|
The Patsy
|
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 and other terror detainees to federal courts in New York City to stand trial.
"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," Ashcroft told the Christ Stigall show on KCMO radio this morning.
"I believe that this is a decision that comes as a result of the president making the decision, or if not making the decision, allowing an attorney general to do what he normally doesn't have the authority to do, and could only do at the acquiescence of the president," the former AG and former Missouri senator argued.
President Barack Obama has said that he instructed Holder to make an independent determination on the best way to proceed against the terrorist detainees.
"You know, I said to the attorney general, make a decision based on the law," Obama said in an interview on CNN this morning.
The president has backed Holder's decision, saying he has confidence in the court system to resolve the cases, including a potential death sentence for the defendants.
Ashcroft said his own experience as attorney general led him to his conclusion about Holder's authority.
"The office of Attorney General doesn't have the power or authority to do this on its own, in my judgement," he explained. "Of course, my judgment can be flawed -- I spent a few years there and considered these kinds of issues."
IS IT JUST ME WHO THINKS THIS IS "HUGE" or is this much ado about nuttin?
I posted excerpts about this, this afternoon after I heard Rush mention it, and got almost no reaction from fellow Freepers.
I had meant to post the question yesterday as this has been bothering me but now I don't have to as I believe Ashcroft has answered the "authority" question for me
After all, IF the AG can assume the "authority" to order the Military to relinquish jurisdiction over KSM and the other scumbags, what is to prevent him from ordering the Military to take other actions, based upon his "sole" discretion?
Again, much like when Holder could not answer Twinky Grhamnesty's question about precedent for this kind of action, I don't think (to my knowledge) the DOJ has ever tried to usurp powers not delegated to it under any authority and attempt to "order" the military to do anything, after all, the military answers only to the President, right?
Now, it remains to be seen what--if anything--will come of this.
While I claim to be a student of the law, (though background and education is in business) I would like to hear from some of you who might be more knowledgeable about the law as to what, IF anything could be undertaken (not to prevent this, cuz its more than likely a done deal) but to FORCE Dear Leader to put his "Official" imprimatur thereon so that when the sheet hits the fan (which it will) he can NOT weasel his way out of this and claim it was all Holder's doing.
So, does anyone think that someone from NYC might have standing to challenge this in court on the authority issue? Or any other suggestions on how we might force the Liar-in-Chief to "take ownership?"
Since when has lacking legal authority for anything stopped the left?
Bottom line: This was/is Obama’s decision, not Holder’s.
It is BIG! because it means OBOZO CAN”T DENY RESPONSIBILITY FOR THIS TRUE ASSAULT ON OUR AMERICA!!! It is a Travesty of Justice and makes a Mockery of Our Freedoms when Terrorists caught in the Battlefield are given kid gloves treatment and all of the Freedoms we work so hard to have for Our Families! Obama truly Hates AMERICA!! Read His History, Read his Quotations! Lokk at all of his Terrorist Friends, be they William Ayers, Bernadette Dohrn, Reverend Wright, Castro, Hugo Chavez ad infinitum..
Whack. Rightly so.
If the USAG cannot order the military to “habeas corpus” the defendants to NYC to answer some civilian charge, then the CIC, POTUS can order it done at the req of the AG.
A military judge could try to block it, but does he answer to POTUS as CIC?
Just what civilian charge do they face? Can we charge someone who committed the alleged crime while on foreign soil? Probably, but it opens all sorts of problems for appeal, etc.
Can these guys get convicted in NYC? Who knows. All the confessions, statements, etc will be inadmissible because they were not advised of their rights under Miranda.
The AG will look for an Excited Utterance exception, but most will boil down to what the chauffeur may or may say KSM said to him.
This is all Obama’s way to try Bush and the CIA.
|
The Patsy
|
I’m not sure that Holder needs to “order” anything.... the Secy of Defense reports to the POTUS. If Obamanation wants it done then Secy Gates will do it, or else the Obamanation finds himself a new Secy of Defense.
probably Obambi does not want his fingerprints on this any more than necessary, but I find it hard to imagine that Gates will resist (and is probably happy to wash his hands of the matter).
I don’t see that there could be a real legal as opposed to administrative/executive issue. The only way a Secy of Defense could resist the wishes of the WH on such a matter is if the POTUS dared not sack the Secy of Defense for some reason.
In this case, I assume that Gates is happy to comply, or can be persuaded to comply, unless he is already on his way out of this admin.... in that case they will simply speed his exit and get someone more obedient to the whims of the far left.
Holder derives his authority from his appointment as stupidity czar.
I vote for much ado about nothing. Ashcroft would seem to be correct, the AG has no pull to unilaterally take a proceeding from the SecDef’s sphere and place it in his own. But if he is representing the President, he’s doing the CiC’s bidding. And that is all that’s necessary.
It does mean that Obama can’t vote ‘present’ on this. This has got to be his call.
Well, 85% of what they do is unconstitutional. Doesn’t seem to stop them when the “opposition” is nothing more than fart gas in the wind.
Sure you did.
In my citizen/layman opinion, you nailed the right issue here, that is, the "Holder" decision will need to be challenged in court, and then, exactly who has legal standing.
Just wait till Holder says that Hassan should be tried in the Federal Courts instead of a military tribunal — if he can take custody of this man, who’s to say he won’t use this as precedence in regards to others in military custody. [I know Hassan is a member of the military, and KSM isn’t even a citizen, but what kind of precedent is this setting???]
Of course this is important.Very important.But nothing will ever come of it.Whether the Attorney Corporal realizes it or not if this thing goes wrong,public opinion-wise,he'll be hung out to dry just as Reno was for Waco and Elian.Hussein wants this three ring circus to take place.He'll be cheering and stamping his feet (in the family quarters,that is) as he watches Bush/Cheny/Rumsfeld be dragged through the mud by the Maoist lawyers who'll represent KSM.And he'll cheer even more loudly (again,in the family quarters) if any indictments against top W aides are handed down in The Hague.
And his great friend (and mentor),Bill Ayers,will be cheering right alongside of him.
File...or shut the heck up. We all know how wrong this is. Preaching about it repeatedly, wringing our hands over it, setting our hair on fire and running about screaming isn't changing anything.
Either bring suit....or shut up.
Legal question ping.
The Mob Boss 
