to pass a budget this year. they would rather keep on spending and sees this critical opportunity to create jobs and boost our economy. every family knows that in tough times, passing a budget is more important, not less important. the fact that president obama has not uttered a word in protest of congressional democrats tell you to produce a budget. even after being presented with these economists pleas for fiscal discipline, he still would not press leaders in his own party to fulfill their responsibility to the american people. this is a stunning failure of leadership, the kind of leadership president obama promised to provide. to many in washington forget that we work for the people, not . .

i hope president old, will stand with us on the spending spree, for the american people will forgive >> for both the house

and the senate foreign section the free, the senate will have a thin next monday. several amendments fourth and half the length of cloth from the house version that was passed last month, it is unfair of whether majority leader harry reid has for for the bill fifth the senate is live on the thieves then the house also joins for legislative business for it later next week, working on a bill that creates a $30 billion fund to help small businesses the credits. also, a measure aimed at will win back a 5-4 decision in a federal election commission case from an earlier this year. that decision asserted that

corporations have the same free speech rights as individuals. all house, live on c-span. if you are watching c-span could coming up next, supreme court justices ruth later ginsberg and trial. and then, remarks from ashley judd in the appalachian region. >> the second one is to press to get action on the world for it if that is 10 kilometers into the gulf of mexico. it is beginning to explore the ice in the arctic.

>> tony hayward on global energy policy this past and a very before the gulf oil spill. thursday, he will testify on capitol hill. hear what others have said about this bill in more than 100 programs. it is washington, your way. justice ruth ginsberg and samuel a littllito. they are joined by other federal judges and supreme court attorneys looking at the famous play of the english monarchs. this was held in march. it is about to hours for th. >> oyez, oyez. the supreme court of the amalgamated kingdom of england

and france is now in session. you may be seated. >> the court has convened to hear the case of the french civil liberties union against henry v. the arguments will open by the petitioners, and i will call upon mr. le garre. [laughter] >> merci, madame chief justice.

[laughter] may it please the court, 10,000 announces at the battle ofry%- agincourt. agincourt. that fige alonunderes e gravitof the offense tha he commied when he waged his unjustifd military campaign ains that figure alone underscores the gravity of the offense that he committed when he waged his unjustified military campaign against france. no use of military forces lawfuu without just cause. an unprovoked invasion of another country warrants the most searching inquiry into whether just cause exists, because it is the most aggressive form of the use military force. henry's unprovoked invasion of france was unjustified for least two reasons. first, he lacked a valid claim to the french crown, which was the justification that he gave

for the invasion. second, that justification was just a pretext, anyway. the invasion was, in fact, motivated by king henry's desire to quell doubts about his claim to the english crown, given the illegitimacy of his father's reign and doubts about his own service, given his wild exploits as a youth. waging war abroad is never justified as a means for diverting attention from domestic troubles at home. [laughter] henry's invasion of france was an ll-conceived means to do just that. let me begin with henry's claim to the french crown. the fundamental problem with henry's claim is it undeniably runs through a female, isabella, the mother of his great- grandfather edward iii. under french law and custom, the line of succession simply cannot run through the female. if the french did not follow that rule, then the throne would have passed to isabella's three brothers..

each of those kings had a daughter when they died. if the crown had passed to any of those daughters, henry would never have had a claim to get it via isabella. that fact defeats henry's ccaim. the crown past six other females because the operation of the french rule of succession before it even went to isabella. the reason that the liie did get isabella and then skipped over isabella is because the french do follow the rules. henry did not have the right to invade. the french did have the right to invade england based upon the english rule of succession.

henry did not invade france to liberate their women. he did it to seize the french crown and take the king's daughter while he was at. he can hardly claim an altruistic objective. >> we have a special question here. this seems not to be a proper defendant or plaintiff. are you representing the french civil liberties union, there is an alien tort statute, under which only an alien can sue. the king is immune. let's straighten out the threshold problem before we go any further. we need a proper plaintiff and proper defendant.

>> i can assure you that the french civil liberties union feels like an alien in the amalgamated kingdom. [laughter] your answer as to the plaintiff, we think that question ought to be addressed in terms of whether the plaintiffs and those injured were aliens t the time of the offenses in question. we are here on behalf of the estate of the french p.o.w.'s who were slaughtered during the battle of agincourt. there is no question that those p.o.w.'s are aliens in this kingdom. we think there proper plaintiffs to pursue under the

alien tort statute. as to king henry and him being a defendant, it is no surprise they would seek to hide behind a shield of sovereign immunity. the question of henry's legitimacy to the throne in the first place -- we think that sovereign immunity cannot be a shield to this court hearing that claim. if this court agrees with the plaintiff that henry is not the proper sovereign in his kingdom, then this court should have no difficulty reaching the question and announcing its decision. the archbishop says that the french do not in fact follow the the rule about the line of succession going through the female. we think that is destructive. there is one example wicking pepin -- with king pepin. this was before the french

occupied those lands and took the rule of succession. second is more fundamental. as the archbishop recognized, king pepin usurped the rule. >> do you have a political question? you are asking us to decide who is the king. [laughter] if you are wrong and henry is the king, he has sovereign immunity. also might impede us or do other things like that -- he also might impede us or do other things like that. [laughter] ii this something the judges should get into? >> i can well understand your concerns. >> considering what he did in agincourt, yes. >> we can all hope we will not be treated as p.o.w.'s, as king henry treated the french. we think is a straightforward judicial dispute.

>> this seems quite beside the point in the end. did the archbishop not invoke a higher law? he recited in the book of numbers, it is written, ttat a man dies without sons and then the inheritance descends to his daughters. surely that law comes down to our ordinary law. [laughter] >> your honor, it is indeed a high law. the archbishop did not cite that as the governing rule in france. the archbishop merely cited that as a demonstration of other sovereign's, indeed high sovereigns, that have accepted that rule as their own. the french adopt the rule to prohibit the line of succession

going through a woman. the archbishop's examples were instructive and showed faulty reasoning. >> can we not interpret him as saying that a woman cannot inherit the throne, but a man could through a woman? >> no, i do not agree with that. >> let me read what he says. no woman shall succeed the phallic line. >> we have two points on that. if a woman can take the+ inheritance, she cannot pass the inheritance. >> we know from the archbishop that the law was designed to discriminate against women, right?

[laughter] it was designed by men. perfect solution here is women cannot inherit the throne, but men can inherit the throne through women. that is exactly the way men think. [laughter] [applause] >> yes. [laughter] >> your honor, we do think it cannot pass through. let me give you a more concrete example. the rule of succession -- i am referring to the family tree in our brief here. when the king died, he had a daughter. we think that because of the phallic rule, would not have gone to the daughter. >> you are playing with my case. that is not a question i asked you.

>> i want to get your case. follow me down the line and we will get to it. king philip dies. he has four daughters. grandsons.se daughters has four- if the crown could pass through the daughter to a male, a male heir was born and was there. instead, it bounces to isabella and then to king philip vi. the french did follow the phallic rule. it prevented the succession going to or through a woman. it defeats the archbishop's claim that they did not follow the phallic law. the only reason that isabella is in the equation at all is because the crown skipped along her brothers because of the phallic rule. >> what was king henry supposed to do?

he has an expert opinion from the archbishop of canterbury. it makes your head spin. you have all of these characters. is he supposed to research all of this himself? can he not rely on his counsel? [laughter] >> your honor, it is shocking to learn that sometimes advisers are just wrong. [laughter] a king should know that. there were several flags that should have led to king henry to know he was wrong. the archbishop had an obvious political interest in the kingdom going to war. as we know from the beginning of the record, the archbishop is concerned about a bill that has passed that would have taken much of the churches possessions. henry should have known that the church had an absolute

interest in urging him to go to war to distract attention from home. >> act 1, 1 -- what if that was not in the original play? what would you argue? did you know that? act i, scene i did not appear until 30 years after the plate. an entire generation of english people saw it without that scene. >> if your honor does not accept that, what we know from the rest of the play is that king henry based his claim for justified invasion on his claim to the french crown. we know that, legally, he had no claim to the french crown.

