihadists on vacation there will remain.
	And my licensed merchandise business in Club Gitmo will continue to thrive.
	Greetings, my friends, and welcome.
	You are tuned to the most listened-to radio talk show in America.
	This is the Rush Limbaugh program, the EIB Network.
	Great to have you with us.
	A special welcome, as always, to those of you watching the program today on the Ditto Cam at RushLimbaugh.com.
	All right.
	Supreme Court, this actually is not surprising given that the Chief Judge, Chief Justice John Roberts, could not participate.
	You've got four libs on this court, which will do anything they can, who will do anything they can to undermine executive authority, particularly commander-in-chief authority.
	That's what's sort of outrageous about this to me, the court asserting here that the commander-in-chief does not have full authority to conduct wars.
	It's a constitutional question.
	I don't think, based on what the president has said, that he's going to pursue it in that manner.
	They're going to move forward.
	Lindsey Graham came out of court.
	The court basically said, look, the reason he can't do this is because there's no congressional authority, meaning there isn't any law that the president can cite, and he just can't create it out of thin air as commander-in-chief, which is all, folks, I know that Constitution, it's all BS because military tribunals have been used in the past.
	FDR used military tribunals.
	At any rate, the attitude of the president is, we're going to move forward here.
	Lindsey Graham's been on TV, Vice President Graham on TV this morning saying, if that's what the court wants and that's what the president needs, that's what we're going to give him.
	And they're going to be working on that, getting started on it sometime soon.
	Now, the D.C. Court of Appeals, which was the court from which the current Chief Justice John Roberts came from, previously heard this case and sided with the administration.
	I said, yeah, you're commander-in-chief.
	You want to do military tribunals?
	Go right ahead.
	And it wasn't even a close case, but Roberts had to recuse himself since he'd already heard the case, which means that eight justices decide, and the final vote was five to three.
	The swing vote, Anthony Kennedy, be hailed now as the new Sandra Day O'Connor.
	The interesting about this thing is, though, it was really close.
	If Judge Kennedy, Justice Kennedy, had voted with Alito, Thomas, and Scalia, the 4-4 decision would have meant the case reverts to the last decision that was issued, which was the D.C. Court of Appeals, which would have meant that the tribunals could have proceeded.
	They can't.
	Gitmo does not close.
	The prisoners are not let out of there.
	There is a procedure underway now where they'll try to find a way to make this work because the court gave the president sort of guidance on how to get this done.
	In his opinion, Justice Kennedy said, among other things, trial by military commission raises separation of powers concerns of the highest order.
	I swear, and my dad was a lawyer, and I don't understand this.
	The separation of powers, since when do the courts get to assert their right unilaterally to participate in commander-in-chief duties?
	That's what they've done here.
	And this is, it just, it's a blaring, glaring example, folks, of why a continued judicial reform in the sense that we need more originalists on the court is necessary.
	Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a strongly worded dissent.
	He said the court's decision would sorely hamper the president's ability to confront and defeat a new and deadly enemy.
	The court's willingness, said Justice Thomas, to second-guess the determination of the political branches that these conspirators must be brought to justice is both unprecedented and dangerous.
	And that's exactly right.
	It is unprecedented.
	Commanders-in-chief of the past have used military tribunals in exactly these kinds of circumstances.
	In addition, Scalia and Alito also filed dissents.
	Justice Breuer, in his opinion for the majority, said Congress has not issued the executive a blank check.
	Indeed, Congress has denied the president the legislative authority to create military commissions of the kind at issue here.
	Nothing prevents the president from returning to Congress to seek the authority that he believes necessary.
	And that is what Lindsey Graham was out on television today describing and saying was going to happen.
	A drive-by meeting, all excited.
	Big defeat for Bush.
	Overstepped his authority.
	Overstepped.
	Big defeat.
	They're just all happy as they can be about this.
	In fact, grab cut one out there, Mike, before we get to cut one A. We've got a little montage here of just some of the press reaction this morning after the Supreme Court announced this decision.
