RUSH: Is the United States a banana republic? If you listen to these next two sound bites, I don't think you can conclude anything else. Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary -- the smartest, brightest press secretary (we're told) we've ever had -- was on State of the Union yesterday on CNN. John King said this: "Republicans and a growing number of Democrats in Congress say, 'Number one: We don't want these terrorists tried on American soil,' and a lot of those lawmakers also say, 'Number two: That this should be done in the military justice system, not in the federal court system.' What's Plan B if you need one?"
GIBBS: Well, let me tell you what Plan A is for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is going to meet justice and he's going to meet his maker. Uhh, uhh --
KING: In a federal courtroom or in a military commission?
GIBBS: He will -- He will -- He will be brought to justice, and he's likely to be executed for the heinous crimes that he committed in killing -- in masterminding the killing of -- 3,000 Americans.
RUSH: Okay. That kind of stuff doesn't happen in the United States of America. You don't say, "We're going to try this guy, we're going to execute this guy, and he's going to meet his maker." Prosecutors can do it, but Gibbs is not the prosecutor. Gibbs works for the president. Robert Gibbs has just tried, convicted and executed Khalid Sheikh Mohammed before the trial. Here's the next bite where Gibbs won't commit to a civilian trial.
GIBBS: The Attorney General believes that the best place to do this is in an American courtroom.
KING: Let me try one more time: No way in New York City --
GIBBS: Ummm --
KING: -- and are you sure it will be in a federal courtroom or is it a possibility, because of this controversy, you may go back to the military?
GIBBS: I will say this, John. We are talking with the authorities in New York. We understand their logistical concerns and their security concerns that are involved. We'll work with them and come to a solution that we think will bring about justice for those that lost loved ones on such a horrific day in (sic) 9/11, and I think again, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will be executed for the crimes that he committed.
RUSH: Hmm. Now, a couple comments here. I got a note. Speaking of the people that lost loved ones on 9/11, I have a friend who lost some who sent me an e-mail on Saturday. It said, "Do I understand this right, Rush? Obama is looking for $200 million per year to provide security for these [blank-blankers] who killed my son and many others? Well, where was our security when those planes were in the air for 45 minutes headed directly off course to New York City? What are these cold-blooded liberals thinking? It's $200 million to provide security for these reckless shreds of human debris?" Let me tell you the worst part of this, something you may not have considered -- and this is gonna infuriate some of you. If this case is actually tried in a civilian court, this is now the fourth or fifth time the administration has already pronounced the guilt and the penalty.
If this does take place in a civilian court with American rules of justice, this case gets thrown out the first day -- and if you are Eric Holder and if you are Barack Obama and you want these defendants to get off scot-free, this is the way you do it. Does somebody in the legal profession want to disagree with me here? Does somebody who's very well versed in the US civil court system want to tell me I'm wrong here? And don't tell me, "No judge is going to do this, Rush. No judge wants it on his record that he released these guys." Wait a minute. In the US civil justice system, this is tainting the jury. The President of the United States has said this and his press secretary, on national TV! Gibbs made it a point to say twice: "I think, again, Mohammed will be executed for the crimes he committed."
You might say, "Well, yeah, but he's confessed."
Well, no. He's going to pull the confession back now because he said he wasn't given his Miranda rights. We're talking about a US civil trial here. Now, if there's a trial in a military court of justice, there's much less chance that this case gets thrown out because they have different rules. But in the US civil court system, this is the kind of thing that gets cases thrown out. You know, Michael Barone has an interesting piece. I read it in the New York Post today. He said (paraphrased), "Who are we trying to impress with all this? Who are we trying to impress closing Guantanamo Bay? Who are we trying to impress with this trial? Who around the world are we trying to impress?" It's a great question. We're doing it to impress somebody. Barone says, "If we are doing this to impress radical Islamists, it ain't working," and the Christmas Day Fruit of Kaboom Bomber proves it. And with Obama, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if we are doing this to try to impress radical Islamists and the European left to show that America's got his values back and so forth. Well, I'm haunted by this specter of this case getting thrown out in the US civil court. I need somebody in the legal community to call and tell me where I'm getting that wrong.
RUSH: Ladies and gentlemen, this is simple. You cannot bestow constitutional rights on these terrorists without bestowing the presumption of innocence. I mean, that's the American system. But the White House seems to want one without allowing the other: Civil, constitutional rights but with no presumption of innocence. And it's highly contradictory. I need somebody to explain to me where I'm wrong with this, 'cause I don't believe that I am.
RUSH: Senators Lindsey Grahamnesty, Saxby Chambliss, Joe Lieberman, Blanche Lincoln, and John McCain "will introduce a bill tomorrow that cuts funds for federal trials of 9/11 conspirators." Hmm. Blanche Lincoln is a Democrat. Lieberman is an independent. The others -- Grahamnesty, Chambliss, McCain -- of course, are Republicans.