in fact, if you look at the other parts of the play, we know that it is not surprising that king henry followed the shoddy advice of the archbishop and invaded. >> there can be only one record in this case. i think we will take it that the record is the script that was used in the current production of henry v, which does include the archbishop's advice. we have passed that question. >> thank you. [laughter] >> mr. le garre -- >> i do not know why you agree with that, but i will ask your opponents. >> mr. le garre, you said about trusting advisers hat people should be suspicious. here you had an adviser to was experienced, who knew the subject, who said it was a slam dunk. [laughter] in those circumstances, what is

henry to do? >> first of all, they invaded based on the english interpretation of the french rules of succession. we think henry should have known that was an illegitimate basis for going to war -- what the english think about the french rules of succession. henry had a duty to look beyond the advice he was getting to see if there was any foundation for this. a ruler cannot always turn to his advisers. >> who should he ask? henry is not a lawyer. >> henry was blessed with good counsel for many quarters. >> he got rid of falstaff. who should be asked? >> surely, he came across other lawyers in the taverns that he frequented. [laughter] >> you are also suing the archbishop, right? >> we are suing the archbishop.

>> you want to hold him accountable for the advice he >> absolutely. >> if we do that, what self- respecting archbishop would want to be bishop? suppose it is the french king getting advice from the french archbishop, do you want that french archbishop held accountable for the legal advice he gave his king? >> there is no argument that there is a broad degree of discretion here that all counselors have. what they do not have the discretion to do is act with their own self-interest in mind, to provide legal interest that they must know is wrong is, and to encourage the king to wage war on a peaceful country. >> is this a malpractice case? [laughter] >> we think that those issues

are properly addressed in the damages stage, your honor. to get to the question of whether the force was justified -- i want to highlight a couple of other examples that the archbishop does give. we're talking about three examples over the course of thhee centuries. that should tell you that does not call into question the rule. two of these examples involve situations where, by the record itself, it establishes that these were people that usurp the crown -- they took by force, not inheritance. it is not surprising that the french rule of succession was not followed in those circumstances. in the third xample, king louis x had a direct line to king louis viii. there was no reason to evoke -- invoke the phallic rule. those were three examples of the archbishop gave and they are demonstrably false. your honors, history may prove

that france is right for invasion. [laughter] that does not make the invasion of france right. king henry acted through unjustified means, under the false legal pretense that he had a claim to the french crown. he had no claim to the crown. king henry's own claim to the english crown was in serious doubt because of the legitimacy of his father's reign. king henry iv to crown by force from richard ii and killed him. we know that king henry was haunted by that. it is in act iv. this was a thing that tortured king henry. invading france, to take the

crown, to restore political legitimacy at home, was obviously a motivation here. he looked past whether there was legal justification for his war. there was no legal justification. i asked for your decision. >> thank you, mr. le garre. [applause] mr. shanmugam. >> thank you, madam chief justice. may it please the court, there are many weighty and difficult cases pending before this court, but this is not one of them. [laughter] without dissent, the lower courts have uniformly rejected petitioners' claims under the alien tort statute against his majesty henry v and the other respondents. in so doing, they have correctly held that the campaign against france was justified under settled principles of law. it is no merit to the arguments

advanced here tonight by mr. le garre. the judgment of the court of appeals should therefore be affirmed. it is a preliminary matter and it is clear that this court lacks jurisdiction over these claims. i hope you received a gift basket from the archbishop of canterbury. i trust from your question that you did. [laughter] that alien tort statute does not refer to jurisdiction over claims brought by this an automated kingdom of england and france. to be sure, there is something a bit alien about the french. it does not follow that the french are aliens for purposes of this law. second, his modesty does possessed absolute immunity under the principle that the king can do no wrong, which is recognized even under french law, and i use that phrase advisedly. [laughter]

as one king said, the rough translation is -- my french is not very good -- sue me and i will have you be headed -- beheaded. [laughterr justice garland, i would respectfully submit that impeachment is the least of your worries if you role for the petitioner -- rule for the petitioner. [laughter] >> i got that from reading the cliffs notes. >> the prisoners' claims -- the petitioners' claims put forth questions that should not be decided by this court. i understand that this court sister court in america deelt with a similar question a few years ago -- this court's sister court in america deall with a similar question a few years ago and i understand that was not entirely happy experience.

we would submit that the petition for certiorari should be improvident. which should adjourn together to the bar -- we should adjourn together to the bar. i understand my client, the archbishop, has gratefully agreed to pick up the tab. if the majesties campaign against fraace was justified in the matter of law and provided to this investigation -- a sufficient justification for his campaign there. his majesty was the rightful king of france, notwithstanding the position of the french that he could not inherit through his great-grandmother, isabella simply because she was a woman. >> counsel, before you proceed with that argument, you had a gift from the global war crimes tribunal. they acquitted henry on all

counts.3 that has already been decided. it is precluded. yet, you seem to abandon the preclusion argument. we go to the bar a lot faster if you just said -- just followed the decision of the war crimes tribunal. [laughter] >> that is correct. we certainly embrace the reliance of the lower court on principles of collaterall i did not want that to betray a lack of confidence in the our underlying argument. >> are you not embarrassed as the representative of the english king to cite a foreign judgment in your favor? [laughter] it might be too embarrassing. >> we were very submit -- a very reluctant to submit to the jurisdiction of an international war crimes tribunal. pe thought long and hard about that. ultimately, the archbishop was a fairly strong advocate for that.

we did submit to his jurisdiction -- its jurisdiction. we're perfectly happy to proceed because we think the force of our argument is irresistible. >> that ask you a preliminary question? i ant to show you and the audience the brief of the petitioner, which is very nicely bound. here is your brief. [laughter] i assume you are moving [unintelligible] this is becauue your client is a rash young man who has been corrected his country. -- bankrupted his country. >> he really had no matter -- he had no money leet over after the gift basket. >> let me ask you about the merits. let me go to the critical question. can you but me -- give me one example of a french king who

inherited through a woman who was not a usurper? >> whether acting as a usurper is in the eye of the beholder -- a king is a usurper is in the eye of the beholder. >> the beholder is the archbishop, who would rise your client about these alleged inheritors of the throne. all three are usurpers of defendants -- or defendants of usurpers. i ask again, can you give me one example of a french king who inherited through a woman? if you cannot, do you not lose? >> i would refer to them not as usurpers, but rather as founders of new lines in the french dynasty. [laughter] [crosstalk] >> that is very creative, but we're bound by the facts as told by william shakespeare. pepin and hugh capet or both usurpers. those are the facts.

>> with regard to the former two kings, they laid claim to the throne through female ancestors. they made much of those claims to justify -- >> that was an ad hoc rationalization, designed to justify the usurpation, was it not? but it is easy to say with the benefit of hindsight -- >> it is easy to say with the benefit of hindsight. >> ad hoc is always with the benefit of hindsight. >> touche as my french colleagues might say. [laughtee] the french never saw to apply that alex law in a succession until they saw -- the phallic law until they saw to get rid of henry's ancestor.

there's a foundatiinal body of law for the french. it is a fairly random body of six century law which the french who were living in the netherlands. >> i guess you could say that about the common law for us, could you not? >> the phallic law had never before been cited until the french saw to the dispossessed edward iii. the battle agincourt was a small, but important part, to be sure. the hundred years' war was started by the french. one of the ways in which they started that was by dispossessing edward, notwithstanding his stronger claim. >> rejected my suggestion that you have a good preclusion -- you have rejected my suggestion that you have a good preclusion claim. you we should just argue the merits. -- should we just argue the merits?

now, you are arguing -- what was your latest argument? [laughter] >> we believe that the french inducted the phallic law -- >> why not the bible? i would think that you would say the bible is it. it is not just some extra thing that the archbishop added on purity ended is all presentation with the book of numbers -- he added on. -- it is not just something that the archbishop added on a. he ended his presentation with the book of numbers. >> there is a universal principle of equal protection as most famously stated by justice ginsburg, i do not know if she is any relation. with regard to law, it is simply a high law -- it is the highest law.