	This is a major defeat for the Bush administration.
	This is another defeat for the Bush administration before the Supreme Court.
	The court has delivered another defeat to the president.
	It's a very, very big defeat for the Bush administration.
	Well, we'll see in the end if that's the case.
	The president had a press conference today with the Japanese Prime Minister Koizumi.
	This guy is quite the character.
	This guy is an Elvis freak.
	You know, he's got great hair.
	Have you noticed Koizumi's hair?
	He's got great hair.
	And he's an Elvis freak.
	So after opening statements, Bush says, okay, we're going to go to questions.
	We'll take two questions from each side, meaning two Japanese journalists and two American drive-bys.
	And Bush said, now Bush said, now I remember Japanese Prime Minister, a big Elvis fan.
	Let's say, don't be cruel in your questioning.
	And then the way Koizumi ended this was hilarious.
	He said at the end of the press conference, he said, Love me, tender, ripped off his microphone, and walked out and going to Graceland tomorrow.
	Bush has taken Koizumi to Graceland.
	You know, I'm a big Kyusakamoto fan.
	Had one hit out there, Sukiyaki, 1963.
	Remember, working at a radio station once in Pittsburgh, we did a Kyusakamoto weekend.
	You know, radio stations used to do weekends.
	It's a big Beatles weekend.
	Kyusakamoto weekend.
	Every song for 12 hours was Kyusakamoto, and there was only one: Sukiyaki.
	At any rate, here's the president.
	Question from Terry Hunt of the Associated Press.
	You've said that you wanted to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay, but you were waiting for the Supreme Court decision that came out today.
	Do you intend now to close Guantanamo Bay quickly?
	And how do you deal with the suspects that you said were too dangerous to be released or sent home?
	Thank you for the question on the court ruling that literally came out in the midst of my meeting with the Prime Minister.
	And so I haven't had a chance to fully review the findings of the Supreme Court.
	I want to assure you that we take them very seriously.
	Two, that to the extent that there is latitude to work with the Congress to determine whether or not the military tribunals will be an avenue in which to give people their day in court, we will do so.
	The American people need to know that this ruling, as I understand it, won't cause killers to be put out on the street.
	I was a drive-by briefing on the way here.
	Hold it a second.
	Hold it a minute.
	Did you hear that?
	Did you hear what the president said?
	Snirdly.
	Didn't you hear what the president said?
	He said he got a drive-by briefing on the way to the press conference with a drive-by brief.
	Whoa!
	Not going to be the case.
	At any rate, we will seriously look at the findings, obviously.
	And one thing I'm not going to do, though, is I'm not going to jeopardize the safety of the American people.
	People got to understand that.
	I understand we're in a war on terror, that these people were picked up off of a battlefield.
	And I will protect the people and at the same time conform with the findings of the Supreme Court.
	In other words, they got a drive-by briefing on the way here.
	He later mentioned that the drive-by briefing included a report on what Lindsey Graham had said that we've already mentioned to you.
	And he did emphasize, we're going to move forward.
	Supreme Court, we take this very seriously.
	It's what they said.
	This is what we've got to do.
	So we're going to go out there and we're going to do it.
	Now, before we go to the break, I have to play you this.
	From this morning on CNN, it's audio soundbite number two, Mike.
	And a correspondent, there was Andrea Coppel.
	This is Ted Coppel's daughter.
	And this is her report on Republican outrage over the New York Times divulging the secrets involved in the tracking of terrorist money via wire transfers.
	Waves of Republican outrage continue to ripple through Congress over a New York Times story that revealed a secret program to track international terrorist financing.
	House Republicans are not alone in targeting the New York Times and other media.
	For days, bloggers have been up in arms, while conservative radio talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh have had a field day.
	In fact, I think the New York Times should start running ads and get some jihadists and get some terror members and have them say, I saved my sleepers and thanks to the New York Times.
