All Episodes
Previous Next
June 29, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
33:51
June 29, 2006, Thursday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Well, the drive-by's are all excited, but they got nothing.
I guess Club Gitmo is still open, ladies and gentlemen, and the um the jihadists on vacation there will remain, and my licensed merchandise business in Club Get Mo 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 Rush Limbaugh.com.
All right.
Supreme Court, uh, this actually is not surprising given that uh the chief judge, Chief Justice John Roberts, could not participate.
Uh you've got you got four libs on this court, which will do anything they can, uh, who will do anything they can to undermine executive authority, uh particularly commander in chief authority.
That's what's sort of outrageous about this to me.
The uh 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 gonna pursue it in that manner, they're gonna move forward.
Lindsey Graham came out of the 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.
It's it it's I know the Constitution, it's all BS because military tribunals have been used in the past.
FDR used military tribunals.
At any rate, uh the attitude of the president is we're gonna move forward here.
Lindsey Graham's been on TV, Vice President Graham uh on TV this morning, saying if that's what the court wants, and that's what the president needs, that's what we're gonna give him.
And they're gonna be working on that, uh, getting start on it sometime soon.
Now, the the D.C. Court of Appeals, which was the court from which the current Chief Justice John Roberts came from, uh, previously heard this case and sided with the administration.
I said, Yeah, you commander in chief, you want to do uh 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 uh eight justices decide, and the final vote was five to three.
The swing vote, Anthony Kennedy, the uh be hailed now as the uh as the new Sandra Day O'Connor.
The interesting about this thing is, though, it was really close.
If if if uh Judge Kennedy, Justice Kennedy had voted with uh 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 uh the tribunals could have proceeded.
Um they can't.
Gitmo does not close.
Uh the prisoners are not let out of there.
Uh there is a uh procedure underway now where they'll try to find a way to make this work because the court uh gave the president uh sort of guidance on how to uh to get this done.
Uh in his opinion, Justice Kennedy said uh things, trial by military commission raises separation of powers concerns of the highest order.
I swear.
And my dad was a lawyer, and I uh I don't understand this.
The 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.
Uh and this is it's just it's it's a blaring, glaring example, folks, of why a continued uh judicial reform in the uh in the sense that we need more originalists on the court is uh is necessary.
Uh Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a strongly worded dissent.
Uh 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, uh, 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 uh these kinds of uh circumstances.
In addition, Scalia and Alito also filed uh dissents.
Uh Justice Breyer, in his opinion for the majority said uh 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 uh was gonna happen.
Drive by media, all excited.
Big defeat for Bush.
Overstepped his authority, overstep, big defeat.
He's uh they're they're just all happy as they can be uh about this.
In fact, grab grab cut one out there, Mike, before we get to Cut 1A.
We've got a little montage here of just some of the uh press reaction this morning after the Supreme Court announced this decision.
This is a major defeat for the Bush administration.
This is uh 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.
Uh, President had a press conference today with uh the uh excuse me, Japanese Prime Minister uh Koizumi.
This guy is quite the character.
This guy's uh is an Elvis freak.
You know, he's got great hair.
Have you noticed Koizumi's hair?
He got great hair.
Uh and he's an Elvis freak.
So after opening a statements, Bush says, okay, we're gonna go to questions.
We'll take two questions from each side, meaning two Japanese uh journalists and two American drive-bys.
And uh Bush said now Bush said, now I remember we Japanese Prime Minister, a big Elvis fan uh says don't be cruel uh in your questioning.
And then the way Koizumi ended this was uh was hilarious.
He said at the end of the press conference, he said, love me tender, ripped off his microphone, walked out and go into Graceland tomorrow.
Bush is taking Koizumi to Graceland.
You know, I I uh I'm a big Q Sakamoto fan, had one hit out there, Sukiyaki.
1963.
Remember working at a radio station once in Pittsburgh, we did a Q Sakamoto weekend.
You know, radio stations used to do weekends.
It's a big Beatles weekend, Q Sakamoto weekend.
Every song for twelve hours was Q Sakamoto, and there's only one.
Uh Sukiyaki.
At any rate, here's the uh president uh question from uh 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 uh that that uh 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 uh 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 uh findings of the Supreme Court.
I want to assure you that we take them very seriously.
Uh, to that to the extent that there is uh latitude to work with the Congress to determine whether or not the military tribunals will be an avenue in which to give uh 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 bit.
Did you hear that?
Did you hear what the president said?
Snurgly.
Did you hear what the president said?
He said he got a drive-by briefing on on the way to the uh press conference with Koy.
A drive-by brief.
Not gonna be the case.