indeed, it is positively blasphemous to suggest otherwise. i suspect that mr. le garre will be called before an ecclesiastical court sooner or later to answer for that. [laughter] it is certainly true that in numbers, god commanded moses to treat women with somewhat a greater degree of respect and the french evidently do. it does appear, for purposes of equal protection, that the french treat women as nothing more than sex objects. if this court were to apply the phallic law, it would validate that sad history. >> you are asking us to take justice ginsburg's 1996 decision and hold it attractive to the 15th century? -- retroactive to the 15th century? [laughter] >> this court has been very foresightful in the past and has been willing to look to respected sources, such as the american supreme court, and not

to bodies of french or dutch law. protection are universal. we would respectfully submit that a system like the english system, the system of mail preference primogenitor is more appropriate to questions of succession. it is much more nuanced than the blunt tool of phallic law. we do believe that henry had a better claim to the french throne and that was sufficient justification for the invasion. i want to turn, in the brief time i have remaining, to two other potential justifications that would provide grounds for a ferment -- affirment. >> but the raise one other -- let me raise one other irrelevant point. how old was catherine? >> she was relatively young, of today.

>> your client is a pedophile. [laughter] >> this marriage was arranged by her father. >> consent is not really a defense. [laughter] >> i believe the age of consent was raised only recently. it was certainly after justice ginsburg's opinion in the bmi case. let me say a couple of other things about the archbishop. his name has been unfairly maligned tonight. it is important to remember that the archbishop really was the foremost legal and spiritual counselor of the kingdom. he was a combination of ted olson and oprah winfrey. [laughter] indeed, much like chief justice ginsburg, he was a leading member of the bar before he

assumed his current position. unlike the chief justice, he was nominated not by president clinton, but by god himself. >> is that in the record? >> i would have to look. i'm not sure. one could take judicial notice that the archbishop of canterbury was selected by god. >> does not violate the doctrine? >> that doctrine was applied somewhat more loosely, as was the separation of power in the 15th century. it was reasonable for his majesty to rely on the archbishop's opinion, given his preeminent status in the legal community. as was pointed out earlier in the colloquy with mr. le garre, -phenry was not someone educated in law. he was not a lawyer. he spent most of his youth in bars, rather than at bar review. his majesty is immune from suit under principles of qualified immunity, even if this court were to conclude that he is not

entitled to absolute immunity,3 the future of this court into serious doubt. >> counselor, i thought you're going to take as to tte merits of slaughter. >> the merits of slaughter -- i think my friend mr. estrada will address those. let me talk about the alternative justifications. first of all, we believe that the king's campaign was justified under principles of self-defense. in his majesty's visit to france came some 80 years into the hundred years' war. >> who started the hundred years' war? >> it was started by the french by virtue of their dispossession -- >> who started the war? the english started the war, correct? is thereeevidence in the record that the french were threatening an attack on the english at the time?

>> there is plenty of evidence of provocation, or at least later provocation in the form of the sending of tennis balls to his majesty. it constituted a serious breach of diplomatic standards even by the low standards applied. >> what about his program of targeted killing? did he not send three of henry's friends to kill him in england? >> he did do that. that was not a very nice thing to do. [laughter] henry probably dealt with that. one might argue that executing the traitors was suuficient. >> are you suggesting that tennis balls turned this into a war of necessity? >> wars have been started for much less. [laughter] lee me put it into context. there is a well-developed a reputation on the part of the

french of rudeness to foreigners. this and people tennis balls. they refuse, as did catherine in act v, to speak english, even when they are perfectly capable. given the conduct of the french, it is perhaps not surprising that every other major european country has invaded france at some time or another. [laughter] one might say that henry to the device of the cranberries -- took the advice of the cranberries when he concluded that everybody else was doing it, so that he should as well. there were profound faults on the french side in the 80 years leading up to the battle of agincourt. not only did they provoke a war by dispossessing edward of the

crown and seizing the territories, but throughout the war they launched attacks on english territories, even the coast of england itself. >> as to those provinces that were seized. from day one, henry could have achieved what he tells us at the end of the play is his possible objective. he could have gotten that back.- he could've gotten back those provinces. there was no justification by his own mouth. he wanted the princess. he got it for free. >> that was one of his principal goals. if his only goal were to woo

catherine, he could have simply tried to run into her in the paris bars. she may have been under age. there were many other justifications. obviously, henry felt deeply that he had a valid claim to the french throne, particularly after receiving unimpeachable advice of the archbishop of canterbury. even leaving aside his claim to france as a whole, it is crystal clear that the french have violated some portions of the treaty, particularly the one that which provvddd large chunks of french territory to the english crown. they reclaimed that territory almost immediately after entering into the treaty. that would provide independent justification for the decision to go to war. i think that is true, notwithstanding the

longstanding reputation of the french for cowardice in battle, a reputation that is pointed out in various parts of the play.. mr. le garre points to the alleged bias in act i, scene i. >> historians say those early quartos are bad and to be disregarded. >> it is certainly true that the lower courts had act i, scene i in front of them, even though they evidently did not credit anything in them in a ruin our favor -- in ruling in our favor. when the archbishop offered that sum to the king, he was not incentivizing the king to go to war appeared he was offering

that money by way of a settlement, in order to -- to go to war. he was offering that money by way of a settlement. a bill had been introduced by certain members of parliament to reallocate states from the church to the crown. it was not really in the archbishop's interest for the king to go to war. wars are expensive. if the king did go ahead and go to war, he might very well have come back to the archbishop for more money or saw the support for the bill that was currently pending in the parliament. we do not think the partnership can fairly be charged with bias. >> is it not possible that henry threatened to seize the church property in order to bias the archbishop and his advice? >> there is no reason to believe that is true, not least because the bill in question was actually introduced in the time of henry iv.

to the contrary, the current monarch warned the archbishop of canterbury that he would have blood on his hands it to give advice that turned out to be false. there is no reason to doubt that the archbishop of that very much to heart when he gave the advice that he did in the subsequent scenes of the play. we believe that this charge is scurrilous and unfounded. with regard to the archbishop, and i know the court has questions about the archbishop, we would suggest that he has immunity as well. we have a motion pending to substitute god as the appropriate defendant.3 judgment. thank you very much. [applause]

>> mr. le garre, you have two minutes, i believe. >> thank you, madam chief justice. your honors, let me remind you that my good friend, the council for the crown of england, has just argued before you that self-defense was a3 france. i think that this court can+ take judicial notice that the french are not good at waging war. the record in this case underscores that in the battle of agincourt. i also think the court can and should brush aside the political objections that have been raised to prosecuting this suit. it is understandable why the crown would not want to get into the legal issues before this court.

as much as we would like to have this case be about deposing the illegitimate king of the amalgamated kingdom, henry v, it is only a suit for damages. the archbishop is perfectly capable of funding the crown's damages liabilities. let me get to the legal issues. i think it was very telling that my friend had no answer -- >> is there a question of attorneys' fees? >> we will waive those, your honor, under the proper circumstances. it is very telling that, when asked whether they could so a single example of where phallic law was not followed, my friend could not come up with an example. that establishes, more than anything else, that the french did follow that law. your honors are quite right that the archbishop of canterbury pointed out illegitimate claims. we have had much discussion about the role of the archbishop of canterbury.

we can debate his legal training, his access to god, and his higher duties. the one thing that e do not need to quarrel about is that this is irrelevant. alternately, king henry's decision to invade france has to stand and fall on the legal justification that he proffered, which was the claim to the crown of france. we know he does not have that claim. with respect to the book of numbers, what i would say in response to that is, they do not recognize the role that the archbishop mentioned -- rule that the earth is to mention because the english rule is not -- that the archbishop mentioned, because the english rule is primogenitor. we do not think the archbishop was invoking that 40 authority