	Republican strategists admit what many lawmakers won't, that talking up national security in an election year is popular with the party's conservative base.
	See, everything's looked at through the prism of politics.
	Andrea, it's about national security.
	It's about the national security of the country.
	You know, these people are so dense.
	They're so narrowly focused.
	Everything here is about the upcoming elections.
	Read the first chapter of one of my books.
	My success is not determined by who wins elections.
	My happiness on some occasions may be, but my success isn't.
	At any rate, is that not great playing a portion of our ad with me imitating a jihadist?
	All right.
	We've got to take quick timeout.
	We'll do it.
	We'll be back in just a second to get to your phone calls as well.
	El Quicko, 800-282-2882 is the number.
	Back after this.
	Ha, welcome back.
	Great to have you, Rush Limbaugh, serving humanity simply by showing up as the Doctor of Democracy, Truth Detector, the EIB Network.
	Mike, you have that little denying.
	I mean, I give people ideas out there left and right.
	I got a new sponsor here for somebody offering flags for sale for Flag Day.
	Do you have that?
	Do you have that?
	Yeah, listen to this, folks.
	We're going to give these.
	All new advertisers get a mention in program content time.
	Should catch that.
	The flag is made of hemp.
	It'd be marijuana for those of you in real life.
	Well, you would know that.
	Welcome back, folks.
	Pleasure to have you with us.
	We have this little humorous way that Prime Minister Koizumi ended the press conference just about a half hour ago with President Bush.
	Thank you very much.
	I'm the gun people.
	Fall love me tender.
	Love me tender.
	That was Bush and there goes love me tender.
	He makes an Elvis joke there at the end, but he doesn't realize that the drive-by media doesn't understand humor.
	Scratching.
	Elvis scratching was scratching their heads.
	Love me tender.
	Anyway, people want to weigh in on this decision.
	We've got some time here.
	We'll go to what?
	Triborrow.
	Somebody on the Triborough Bridge?
	Is that what it is?
	Vinny on the Triborough Bridge.
	Welcome to the program, sir.
	FDNY Ditto's great one.
	Thank you.
	I'm off the Triborrow now.
	But how typical of the media to insert that template?
	Why is this a defeat for the president and not a defeat for the American people that we can't try these animals through a military tribunal?
	Excellent.
	Point.
	Thank you, sir.
	Excellent.
	Vinny, in fact, you know, I had circled something here on a story I hadn't yet got to.
	It's the same thing.
	Listen, this is all Reuters and a story on the Geneva Convention.
	And that's another thing about this ruling.
	I don't know if you heard about this, Vinny, but the Supreme Court said these clowns are entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention once they are taken as prisoners of war.
	And so that's why Congress has to write some kind of a law that deals with this.
	But here's the opening line.
	U.S. Supreme Court in a major blow for President Bush's war on terrorism.
	That is your exact point, is it not, Vinny?
	Yes, sir, Rush.
	And we've seen this, and we all know that they've been designated as enemy combatants.
	They have no sponsor country per se.
	We haven't declared war on a country per se.
	They are not uniformed.
	They do not fall subject to the rules of engagement via the Geneva Convention.
	So who are we kidding here?
	Well, we're not kidding anybody, but I think your point here about the media, this is the United States' war on terror, not George Bush's.
	But this opening line here in the Al Reuters story, U.S. Supreme Court in a major blow for President Bush's war on terrorism, indicates that they're not even on board.
	We know they're not, to the extent that they're supporting it.
	They're trying to sabotage it so that we end up losing it, or at least don't win it.
	And again, as I say, the political prism, everything is looked at in this year and has been since 2001.
	What's the effect of this on Bush?
	I think the only exemption was actually the 9-11 attacks themselves.
	John in Churchill, Tennessee, I'm glad you called.
	Welcome to the program, sir.
	Mega Doodos, Rush.
	Thank you.
	Real simple, the Liberals, Justices on the Supreme Court has just put a target on the Democrats in Congress to see if they're going to support Senator Kyle and Senator Graham in giving the authority to the president that the Supreme Court said he didn't have.