Anyway, we will seriously look at the findings, obviously.
And uh one thing I'm not gonna do, though, is I'm not gonna jeopardize the safety of the American people.
People gotta understand that.
I understand we're in a war on terror, that uh these people were picked up off of a battlefield, and I w I will protect the people and at the same time conform with the findings of the Supreme Court.
In other words, the uh got a drive-by briefing on the way here.
I was told.
He later mentioned that uh the drive-by briefing included a report on uh what Lindsey Graham had uh had said that we've already uh mentioned to you.
So and he he did emphasize that we're gonna move forward.
Supreme Court, we take this very seriously.
It's what they said, this is what we got to do.
So um we're gonna go out there and uh we're we're gonna do it.
Now, before we go to the break, uh have to play you this.
From this morning on CNN, it's audio sound bite number two, uh, Mike.
Uh the uh and a correspondent there was Andrea Coppolis is Ted Coppel's daughter, and uh this is her report uh on uh uh Republican outrage uh over the New York Times divulging the secrets involved in the uh in the tracking of terrorist money via wire transfers.
Waves of Republican outrage continued 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 sleeping.
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.
Everything's looked at through the prism of politics.
No, Andrea, it's about national security.
It's about the national security of the country.
It's 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 as uh a portion of our ad.
CNN with me imitating a jihadist.
All right.
We got a quick timeout.
We'll do it.
We'll be back in just a second.
Uh get to your phone calls as well.
El Quico 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, the truth detector.
The EIB network.
Mike, you have that uh little denied.
I mean, uh, I 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 uh you have that?
Yeah, listen to this, folks.
We're gonna give these uh all new advertisers get uh get a mention in uh program content time.
Should catch that.
the flag is made of hemp.
It'd be marijuana for those of you in Rio.
Well, you would know that.
Welcome back, folks.
Uh pleasure to have you with us.
We have this uh we have this little uh humorous way that Prime Minister uh Koizumi ended the press conference just about a half hour ago with uh with President Bush.
Thank you very much.
I'm the gum people for love me tender.
Love me tender.
That was Bush and the Ego.
Love me tender.
Now the the uh he makes an Elvis joke there at the end, but he doesn't realize that the drive-by media doesn't understand humor.
Uh scratching Elvis scratching was scratching their heads love me tender, wasn't it?
Anyway, um people want to weigh in on this decision.
We got some time here.
We'll go to uh uh what?
Triborough tri somebody on the Triborough Bridge?
Is that what it is?
Uh Vinny uh the Triborough Bridge.
Welcome to the program, sir.
FDNY Ditto's great one.
Thank you.
But uh how typical of the media to insert their template.
Why is this a defeat for the president, not a defeat for the American people that we can't try these animals to a military tribunal 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 to this is all Reuters uh and uh 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 but uh the Supreme Court said these clowns are entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention once they are taken as prisoners of war.
Uh and so that's why Congress has to write some kind of a law uh that 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 we've seen this, and we all know that they're 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 have 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 what we're w we're not kidding anybody, but I think the your 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 that to the extent that they're supporting it.
They're trying to uh uh sabotage it so that uh we end up losing it or at least don't win it.
It's uh and again as I say the political prism everything is looked at in this year and has been since two thousand one is what's the effect of this on Bush um I think the only exemption was actually the nine eleven attacks uh themselves John in uh in Churchill Tennessee I'm glad you called welcome to the program sir.
Mega didos Rush thank you.
Uh real simple the 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 Fein 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 gonna 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.
It's the Democ 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 overstepped the 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 strategery, folks.
Most people go after their opponent's weaknesses.
One thing that you should know about Rove and Roveism, 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 Bowl 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, 1910.
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 on the U say it so much more eloquently but I must say I 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 you go under a hairdryer when you come out of there smelling like stuff reeks.
No no no it's good smell um I'm upset with you this morning why are you so passive about this this uh uh Supreme Court decision passive do I sound do I sound passive about this you I look outraged this morning absolutely outraged I called President told him so all right for for one thing uh 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 couldn't participate in the case.
And I know that the Justice Kennedy is uh I I could could predict which side he's going to come down on.
I mean it's it's it's called notice me time.
Uh now with Sandra Day O'Connor gone.
Um and and I agreed with what the president said, and I looked at the decision.
There are remedies here.
Um get together with Congress, come up with a way to make this uh somehow kosher as far as the courts could look at we got to deal with it as it is.
Uh you can get mad at it all day long, um, but then you still have to move forward.
So I just suspense with the suspend with the anger, but it's not gonna do much.
But I mean, I'm not passive about this, Linda.