-- as authority to invade france. we ask you to find that this was an unjustified military act. thank you. >> thank you, mr. le garre. [applause] we will now hear from mr. dihn. >> thank you, your honor. may it please the court, my pame is mr. dihn, as my colonial masters would have it. [laughter]

the first thing we do -- let's kill all the prisoners. that was henry v's response to a mistaken fear that the french forces had reinforced their ranks. that was also his angry response to the news that servants and pages had been killed and his luggage had been stolen. [laughter] neither is legally sufficient to justify henry's slaughter of the prisoners. thank you, justice michel. henry's order must be seen for what is -- a criminal act of+ mass murder that violates the laws of war and offends any notion of chivalry or humanity. william shakespeare offers two

reasons. one is reprisal. henry's order was a legal act in response to the killing of the pages. as you recall, the order to kill was given in scene 6 and henry did not know about those killings until scene 7. it is legally unjustified and illogical. the court below held that no noncombatants were killed unlawfully by any forces. it is an unlimited, unqualified finding of law.

of necessity, the court below held that the pages or write the combatants -- were rightly played only a support role. they are no less legitimate a target than officers or generals. their letter carriers for the king himself -- they are letter carriers for the king himself. the primary reason that king henry gave the order to slaughter the prisoners was his fear that the french forces were reinforcing their ranks, not necessarily that they were forming an attack. master shakespeare was very clear that they were reinforcing their ranks. based on that and on that alone, he gave the order to kill the prisoners. >> mr. dihn, the french, at the

beginning of the battle, outnumbered the eeglish five to one. on the battlefield were strewn all of these weapons of destruction, and here was this brave, english band. the commander made a decision. how is this court competent to second-guess that determination of military exigency? >> you are competent not only to second-guess the commanders' decisson on the field, but to evaluate the legal justification leading him to be there. the odds of five to one were known to the english prior to the battle. henry said, "we would not seek a battle as we are, nor would we shun it."

if it is relevant at all, it may well be relevant to the decision whether or not to give quarter to the prisoners. that had also already been paken. henry knew how not to give quarter. we know that from the vicious speech he gave just one day before. if i may begin the battery again, i will not leave the half achieved. she lie buried. the gates of mercy shall all be shut up. >> are you suggesting because of thaa speech he cannot complain about the french killing the prisoners? >> no, your honor, i am making a different point.

he knows how to give quarter and when not to give quarter. once given quarter, you cannot continue the barbaric treatment of your prisoners. there is a difference between killing on the battlefield and killing an unarmed, innocent, and non-belligerent prisoner. >> does that not change when the french reinforce their scattered men? was henry's obligation to his prisoners greater than his obligation to his own forces? what if i told you henry was unable to free his men from protecting the prisoners that he would lose the battle? >> there are two points. >> i would like an answer to my hypothetical. would your answer be the same that henry could not order the executions? >> there is an alternative that is less than the slaughter of the prisoners that is recognized in the law at the present time and certainly at the time of the battle.

he could have paroled the prisoners. the one thing we know as the french is how to surrender. [laughter] we know that law of chivalry demands military commanders who are gentlemen to not slaughter those who do not pose a threat. >> and really, henry previously had a detention facility on the channel islands. if that were to close down, what would he do? [applause] >> that question goes to the

central point of the argument. it is not the actions of the men still on the field that is operative. it is rather, any threat from the men in the barracks that should govern whether or not they are killed. >> let's say we either take the facts tha henry saw them or -- the fact that henry saw them or phat we should defer to the military judgment of henry. if he ii correct or we defer to his view, must he lose? is that your position? is it a war crime for him to kill the prisoners in the face of defeat? >> there is deference anddthen there is a willful blindness. >> oui or no? [laughter] >> we do not can see to surrender before its time --

concede to surrender before its time, so no. >> you agree that he could not control the prisoners and he might be then allowed to kill the prisoners? >> he has an obligation to paroled prisoners and only kill them as a last resort. >> the french were interested in winning. >> parole is not exchange. >> henry should have walked up and offered to parole the prisoners? >> all they have to do is keep the prisoners where they are, engage the men in the field -- >> his judgment was that he could not do that. he needs sufficient forces to defend himself without the help of the men guarding the prisoners. >> his judgment was mistaken. >> perhaps it would help us if you clarify what you mean by "parole."

we know we cannot just let the prisoners loose to go back to the french troops. what does it mean? >> by the act of surrender, the french troops have given their word to the captors that they will no longer be belligerent. if they somehow exhibit an action that is bellicose, then they are again considered to be men of war and they can be killed. >> once they exhibit their bellicose-ness, it is too late. >> the captor will not kill that person. >> it sounds like you think the magna carta is a suicide pact. >> there is a self-enforcing mechanism in the treatment of prisoners and their captors. it cannot be that the action of other men on the battlefield is

cause for the killing of the prisoners who have done nothing. if that is the case, the only rule of war that this court would pronounced would that it has to be an all-out war and there can be no quarter given. even if order is given, quarter is not met. . . >>t is not true. verstatement. there is a ticking time bomb scenario facing henry. the threat emerged. he had to act quickly. he h tt on the

battlefield -- the unknown unknowns on the battlefield. say anything lik that. >> your hon, hen recognized but did noknow that he won the battle. he did not note that qd had ked someone else. heyas -- he did not k that. he had to ask someone else. >> how should he take time to asrtain the facts ohis men are getting slaughtered? >> it is nessity, not wantg violenne. -- wanton violence. of course it would be nice to be out to kill -- -able to kill, but not the more fundamental answer is mistake of fact is not an

excuse. they recognize this. you'll recall the exchange they had. he challenged him to a dole, and when it was discovered that the challenger was actually the king himself, william asked if it was a mistake. excuse me, but i did not know it was the king. importantly, william did not ask for absolution, but rather he asked for a pardon. this is what he said. therefore i beseech your highness parted me. and henry pardoned him with all the words. keep the glove and where it in honor -- and wear it in honor. he did not excuse the mistake of fact, he granted conditional pardon untii he chooses to challenge it. that is the same condiiion that he gave to the prisoners.

it is an implicit contract between the captors and captives that i will not show you publish your return to the battlefield. >> how do we know is a mistake of fact? all we know it is was a mistake of weapons. that, it seems to me, we cannot make any finding on what might have happened. there is no mistake of fact. >> because there aae two points, your honor. one is the mistake of law, which is invoking the rule of necessity that they are now reinforcing their rank. he was not setting counterattack. as a matter of fact, in actual fact, there was no such counter attack.+ we know it was a mistake in law, that he saw the movement of

troops, reinforcement of the flanks eeough justification for him to create thii mortar attack. in fact, he was mistaken because the reshuffling of troops to not call for a counterattack. he was not justified and the defense, let alone to kill the innocent people who were sitting there in the barracks. in that sense, henry had no necessityyclaim and certainly no self-defense claim because the people he was killing or not the people who were seeking to do harm to him but rather innocent french soldiers who had already surrendered their arms in order to move forward it to a lifetime and captivity. [laughter] >> and you find ttis all in the record? >> they certainly did not expect to be killed, your honor. >> they also did not expect the french to close their forres. that is what you are missing in the argument. >> no, your honor --