	Now, let's see what they do.
	I want to hear Fine Go get up and talk about all the constitutional rights these guys have and all the evidence that's going to be collected from Afghanistan and brought back here to try these guys.
	I'm waiting for that.
	I'm waiting for that speech.
	How about you?
	You're going to get it.
	They've already been trying it.
	Why do you think we have a name here for what they've done?
	The Al-Qaeda Bill of Rights.
	The Democrats were saying this stuff before the Supreme Court announced it today.
	This has been their policy.
	Bush can't hold these people.
	They've been suggesting that they're being tortured.
	They need to be let go.
	They're not getting due process.
	They've gone to the ACLU.
	You're right.
	The Democrats, they're just ecstatic and they're happy.
	Oh, well, Bush oversteps his authority.
	Bush loses.
	And what they don't realize is exactly what you said.
	It's a bullseye on the Democrats because now they'll probably come out and support the ruling.
	And when the senators, Kyle and Lindsey Graham, get going on this, you're exactly right out there, John.
	It's going to be fascinating to see how the Democrats in the Senate react to this effort to allow military tribunals.
	You know, Karl Rove has a political strategy, folks.
	Most people go after their opponents' weaknesses.
	One thing that you should know about Rove and Rovism, if I can coin the term, is that Rove decided and decides and has decided in this case in the election this year to go after the Democrats' strength, what they think are their strength, and that's the war in Iraq.
	They think it's their strength, the war on terror, but it isn't.
	And so, yeah, it'll be interesting to see how this all transpires.
	Real life, exactly what you get here on the EIB network.
	El Rush Ball at 800-282-2882.
	Email address, rush at EIBnet.com.
	You see what Pat Leakey Leahy is saying.
	He's out there saying, yeah, this is a Supreme Court decision, victory for checks and balances.
	Okay, victory for checks and balances.
	Wrong perspective as it stands now.
	It's a victory for the jihadists.
	It's a victory for terrorists.
	And you might also say it's a victory for those who are aiding and abetting them, like the New York Times and certain liberal Democrats, elected and unelected.
	Linda in Alamo, California.
	Nice to have you on the program.
	I'm so excited to talk to you, Rush.
	I love your program, and you always say what I would like to say, only you say it so much more eloquently.
	But I must say, I wanted to tell you for a long time that I love my smoke-free environment here in California because I can go to the hairdresser and not come out smelling like a chimney.
	Yeah.
	And put me down for a flag.
	I'll send it to Boxer and.
	You go to the hairdresser, you come out smelling like chemicals, though.
	I've been in hair shops.
	I've been in these salons.
	You go under a hairdryer when you come out of there smelling like stuff reeks.
	No, no, no.
	It's good smell.
	I'm upset with you this morning.
	Why are you so passive about this Supreme Court decision?
	Passive.
	Passive.
	Do I sound passive about this?
	I'm outraged this morning.
	Absolutely outrageous.
	I called President.
	All right, for one thing, I'm not passive about it.
	But number two, I'm not surprised.
	I knew how this is going to come out.
	We don't have enough votes.
	John Roberts couldn't participate in the case.
	And I know that Justice Kennedy could predict which side he's going to come down on.
	I mean, it's called Notice Me Time.
	Now with Sandra Day O'Connor gone.
	And I agreed with what the president said.
	And I looked at the decision.
	There are remedies here.
	Get together with Congress, come up with a way to make this somehow kosher as far as the courts could.
	Look, we've got to deal with it as it is.
	You can get mad at it all day long, but then you still have to move forward.
	So I just suspend with the anger, but it's not going to do much.
	But, I mean, I'm not passive about this, Linda.
	Well, I agreed with what Vinny said.
	He said everything I wanted to say.
	But you're still unhappy with me.
	I mean, it's the pattern in my life.
	Do everything you like.
	Everything.
	Still something I'm still doing.
