[Conservative Vermont Vet]

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 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?"

[Wuli]

I guess if this issue came into a courtroom, the questions and answers would come down to whether or not the dear one’s delegation of authority was explicit (an executive order) or implicit, as in:

Question to Holder: Did the President authorize you, verbally or otherwise, to take jurisdiction in the trials of prisoners held at the military prison at Guantanamo.

Holder: Yes.

Question to BHO: Did you, verbally or otherwise, authorize the Attorney General to take jurisdiction in the trials of prisoners held at the military prison at Guantanamo.

BHO: Yes.

If that is all it would take, to validate the “authority” question, then is Ashcroft’s complaint real or a matter of semantics?

Just asking; I’m not a lawyer.

[floriduh voter]

Jury pool already tainted by Holder and genius Barack Obama. I always wonder if BHO really passed the IL bar exam.

[rodguy911]

We have to get down in the mud and fight these bastards on their own turf.
They care not about law.
We have to destroy them every time they screw up like with the mammograms every two years. That's when they are vulnerable.
Let's don't waste a lot of time playing gotcha when we can't nail them. They have judges and law in their corner, nail them when they screw up publicly which is most of the time.

[Nachum]

The list, ping

[Darksheare]

This is big, but the Daily Kos Kiddies running the show don’t care and will continue on with their moronic plans.

[NorwegianViking]

Book Mark

[jwalsh07]

Nope, I’ve been waiting for somebody to mention the fact that the AG has no power over the military or it’s detainees since Obama played the see no evil card.

[Protect the Bill of Rights]

Mmmm...

Two choices:

1—Obama is lying when he says he did not sign off on this

Say it ain’t so! The Messiah lies?

2—Holder is illegally trying to exercise authority over of the military as if he was CIC, bypassing the normal line of succession IF the President was incapacitated. (Hear that Biden? Holder took the job you wanted)

Technically it could be called an attempted coup. Sounds like treason to me. But he said we are ignorant. I say we put him in a Tribunal and see what the military says.

[American Constitutionalist]

Obama and Eric Holder is going to do what they want to do regardless of the objection from “ THE PEOPLE “ so the question now is ? how is Obama and Holder going to guarantee a fair trail in this case ?

[VOA]

bump