Well, uh I agreed with what Vinny said.
He said everything I wanted to say.
Um But you're still unhappy with me.
It's like it's I mean, it's it's it's the pattern of my life.
Do everything you like, everything it's still something I'm still not.
Oh, just still not enough.
No, no, no.
I don't know.
Everything in the world, and it's still not enough.
But I love story of my life.
Oh, Russ, we love you.
I know that.
I think that I love you too, Linda, I really do.
All right.
Now the point is passivity is not on display here.
It's not it's not it's not uh occurring.
But it is the president was right on this.
You've got to move forward.
You can't sit here and uh arguing and getting mad's not gonna change the Supreme Court decision.
Well, are we gonna find out who voted which way?
Uh yeah, this it look it as I've always said, Linda, there is 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, the the this decision may have painted a bull lie 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 gonna be people that oppose it.
And it will be people that oppose it.
Probably some Republicans that'll oppose it too, like well, I'm I don't know, Susan Collins and Snow, I don't know where they're gonna go, Link Chafee.
Uh 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 a uh uh N al-Qaeda Bill of Rights again?
That's gonna be fascinating.
Fascinating to watch.
I'm also thanks, Linda, very much for calling.
I'm gonna be interested to see what uh what Senator Biden says about this.
Have you heard about his quote that he uh I guess he was on one of the Sunday shows over the weekend and uh 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 twenty-five.
So he says I rather 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 twenty-five.
I wonder if he's got a bunch of slackers still hanging around at home living off dad net senate salary of what a hundred and sixty some odd Warwick, Rhode Island.
This is Saleh, and you're next on the EIB network.
Hiya.
Hi, Russia.
Fine.
Uh first let me say I agree with you 98.5% of the time.
Thank you.
I only disagree with you that one point five percent of the time when you're wrong.
Um first of all, let me just say that um I am really sick of a Republican uh chief executives quaking in their boots every time a judge gives them an illegal uh ruling or an illegal order.
Um I don't know if uh you remember me, but I spoke to you about a year ago w with the uh Terry Shivo case.
Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, I do.
Yeah.
And and my point at that time was the same thing as my point at 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?
Um this was not a civilian lawyer.
Uh This guy's lawyer is a military lawyer.
Hamdan's lawyer is a military lawyer.
He's been on television this morning in uniform.
I'm not sure which branch.
Just didn't have the sound up, but there's a military lease, not civilian.
But isn't that basically what the the ruling is that they're they're paving the way for civilian trials here?
That's what they're trying to do, but that's what they're gonna hope to hopefully shortstop uh in the Senate.
But that's why civilian trials and bog everything.
No, no, you're you're exactly right.
This has it.
This has a very pronounced downside uh uh but you know y y you what do you think the president should just ignore these decisions?
Uh I absolutely do.
And and and I I want to point out a frequent contradiction among conservatives, and and I I think you may be one of them.
Um bo both you and um Met Romney and uh Jeb Bush had the same things to say when they were faced with the this kind of dilemma.
They ha on the one hand they said this this ruling is uh is wrong, it's uh is the court's abusing its power.
On the other hand, when they were su when it was suggested that they defy the courts, they were said, Oh no, we we can't act that way lawlessly.
I I don't I don't know that the administration is going to officially say that the court has overstepped its authority.
Uh I think that.
Sure.
I'll I'll be glad I'm gonna ignore the court's decision.
I'm I'm uh you know, I'm I'm not gonna have anything to do with it.
But I uh as far as the President, I don't think the President's gonna say that.
This is uh be uh you know there's a part of me would love it, you know, if he would uh become a little Lincoln esque.
Sure.
Um and I think it would go over great in the country, but uh I just don't expect it to happen.
I think the Senate came out immediately today, uh John Kyle and and Lindsay Graham provides the administration cover to getting this done according to the Supreme Court's dictates.
But look, the way the 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, uh originalists as jurists, uh and people are gonna read the Constitution and and uh interpret it uh literally uh and and in the original intent.
I mean, there's no question that the Supreme Court has has uh overstepped its authority here.
Can I uh take a moment to disagree with you?
Well could you disagree with that well let me tell you?
So it should have been right up your alley.
I think well, I know it i i itch it is in a way, but I think uh I think conservatives often take the have the wrong answers uh when the answers are spelled out before us.
The the founding fathers never uh counted on people uh on people behaving uh uh in a restrained way.
They counted on our system of checks and balances.
And and and pe even people who are originalists, they they they they face the same dilemma that that the Liberals face, which is uh in their young days they're they're loyal to the 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 when they uh abuse their power, and you need a president to ignore them when uh when he when they uh basically give him an order.