	Just still not enough.
	No, no, no.
	I love it.
	Still not enough.
	I should be the best I can be, everything in the world, and it's still not enough.
	But I love it.
	Story of my life.
	Oh, Rush, we love you.
	I know that.
	I appreciate that.
	I love you too, Linda.
	I really do.
	All right.
	Now, the point is passivity is not on display here.
	It's not occurring.
	But it is.
	The president was right on this.
	You've got to move forward.
	You can't sit here arguing and getting mad is not going to change the Supreme Court decision.
	Are we going to find out who voted which way?
	Yeah, look, as I've always said, Linda, there is good in everything that happens, or at least the opportunity for good.
	And the guy that called from Tennessee nailed it.
	I mean, this decision may have painted a bullseye on several Democrats, because now the effort is going to be by the Republican majority, the leadership in the Senate, to get this done in a way that the president has the authority, and there are going to be people that oppose it.
	And it will be people that oppose it.
	Probably there'll be some Republicans that will oppose it too, like, well, I don't know, Susan Collins and Snow.
	I don't know where they're going to go, Link Chafee.
	But it'll be interesting to see which Democrats stand up.
	Now, we know that Feingold will, the Democrats that want to appease their base.
	But how many others will stand up for essentially an Al-Qaeda Bill of Rights?
	Again, that's going to be fascinating to watch.
	I'm also, thanks, Linda, very much for calling.
	I'm going to be interested to see what Senator Biden says about this.
	Have you heard about his quote that he, I guess he was on one of the Sunday shows over the weekend, and somebody asked him about being president?
	And he said, you know, yeah, but I'm not that crazy about it.
	I mean, it's not at the top of my list.
	He said, I'd rather be at home making love to my wife while my children are asleep.
	Joe Biden on a run for the White House.
	His youngest child is 25.
	So he says, I'm not kidding.
	I'm not making it up.
	I'd rather be at home making love to my wife while my children are asleep.
	The youngest kid's 25.
	I wonder if he's got a bunch of slackers still hanging around at home, living off dad net Senate salary of what, 160-some odd?
	Warwick, Rhode Island, this is Saleh, and you're next on the EIB network.
	Hi.
	Hi, Rush.
	How are you?
	Fine.
	First, let me say I agree with you 98.5% of the time.
	Thank you.
	I only disagree with you that 1.5% of the time when you're wrong.
	First of all, let me just say that I am really sick of Republican chief executives quaking in their boots every time a judge gives them an illegal ruling, an illegal order.
	I don't know if you remember me, but I spoke to you about a year ago with the Terry Shiva case.
	Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, I do.
	Yeah, and my point at that time was the same thing as my point this time, which is I am no fan of Andrew Jackson's, but do you think if Andrew Jackson was president today that a civilian lawyer would ever set foot on Guantanamo Bay?
	This was not a civilian lawyer.
	This guy's lawyer is a military lawyer.
	I'm Don's lawyer is a military lawyer.
	He's been on television this morning in uniform.
	I'm not sure which branch didn't have the sound up, but there's a military lawyer who's not civilian.
	But isn't that basically what the ruling is, is that they're paving the way for civilian trials here.
	That's what they're trying to do, but that's what they're going to hopefully shortstop in the Senate.
	Yeah, that's the whole point.
	Civilian trials and bog everything done.
	No, no, you're exactly right.
	This has a very pronounced downside.
	But, you know, what do you think the president should just ignore these decisions?
	I absolutely do.
	And I want to point out a frequent contradiction among conservatives, and I think you may be one of them.
	Both you and Mitt Romney and Cheb Bush had the same things to say when they were faced with this kind of dilemma.
	On the one hand, they said this ruling is wrong.
	The court's abusing its power.
	On the other hand, when it was suggested that they defy the courts, they said, oh, no, we can't act lawlessly.
	I don't know that the administration is going to officially say that the court has overstepped its authority.
	I think that.
	Sure.
	We know it is.