>> you are saying that reenforcing is an innocent act. henry saw it as a threat. >> two things. necessity i think has to be made upon actual fact, both of actual fat and this objectives -- and that the subjective. >> the think we would death had to have entertained the writ of habeas corpus? >> according to the court's latest pronouncements in america, perhaps, your honor. [laughter] but more importantly, we are not asking for and on the balance intervention. we are asking the court to do is to do that which is right, which is to hold henry criminally responsible for acts that were not justified. >> wouldn't this cause

everything to hesitate? it is too late for henry, but if we make this decision, every king will has to take on the fieed of battle. until he consults with his lawyer. [laughter] >> i should hope that everything would hesitate before killing innocent prisoners. i think that is the whole point of the law of necessity and the law of nations. >> while we're talking about criminal responsibility, ttis is a civil case. >> this is a civil case before killings that were unjustified. >> as far as the criminal case, that is over and done with. that is what is before the war crimes tribunal. henry was acquitted before the war crimes tribunal. now we are in a civil case. am i think the point here, and i take your point justice ginsberg and stand corrected, but the fundamental point is this, henry was not justified n killing the

innocent prisoners of war. because it was not justified by the laws of war, he has to stand and answer to this court, the ultimate arbiters of war and all laws of war. we cannot bring back the dead. we have to hold him responsible but in criminal charges that the war crime tribunals have held and also civil damages. >> the war crimes tribunal rejected criminal liability. >> and that decision is on appeal to this court. [laughter] thank you, your honor. i reserve the remainder of my time for rebuttal. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> thann you, chief justice ginsburg. may it please the court, as

they've said before he was viciously murdered by the french, the empty vessel makes the greatest sound. and so it is with his arguments. all of these are contrived. they are nowhere in the record. those he refers to are fully justified by the law of necessity. and his passing suggestion that modern rules of war might be applied to this, things like tte geneva convention, i think to apply those 600 years after tte fact would be just about as fitting as applying our oeta- inspired -- peta-inspired animal welfare laws to the romans. let me start with some of the underbrush. there was a reference made. it is quite telling that you

heard not a word today on any illegalities committed against civilians or noncombatants, to the extent there was never a claim in this case it is not now. in has been waived. the speech was mentioned. the very worst begin say about the king is that he made some colorful threats to the governor. king solomon, as you may recall, is rightly viewed as one of the greatest justices, present company excepted, and he is just as famous because he nearly threaten to split the baby, not because he did so. when the king threatened the governor, the french, as usual, followed that. everything was quite well accomplished without the loss of blood, and henry quite carefully ordered his troops to treat all

of the inhabitants with mercy. i mention that as i mentioned as well the incident where he ordered his old friend killed for stealing of an item. every action that shakespeare has given us shows the thoughtfulness that he brought to this and his high regard for the rights of his subjects. i should point out, just highlight how generous the king was, that under the laws of war in the middle ages, since the city was to be taken by assault, and a license was condoned. there were no circumstances, where it was not permissible. you could even do reccnciliation.

he spent most of his time trying to talk about the killing of a few french pows. as he it rightly averted, there were palpable justificationssand the record that shakespeare has given to us for concluding that the killings, or at least the order of the killing, which is all we really have, was justified by the twin rationales of milltary necessity and reprisal. let me take them on turn. one of the things that they did not do was to avert to any legal authority that might be persuasive for what the rules of law in these circumstances might be in the middle ages. and yet there's a whole realm of authority out there that tells us how the people in the middle ages, the people thaa live and

breathe and worked the middle ages, people like francisco victoria, and an scalea -- [laughter] -- antonin scalia -- all of them have given us the right, clearly outlining, what the rules of war and military necessity were. contrary to what he said, it was widely thought, for example, by the victorians, that note quarter be given to an enemy force. -- that no quarters be given to an enemy force. that was even true after the enemy had been vanquished and the field was won. it was still he said, quite convincingly, to kill the enemy

prisoners. cardinal scalea, he maintained that the only relevant inquiry was the intent of the founders of the roman empire. [laughter] nero, caligula, and so it was obvious to him that feeding the prisoners to the lions was ok as well. i grant that even though this is the majority view, there was some view at the time from people like the briars and people of the french way, that the courts consider the more humane customs of the american indians, the sub-saharan tribes, the igloo-bound eskimos, and the japanese samurai.

even looking at the international landscape, it is clear that no nation then held that was sensible that a leader should sacrifice and endanger his own people for the sake of trading he mainly a murderous adversary. indeed, nobody thought that was the case until 600 years later the american courts first came to that conclusion. certainly, given that we are assessing the conduct of this in the year oo our lord 1415, it is quite clear that under the rules that existed, there was no need to give order to begin with. even under the most humane rule, the sole question was whether the king was well justified in believing that another frencc attack was on foot. and whether it in that circumstance it was his duty to his own troops to allow for the

creation of another front that could easily vanquish and killed the english forces. now, let us not forget that at the time, there were nearly 10,000 men dead in the field. if you paroled any of these at french prisoners, that nearly met asking them to give them away and be nice. the moment they got away they could return to their weapons. it was impossible for the king to make any adjustment other than the circumstances of the field, in the face of yet another -- >> i am not sure the record -- go ahead. >> is it true that no quarter be given, as you are good, how can a decaying or reprisal for the deaths of them? >> no quarter be given to the fighting forces, but it was

universally understood at the time that the package boys, who were merely children, even though they played a supporting role in the fighting and caring of the luggage and kings underwear or not themselves combatants. therefore, the great sain, as they point out, the killing of the boys who were children and noncombatants was a cardinal sin contrary to the root cause of war at the time. >> that was done by someone who pled from the battle. >> it was a radical band of french soldiers. a pet that is a key point, because i think it is clear that -pthe cowardly french with the main force fled from the battle and found children to kill and loot. that it's me to the second aspect of my argument -- >> before you get into that,

what your description of what king henry said to the mayor. what he actually said was if you don't surrender, your daughters will be raped, your father's will have their heads dashed to the war, and if the mayor had said, we will not surrender, what woold your plan have said? "well, just kidding"? [laughter] >> no, but the law was clearly established that having to take a city by assault, if they refused to surrender, and he attacked it was completely -- completely licensed. you could have a filibuster. [laughter] you could simply the meant to be. you could do anything.

apart from that, i think it is quite important not to lose track of the fact that when all is said and done, all we have and the record are colorful threats. each of those things that you just mentioned, justice alito, is no worse than saying that you cut a baby into. if carried into execution, that would mean all of those things are clearly horrifying. about my problem, mr. estrada, with this is how quickly he acted. he did not pause even a second to say what are the facts? what is going on? he just immediately heard the sounds of battle and issued " order to set -- and issued the order to slaughter the pows. it shouldn't he have it least taken a few seconds to find out what was going on? >> i don't think the imperative at the moment allowed him to allow for greater investigation.

even then, the king said, i don't know if you have won because many of the horsemen galloping over the field. the circumstances of the confused battle did not allow for a full accounting of the reduced english forced to take the rest which would have been paid with their own lives that this attack was really finally, not to " the french, for real. you really have to take into account, as was said from the bench earlier, that it is an impossible tact to ask a group of federal amalgamated jjdges, some of whom -- not this court, of course, but in the lower courts, some get their jobs by being the sibling of somebody in the house of lords.

and you know, frankly, you are asking that the great decisions of state be confined to our judges, including what is right and wrong in the field of battle. but the only point that goes pith that -- >> that sounds like an argument that the american kaine, richard roman 37 -- that the american kaine, richard roman 37, said. when the king doesn't, it is not a legal. [laughter] >> there are many practices we are not to borrow from american cousins. [laughter] that may well be one of them, turning the control of wars and detention and military may be another. we have had the benefit of seeing all these rulings and how

they work, or rather don't, and i think the better wisdom is to realize that so long as there is any practiial basis whatsoever for the kings apprehension that a new attack was afoot. it is not the process of the courts to second-guess. >> suppose we conclude that henry's claim to the throne was illegitimate and that this was an unjust war. don't you lose on this issue, technically? henry, having launched an unjust war, or is responsible for this? >> i think no, he might be responsible for orders he made, but as we know -- >> what would we say? we would say the war was a legitimate because he had no claim to the throne, yet he did not commit a war crime by

slaughtering the french prisoners. is that how we would say that? >> well, no you could not and should not because it is far from illustrating anything questionable about the war, thus graphically illustrating everything that is questionable about this. you are going to have the courts sitting judgment of the validity of the kings pedigree and his title to the crown. that is not just something that is a neat subject. >> the war crimes tribunal said it was justified. >> well, we have not ggven up on that argument, chief justice ginsburg. i think what the lord said was we don't need it to win this