I don't know why you're disagreeing with them.
I mean, they yeah, we need, we need, we need, we need, but we gotta we we need with the with the with a I don't know, within the context of reality here, with with Tom Delay out of the Congress.
Uh I don't think there's anybody up there that's that's uh that's gonna impeach a judge or even talk about it.
Uh not on our side, not on uh uh anywhere, and I don't think the president's gonna ignore uh the the Supreme Court here uh given the realities that we face at the at the time.
I mean, yeah, we I'd be much happier with a different makeup of Congress.
I'd be much happier with a different makeup of the Senate, uh, 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 uh and uh of all the options you fa you presented, it's probably the easiest.
Now that's not to say it's easy, but uh you know, you live in a in a specific district and you elect one member of the four hundred and thirty-five, and you elect two of the fifty in the Senate.
But uh, you do elect a president, you participate in that, who will end up choosing uh the kind of judges that sit on the various federal courts.
So that's that's uh that's key element here.
And pr look at this case notwithstanding, progress is being made.
Judge Alito and Judge Thomas are two great ads.
Uh two great additions.
Uh Roberts, what did I say?
Thomas.
He's a good addition too.
Uh Roberts and Alito, two great additions to this, and and uh there they're hopefully will be uh uh another uh in the next uh two years or so.
At any rate, I have to run out there, so I am glad you call brief timeout much more straight ahead after this.
Uh, since we're talking about uh about prisoners, listen to this story, uh, folks.
Fateh Mohammed, uh prison inmate in Pakistan, says he woke up last weekend with a glass light bulb in his umus.
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.
Uh Mohammed, a gray bearded man in his mid-40s, said, Thanks, Allah.
Now I feel comfort.
Today I had my breakfast.
I just been drinking water, nothing else.
He told this to all Reuters uh from a hospital bed in the southern and central city of Multan.
Uh Dr. Farouk Aftab at Nishdar 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 uh serving a four-year sentence for making liquor, which is prohibited for Muslims, said he was shocked when he was first told uh 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 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 uh doctor treating uh uh Fate 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 you 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 boy?
I 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.
Uh my point is this.
The Supreme Court just laid the Guantanamo Bay enemy combatant thing right into Bush's hands.
Basically, 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.
Norman Lear and the gang will pass a hat.
The Hollywood left will pass a hat to defend this guy.
This is uh this is caused celeb uh for these this is big defeat for Bush.
Uh I know what your theory is, since they're subject to the Geneva Convention, uh, that that takes them out of the jurisdiction of the U.S. Constitution.
Uh, but that's that's uh 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 uh the same as a citizen uh with those same constitutional rights.
That's been the objective all along.
They uh the advocates of this have wanted to gum up the court system so that no actions taken against these people.
They want to make it just impossible to bring all these people you know how many people are down there?
There's four hundred some odd.
And I don't know how many left at Abu Grab, but I mean the whole thing would apply wherever we're holding prisoners.
And they're trying to get the the thing set up so that every one of these prisoners being held uh uh by the military and uh in in a war and gets gets a trial like Jack of Vorkian would get or anybody else would get in a in a in a Civil American court with U.S. constitutional rules and rights uh applying.
You saw what a what a fiasco the Massawi trial turned out to be.
Imagine that times four.
They could we don't have room for it.
We simply don't.
So it's it's it in a way it's uh it was an attempt to shut all of this down.
Make no mistake what the people uh who are all for Hamden in this case are trying to do, folks.
This is I mean, this is not an exercise and in uh it's not an intellectual feast for these people.
This is an active agenda in which they are attempting to undermine and sabotage our ability to to achieve victory, to even wage war.
Forget achieving victory.
They're trying to sabotage our ability to wage war against uh against this bunch of people, this this this particular enemy.
Tom and Rapid City, South uh South Dakota.
Uh your next, and welcome to the program.
Uh, thank you much, Mr. Limbaugh.
It's an honor.
Thank you very much.
I I just this Supreme Court decision's just got me over the edge.
I'm uh these guys are terrorists.
And they're gonna get access to our courts.
What are we gonna show the world that how nice we are to uh terrorists?
Well, there's some people that's exactly right.
We 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 uh in recent memory.
That's I'm telling you, that's the attitude of the people that are on the on the pro side as Hamden guy and the terrorists uh held at Club Gitmore 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 Gitmellow qualify under the Geneva Convention.
I just don't get that.
They don't wear uniforms, they don't represent countries, they're not they're not an armed militia of a state.
I don't I don't quite get it, but I'm gonna have to read this to find out why that uh that does apply to them.
▲
Export Selection