	I'll be glad I'm going to ignore the court's decision.
	I'm not going to have anything to do with it.
	But as far as the president, I don't think the president's going to say that.
	You know, there's a part of me who would love it if he would become a little Lincoln-esque.
	Sure.
	And I think it would go over great in the country, but I just don't expect it to happen.
	I think the Senate came out immediately today.
	John Kyle and Lindsey Graham, and I think provides the administration cover to getting this done according to the Supreme Court's dictates.
	But look, the way you change this, Soleil, is to change the makeup of the court.
	That's why it's a long-drawn-out battle.
	That's why all the education and books on the makeup of the court vis-a-vis originalists as jurists and people are going to read the Constitution and interpret it literally and in the original intent.
	I mean, there's no question that the Supreme Court has overstepped its authority here.
	Can I take a moment to disagree with you?
	Well, could you disagree with that?
	Well, let me tell you what it should have been right up your alley.
	I think, well, I know.
	It is in a way, but I think conservatives often have the wrong answers when the answers are spelled out before us.
	The Founding Fathers never counted on people behaving in a restrained way.
	They counted on our system of checks and balances.
	And even people who are originalists, they face the same dilemma that the Liberals face, which is in their young days, they're loyal to their nation and they're loyal to their profession.
	But as they get closer to meeting their Maker, they kind of start being more loyal to their Maker, you know.
	And what you really need is you need a Congress who's willing to impeach judges when they abuse their power, and you need a president to ignore them when they basically give him an order.
	I don't know why you disagree with him.
	I mean, yeah, we need, we need, we need, we need, but we need with a, I don't know, within the context of reality here, with Tom DeLay out of the Congress, I don't think there's anybody up there that's going to impeach a judge or even talk about it.
	Not on our side, not anywhere.
	And I don't think the president's going to ignore the Supreme Court here given the realities that we face at the time.
	I mean, yeah, I'd be much happier with a different makeup of Congress.
	I'd be much happier with a different makeup of the Senate.
	But there are other people in the country to have a say-so about that.
	But the president chooses judges.
	The president chooses the justices on the Supreme Court.
	And believe me, reshaping the judiciary is the much more direct route.
	And of all the options you presented, it's probably the easiest.
	Now, that's not to say it's easy, but you live in a specific district and you elect one member of the 435 and you elect two of the 50 in the Senate.
	But you do elect a president, you participate in that, who will end up choosing the kind of judges that sit on the various federal courts.
	So that's a key element here.
	And look at this case, notwithstanding, progress is being made.
	Judge Alito and Judge Thomas are two great ads, two great additions.
	Roberts, what did I say?
	Thomas.
	He's a good addition, too.
	Roberts and Alito, two great additions to this, and there hopefully will be another in the next two years or so.
	At any rate, I have to run out there, so I'm glad you call brief timeout much more straight ahead after this.
	Since we're talking about prisoners, listen to this story, folks.
	Fateh Mohammed, prison inmate in Pakistan, says he woke up last weekend with a glass light bulb in his anus.
	Wednesday night, doctors brought Mohammed's misery to an end after a one and a half hour operation to remove the light bulb from the anus.
	Mohammed, a gray-bearded man in his mid-40s, said, thanks, Allah.
	Now I feel comfort.
	Today I had my breakfast.
	I've just been drinking water, nothing else.
	He told this to all Reuters from a hospital bed in the southern central city of Multan.
	Dr. Farouk Aftab at Nishtar Hospital said, we had to take that light bulb out of there intact.
	Had it been broken inside, it would be a very, very complicated situation.
	Mohammed was serving a four-year sentence for making liquor, which is prohibited for Muslims.
	Said he was shocked when he was first told the cause of his discomfort.
	He swears he did not know that the light bulb was in his anus.
	He did not know how it got there.
	When I woke up, I felt a pain in my lower abdomen, but later in the hospital, they told me that there was a light bulb there.
	I don't know who did this to me, police or other prisoners.