case. [inaudible] >> correct. i took his question in the nature of a hypothetical. >> no, i was telling you i think the war was unjustified. how could i possibly conclude these were not war crimes? >> asked him to write a dissent. >> i think it is in my interest for him not to write any dissent. >> from your point of view, any dissent from that point of view would be good. >> that is absolutely right. the point, seriously, is even if you thought the question ittelf was just difficult, you really have to examine the level of inquiry once you decide there is any role whatsoever for the courts. one possible way of concluding

that the question is allowed in the courts is to say that the court's inquiry is limited solely to asking whether there was any factual basis whatsoever from which either the king and his title or the king as the commander in the field could have rationally come to the conclusion that he did. certainly, it is neat for you to accord as much difference -- deference as you would to the king of the amalgamated kingdom as you would to a rrn-of-the- mill state agency. [laughter] >> so as long as he is not arbitrary and capricious, it is ok? >> i think that some incredibly deferential standard is the only accordance. evidence the king needed tof

launch the war, there was not a scintilla of evidence but overwhelming evidence to justify the war. >> no, i actually think so long as he had any basis whatsoever, it is not the role of the court to second-guess that. i understand that maybe the gift basket to not get to you -- [laughter] but i promise we can make it right. [laughter] i have not finished talking about the appropriateness of reprisal. i think my earlier answer as to why the baggage boys were not combat and mayor children fully answers most of his claim that the judgment of the global crimes court has anything to do with -- >> i am surprised to hear you i thought you would say they

violate the material support statute. providing the king with material support? >> yes, they are not terrorists. no, and we thought very hard about whether we could have the circumstances. you have to act very carefully with these things. ultimately, the record is very clear, and we know this from what was said, that the king was aware of the killing of the luggage boys when he ordered the killing in the field in addition to his being aware -- >> how can that be? in act 6, e orders the killing of the prisoners. act seven, that is the first time he learns of the baggage boys. he said in act seven, after he ordered the prisoners killed, i was not angry since i came to france until this instant. this is act 4, scene 7.

>> look at what was said -- >> that is not the trial transcript. >> he was not an eyewitness. he did not see the baggage boys killed. he did not know why henry had killed the prisoners. >> no, but i did not say that he was a percipient witness to the killing of the luggage boys. he was percipient to the rage of the king. if you read what he said, they say they killed the cowards and the french, burned and carried away, where for the king most orderly, the soldiers throat, oh, this gallant king. it is quite clear that he had reason to know from syndicating that the order was based on the rage of the king.

>> you said earlier that killing baggage boys was a violation of the war -- the law of war. >> s. >> wasn't his obligation to punish the perpetrators to find out which soldiers did that and punish them? or on the label became responsible? rather than kill innocent soldiers? >> you said three different things, only one of which is in the ballpark. [laughter] >> the medieval rule of reprisal, just as the army is one enemy which is indivisible, when it acts in violation of laws of war, the rules of reprisaa allow you to go after any part of the enemy body, even

if the individuals involved were not the perpetrators. i understtnd this is contrary to what 600 years later we have collectively decide it under the geneva convention, which as i said i don't think applies, but i don't think it is relevant here because it wwuld not apply retroactively to the king. >> i understand this is your fall back argument, that your primary argument was it was justified because of the conditions on the ground? >> absolutely, chief justice ginsburg. but me just say, i feel my time has expired, i ask the court to get rid of this frivolous planted to if -- frivolous plaintiff-driven, no-client lawsuit and speedily the firm the rolling below. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> you have the last word. >> thank you very much, madam chief justice. my colleague faults us for not siding balls of war as they existed at the time of the middle ages, he said it ordered the sparing of those who surrendered. moreover, he same set of justice who yelled themselves and unconditionally to the victor. my colleague it rightly sites victoria for the proposition that in war, they're not be at the time in the middle ages, there may not beat quarter given. our argument is quite different. once given, quarter cannot be withdrawn without just cause,

and innocent nonbelligerents cannot be murdered what annette captivity -- while in captivity. it is as simple as that. unless the grant of quarter gives reason for fearing a disturbance of the peace, in which case he much sufffr -- he must suffer. at the focus is on the captive, not with the other men that are doing on the field of war. with respect to the captive, we know there is no evidence in the record to suggest they are all belligerent or have any intention of returning to the battlefield. if history is any guide, we note the french prisoners would it rather cooperate rather than go back to the field of battle. my colleague also talks about

the young age of the pages. young boys who are put in harm's way and ultimately pay the ultimate price. i ask you, who put them in harm's way? who used innocent young boys, if they are indeed young boys, to be planning such a dangerous role in a combatant-invading, marauding army. that fall lies with the king, not the french. therefore, the lower courts' conclusion was entirely justified, that no unlawful combatants were unlawfully killed during the course of the campaign. noncombatants, i meant to say. >> that was against the king, there was no issue against the conduct of the french. the war crimes tribunal was passing on the responsibility of

the english king. >> your honor, it was passing responsibility of the king, but the responsibility of the king for act that he claims in reprisal depends upon the responsibility of the french forces at in illegally attacking the combatants, unless there is a prior illegal act there cannot be a legitimate claim of reprisal. so the justice was right to ask, what more than an illegal act does that have to be? or some notion of proportionality? no such inquiry was obtained by henry. the only thing we heard is that he gave the order an anchor and, i would argue, in pretext. as was pointed out, the order to kill preceded the final count that the boys had been killed.

-- the finding out that the boys had been killed. finally, i will return to where mr. estrada started, which was the hanging. kinn henry likely -- rightly saw that justice needs to be done and all that needs to be asked is that this course sees is the obligation so as to teach and counsel king henry beyond his ways that he, too, has to live under the law, the law that he said was the true law. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you, counsel. the case is submitted. the court will take a brief recess.

>> all rise. >> ok, while the court deliberates, we have a few moments in which you the audience may pose questions to the trial teams on the side. susan and amy are wondering audience on the lower levels with microphones. if you raise your hand, they will bring a microphone to you and allow you to pose a question. do we have a first quustion from a member? >> my question to the french,

and i extend this to the english as well, i recall nothing from the record that suggested that these were prisoners of war, in the sense that they had made themselves subservient to their captors, other than the fact that they had been conquered and were held prisoner. so the act of keeping them as prisoners requires some sense of being a jailer of people who are not willing to be held captive. i asked where the context of them being subservient comes from. >> that is a very good question, and one that we face, because our position is that henry b. not have great quarter, but once granted, quarter cannot be withdrawn on reasonably. we had to be certain they were indeed henry's prisoners and not just warriors are noncombatants. if you look at the two places where the kill orders were

issued, there were very specific. the french had reinforced their men, and every soldier killed his prisoner. the second point it says, besides, we will cut the throats of those we have, rather than to simply fighting on the field, and go and tell thee so. we're fairly ccnfident that the record even as it is that made henry proprietor of these prisoners as captives, the store rrcord is different and raises the question of whether or not these prisoners or prisoners -- were prisoners that were transported that were killed in battle or at the enddof he battle. at least with the record, we know they're prisoners.

>> follow-up question? [in all the ball] -- [inaudible] >> you are right, that was a leap in logic. that is why the only answer i gave was we know how to surrender. [laughter] which speaks of a larger point, which is the night to have surrendered have an effect given their word they will not return to the battlefield, and that is the sameeprecondition of paroled. actual practice of parole, a prisoner has to sign a paper, take note they will not return to battle. i would interpret the act of surrender and the land of -- the line down of arms to be that type of commitment.

>> -- with the defense team like to respond to this issue? >> if you look beyond the play, lots of people have looked at this, and everybody seems to point to two things. the weight of opinion at the time was it was the only thing that henry could do. as i mentioned earlier, the field was strewn with weapons. either you turn these people out or let them go and stop paying attention, they could get another attack. there is a fair amount of discussion as to how the rules should have been different. and in closing, it is actually mentioned that some of the people who later started to advocate more and more humane treatment of the prisoners.

it was sort of inherent, taking captive in the middle ages, they had to give themselves up, but it was also true there was a common experience where the word would not be capped. it would not be kept. the remedy for the captor was only to kill the prisoners to be caught him. was also true the custom was to keep everyone until they paid ransom. it was expected in the code of chivalry they would stick around until they paid up. but oftentimes, the prisoner would escape. then, too, it was thought you would kill them. the problem with construction of the exercise is that by the time you were in the position to exercise your rights of going to kill them, you might yourself be dead. [laughter]

>> all right, another question from the audience? right here. >> the point was made that if the bridge. -- the french prisoners were put on parole, it could easily grab a weapon on the battlefield. however, the english could have easily gathered up the weapons and it would have also been profitable to the english if they had gathered the weapons, thus not allowing the french to use them against them. but also, the weapons were of great monetary value themselves. so why could they not have just done that instead of killing the prisoners? >> well, the weapons at the time

were somewhat heavy. [laughter] and we are not talking, you know, see-through clothing. we're talking about stuff that was somewhat bulky and heavy. when you consider that according to shakespeare there were 10,000 frenchmen and about 25 englishmen on the field, there was certainly a great door for the prisoners to turn to, which screams of the second amendment. where i guess the radically, if you have a flying saucer with a truck attached to it, you could pick everything up and also do the dishes in the interim, because it does not seem that practical in the circumstances of battle. >> and with the plaintiffs like

to reinforce? >> only a brief point, which is studying the historical record, the point is quite interesting. the french did not need more men that was the problem in the first place. if you look at the strategy of the battle, the reason the french got in trouble is they did not study enough and they got funneled into a situation whereby the second line ran iito the first line and cannot use their full advantage on the field. henry knew this. ttat is why did not advance the army over the difficult terrain. he was setting a trap for the french. that is why i tend to question henry's justification, saying we did not want these guys back on the fieldd you want more french on the field because it is basically a slaughter house because of the bottleneck. i think in his defense, the

english chronicler said there was some movement in the prisoners ranks. that suggested that the prisoners had some sense they were getting bellicose themselves. that may have been the justification, but certainly not one of henry rahm and five or shakespeare. >> next question? >> it has also been mentioned that ran some for these captured combatants was to be expected. thus, it seems that killing them would have been to henry's discredit and a monetary loss. yet neither side brought this up as an argument in favor of henry doing this only under dire circumstances of thinking he would otherwise lose the war. could i hear a comment? >> the defense?

>> well, maybe i should not reveal all privileged communication with the king. [laughter] but there is some significant force to your point that killing prisoners was against the kings of interest because it was the law at the time that he got a if you think about the order that he gave, kill all prisoners, but it is an historical matter and this gets shown later in the play, he ordered all of the expensive people saved. and so dukes and anybody who actually had any real money actually did not get killed. if he really wanted the naked self-interest argument, although it is good, the record is a little bit iffy on it. >> that was probably the hardest part of my argument. the more that you look at the law of the time, it was looked like quarter was not given for

humanity, it was given for profit. if you'll recall, john the second was taken captive, and one of the justifications oo going to war was the french still owed the english 1.6 million crowns, and that was one of the claims of the monetary redress. >> ok. next question? over here? will ask the question. going back to the first part of the evening, so much has been set up about laws. however, i marvel that learned counsel for the english king said nothing about the very rightful claim of the english monarch to a vaat majority of french land through henry ii.

[laughter] >> well, you learn something new every day. [laughter] i think there is, there to say, a lot of complexity one should get into the issue of earlier claims to portions of french territory. i think the ultimate problem with that argument, as with the argument concerning at edward iii, it only gets you halfway there. henry was seeking dominion over the entirety of french, really. that is the implication of the play. for that reason, one really has to have justification to their base on his right full entitlement to the french to run or some theory of self-defense. >> ok, that is all the time we have four questions. thank you very much. now that people have spoken -- now the people have spoken.

remember that counterintuitive like, blue is for england, red is for france. >> recapping. >> recapping. [laughter] >> well, now. send audience back to chambers for more deliberation. you think it is red? >> by a hair. >> it looks a little blue to mee >> i am seeing red. am i am seeing blue.

i guess the judges will be the tiebreaker. all rise, ladies and gentlemen. you may be seated.

>> the court has wrestled with these trying questioos. we hesitated about the global war crimes tribunal, but then decided if a court did not have to follow the judgment of this international court of justice -- [laughter] we could pass over that one. [laughter] i must tell you that we deliberated first on the justification's to the war. and we were about to report to you at decision when one of us found it a huge package from the archbishop. [laughter]

and on that basis, the court is evenly divided. [laughter] but i can report that on the question of the killing of prisoners, assuming the war itself was justified, we are unanimous that the killing of the prisoners was not justified, and i will call upon justice alito to explain why. >> well, in accordance with the great medieval scholar, cole porter -- [laughter] in this situation, anything goes. however, we applied the evolving standards of a maturing society , and under those, there is

insufficient evidence to show that these french prisoners presented a dire threat to the english army, which, after all, defeated the french in this casualties on the french, whiie reportedly suffering only 29 castle days of their own. all of this is in accordance with a record compiled by an englishman, shakespeare, so it may not be entirely accurate. but that was our judgment, that the killing of the prisoners was unjustified. >> and that is the judgment of the core. -- of the court. [applause]

our last word is to complement these four super lawyers advocates. this was a stunning performance, don't you agree? [applause] the court is adjourned, and we will convene again next year. [applause] >> here's a look at our schedule. next, remarks from actors actually judd -- ashley judd on

cold removal. and later, a lecture on the appointment process for the supreme court. with the confirmation hearing of elena kagan coming later this month, inside the courtroom. hear directly from the justices as to provide insight about the courts, its buildings, and its history. the supreme court, home to america's highest court, this sunday at 6:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> the democrats had run the congress 40 years. there was a certain level of corruption that had taken hold. we are rallying against that. it is so. that years later i would be the face of a similar type of corruption to a whole different group of people.

his new documentary, "casino jack and the united states of money: the life and times of convicted jack abramoff," sunday on c-span. >> we have three new c-span books. abraham lincoln, the supreme court, and who is buried in grant's tomb, each with the contemporary perspective and something new to you about lincoln, the nation's highest court, and a great lives of america's presidents. each is also a great good -- great gift idea for father's day. >> the second is to continue giving access to new supplies to the world. that is drilling wells into the deepwater gulf of mexico. that is beginning to explore under the ice in the arctic. >> the c.e.o. of bp on global

energy policy this past january, before the gulf oil spill. thursday, you testified on capitol hill. see what other industry and officials have said about the spill with briefings and hearings and call-in programs on c-span's video library, washington your way. now remarks from actors ashley judd on mount top pull money removal and the abolition not. from the national press club, this is about one hour. >> good afternoon.3 national press club, and welcome to the national press club, the

world's leading professional organization for journalist, committed to our professions future through programming and providing free press worldwide. for more information about the national press club, please visit our website. today to our programs, please visit our website. on behalf of our members worldwide, we like to welcome our speaker, as well as far attendees which include tests of our speaker and a working journalist. our c-span and public radiome audiences. after the speech concludes, i will ask as many audience questions as time permits. i would now like to briefly introduced our head table guests. from your right, peter, an associate editor for "flex,"

alter of the new energy blog, energy check. rob perks of the natural resources defense council and a guest speaker. emily gooden associate editor for the hill. sarah, national director of the sierra club. it andrew schneider, associate editor for kiplinger and chairman of the speaker's committee. skipping over speaker, we have suzanne of the natural resources defense council, a member of the speaker's committee organized it days -- organize today's events. evan, chaar of the national press club's young members committee. bob keith, washington correspondent for the atlanta journal constitution and independent writer. thank you.