	The doctor treating Fateh Mohammed said he'd never encountered anything like it before, doubted the felon's story that somebody had drugged him and inserted the bulb while he was comatose.
	Don't you just hate it when this happens?
	Light bulb gets in your anus.
	And this was Pakistan.
	Now, yeah, well, he may have seen the light now, but the bottom line is, what role did Bush play?
	What role did Americans play in this voyage?
	They say he was out there making liquor, but that's probably just a cover story.
	Mark and Quincy, Illinois, welcome to the EIB Network.
	Yes, sir.
	Mr. Limbaugh.
	Enjoy your show.
	Thank you very much, sir.
	My point is this.
	The Supreme Court just laid the Guantanamo Bay enemy combatant thing right into Bush's hands.
	They basically said, since they're subject to the Geneva Convention, they're not subject to the U.S. Constitution, therefore they don't deserve lawyers, or they don't have a right to a lawyer.
	All they have a right to is...
	No, no, no, where are you getting that?
	He's got a lawyer, and his lawyer is going to continue to represent him.
	Agreed, sir, but it shouldn't be paid for by the American people.
	Well, it shouldn't be, and what will be are two different things here.
	The ACLU will pass a hat.
	Norman Lear and the gang will pass a hat.
	The Hollywood Left will pass a hat to defend this guy.
	This has caused celeb for these.
	This is big defeat for Bush.
	I know what your theory is since they're subject to the Geneva Convention, that that takes them out of the jurisdiction of the U.S. Constitution.
	But that was the Supreme Court's ruling.
	The bottom, the objective of the representatives of Hamden was precisely to get him tried in civil court in the United States of America, as the same as a citizen with those same constitutional rights.
	That's been the objective all along.
	The advocates of this have wanted to gum up the court system so that no action's taken against these people.
	They want to make it just impossible to bring all these people.
	You know how many people there are down there?
	It's 400 some odd.
	And I don't know how many left at Abu Ghrab, but I mean, the whole thing would apply wherever we're holding prisoners.
	And they're trying to get the thing set up so that every one of these prisoners being held by the military in a war gets a trial like Jakavorkian would get or anybody else would get in a civil American court with U.S. constitutional rules and rights applying.
	Saw what a fiasco the Masawi trial turned out to be.
	Imagine that time's four.
	We don't have room for it.
	We simply don't.
	So it's in a way, it was an attempt to shut all of this down.
	Make no mistake what the people who are all for Hamden in this case are trying to do, folks.
	This is, I mean, this is not an exercise in this is not an intellectual feast for these people.
	This is an active agenda in which they are attempting to undermine and sabotage our ability to achieve victory, to even wage war.
	Forget achieving victory.
	They're trying to sabotage our ability to wage war against this bunch of people, this particular enemy.
	Tom, in Rapid City, South Dakota, you're next and welcome to the program.
	Thank you much, Mr. Limbaud.
	It's an honor.
	Thank you very much.
	This Supreme Court decision has just got me over the edge.
	These guys are terrorists, and they're going to get access to our courts.
	What are we going to show the world how nice we are to terrorists?
	That's exactly right.
	We've got so many people in this country concerned about our image and what people think of us so that they like us.
	You are exactly right.
	These are terrorists, but you have to understand now to their defenders.
	They are victims of an overzealous cowboy who is fighting his own personal war on terror and denying all of these people their human rights and their civil rights.
	And as such, they are victims of the most McCarthy-esque presidency in recent memory.
	That's, I'm telling you, that's the attitude of the people that are on the pro side of this Hamden guy and those terrorists held at Club Gittino or wherever else.
	I haven't had a chance to read this whole decision.
	And one thing in it that I don't get is how these guys at Club Gittmow qualify under the Geneva Convention.
	I just don't get that.
	They don't wear uniforms.
	They don't represent countries.
	They're not an armed militia of a state.
	I don't quite get it, but I'm going to have to read this to find out why that does apply to them.

▲