on junee2, and farming bill brings west virginia is river as no. 3 on its 2010 most endangered rivers list. the threat that put it there was mountaintop removal. as its name implies, this mining practice removes the top of the mountain to reach the pole source inside, and it does not just affect west virginia -- to reach the coal source inside. that also affects mississippi. ashley judd is from kentucky. she first learned about them top removal from a grass-roots organization in 2007 and gave the keynote address at state capital last year. she is on the board of the defenders of wildlife and works with the sierra club, nrdc, and others on environmental issues. she's known as a feminist activiss an advocate of and it

is human rights organization in 55 helping countries. she spoke at the national press club in 2005. in 2008, she addressed the u.n. general assembly on modern-day enslavement of women. of course, she is best known as an actress for her films and work on broadway. currently, she is filming "flypaper," co-starring with patrick dempsey. she is married to a two-time indianapolis 500 winner and they live in tennessee and scotland. please welcome ashley judd. [applause] . . >> thank youor tt kind troduction. there is a dil here. do i get to use it? do i need to hide it from you?

thank you for the top table and forrganizing this. i have lot ofriends re i wod like to start by saying good afternoon. i am southern, so that means you are supposed to rpond in kd. good aftnoon. >> good aernoon. >> i would likto start by acknowledging my many fends. if b accident i overlooked you, please shout out your name this is the president and i have friends here from the sierra club and the national resources defense council. i have friends from earth just this year -- earth justice here. he is just an e-mail body. he may not exist in real life. there's also a friend who is a writer of exceptional abilities. she wrote what may have been the first cover story on mountaintop coal mining removal.

or who else is here? one of the classmates from harvard kennedy school who is a dual degree canada it over at mit. he is a child oo the mountains, going and raised in the west virginia, whose goal in life is not only to see the end of mountaintop removal, but also to be governor of the state and perhaps serve in many capacities also here or is a woman who was a long time mountaintop removal, activist. she uses her talents as an artist to make documentaries and she generously allows them to be shown without cost. her producer is also here. one of my friends is also heree. i understand there is a university of columnar it -- a university of kentucky alumni association that is also represented. no one does this work alone.

although i stand at this podium, ostensibly by myself, and flanked and surrounded by an embedded with an extraordinary group of people. i know someone from appalachian voices is also here. it represents organizations who are doing the day in and day out work opposing this environmental tragedy. everyone appear was a little bit panicked because i did not have a hard copy of my speech. i am cool as a cucumber, becauue i know it is right here on my computer. i will try to make sure that nothing starts to play on mine itunes and that my dad does not im me to ask about how the talk is going. it is great, dad. [laughter] ok, so, now for my talk. i have been conferencing for three days.

i have been representing at various conferences. i'm very glad to be here. i am a little sleepy. i look sleepy and i am not brushing my hair. i just put on extra jewelry. [laughter] i am very proud to be a kentucky in. of the many things like reeder has seen fit to allow me to accomplish, the most honor aad greatest sense of self. i love and am proud of being a hillbilly. [applause] i trace my family in the mountains of eastern kentucky back at least eight generations. in kentucky we talk about counties, so mine include and are not limited to marsh county, lawrence county, and boyd county. etin eight weeks, i will know even more about my mountain people, their original home, holdings, and habits.

my genealogy is being prepared for me as a gift. my life, a very well-traveled one, will see nothing like the wonderful a venture of journeying back through my family history in the+ appalachian mountains. it is by far the richest and sweetest trip. a few details have slipped out. my five times great-grandfather bequeathed 247 acres, and not one but two copper stills, an acre of land which he insisted be set aside for a meeting house in which all the nominations -- the nominations -- the nominations -- denominations could worship. i can hardly wait to learn more. there is no better home than kentucky. [applause] we have a deeply ingrained, mystical sense of place, a

sense of belonging that defines us. although i currently make my home in rural middle tennessee and in scotland, kentucky calls to me. a few examples, as a teenager, i took a friend to see my beloved great aunt pauline's farm in lawrence county. she passed away when i was in only the fourth grade, and i had not been to reform since. p- her farm since. nevertheless, i had never even driven myself there, but i navigated perfectly to her small place on little cat creek without making a single wrong turn. equally, in college i drove from lexington, kentucky, and although i had not been there och since the second grade, i navigated without turning the wheel wrong. if you need more evidence,

in 2008, after doing a flyover of legal and illegal mountain top removal, in sites, i drove to black blog holler, where my -- black log holler, where my paternal grandmother was raised. i had never been there before. pulling onto blacked log, -- black log, something ineffable, without word and deeper than memory, from a place so primal it transcends thought and conscious actions, i stopped at the foot of a long drive, and although i had ever seen it, i recognized it. i was not surprised when i looked at the mailbox and it said dalton, my grandmother's maiden name. my kin live there yet. i called on the residents. like a cliche, >> the old woman accused me of collector.

[laughter] the only thing missing was a rifle across her lap. ati do not see that light house as -- little white house as much as i feel it right here. but what i feel for my mountain home is now more than a or bittersweet nostalgia, across 3 inimical generations of belonging. there is a gaping wound in the fabric of my life and in the lives of all appalachians, and it gets bigger with every appalachian mountain top that is blown up, at every holler that is filled, every stream that is very, every wild thing that is but -- buried, every wild thing that is wantonly and recklessly killed, diminished, every job that is lost to mechanization, every

against the other mother state sanction, federal government supported coal industry operated rape of appalachia. the appalachian mountains are the oldest in north america. that arethey are indeed so old, geologists rather poetically called them deep time. they may well be the olddst mountains in the entire world. i am here to tell you, mountaintop removal coal mining simply would not happen in any it is other mountain range in the united states. it is utterly inconceivable that the smokeys would be blasted, the rockies razed, the sierra nevadas flattened, that bombs the equivalenttto hiroshima would be detonated every week for three decades. the fact that the appalachians are the apple acton's makes this environmental genocide

possible and permissible. by the end of our time together here today, i hope you will commit your journalistic integrity to stop mountaintop removal immediately. our appalachian mountains reseeded the whole of north america after the last ice age. i smile when i remember that. what an act of biological what generosity. been generosity. tte genetic stock of our forest, in part because they were an unglaciated refuge for many species, exceeds any value that can be conceived of or articulated by the human mind. ancient, like giving, a -- life- giving, a perfectly complete and closed loop of life and economy, but the preciousness of these mountains is an actual endowment that should be treated

instead,,they are being blasted to smithereens. coal lies in those hills, but you all know that. there are essentially three stories i am telling today, an ancient one, a tiny bit of the appalachian genealogy, an old one, about how the current exploitation and abuse was set up in the late 19th century and perpetuated in the 20th, and how technology is being used contemporarily to permanently and irreversibly obliterate a mountain range, a culture, and a people. to say nothing of the original american art form, the people of appalachia have given birth to. the broad form deed -- one of the most abusive legal documents ever created -- as stunningly arrogant and entitled

as a white man buying from a native american vast tracts of land for a nickel. in the following section, i will be quoting from henry caldwell and others. can you tell i just finished graduate school? [laughter] really keen on attributing. in 1887, john mayo road up into the hills with silver dollar sewed into his clothes, taking his wife with him in order to make a good impression. he bought the first mineral rights using a so-called broad form, which he popularized across the mountains that came to be known as the coal fields. the methodology of the swindling and manipulation is documented, "with the appearance of sincerity, the coal buyer would spend hours admiring the mountaineer's horse, all comments were dropped on every phase of his host's accomplishments. he marveled at the ample

contents of the mountaineer's smokehouse, and savor the rich -- savored the rich flavor of the good wife's apple butter. after such a visit, he and the man of the house would get down to business. before long, the deed or option was signed with the uncertain signatures, sometimes just an "x" of the mountaineer and his wife. -- wife." what exactly did those say? i will read briefly to you from three of them i happen to have on hand. the print is very small. all the coal, minerals, and mineral products, oil and gas, salt water, potter's clay, iron ore, stone and such standing timber as may be held, deemed necessary for mining purposes, including timber necessary for railroads, branch lines, and thereof, ett. the right to enter upon said land, use of, for this purpose, divert water courses -- this is

important -- in any and every manner that may be deemed necessary or convenient for mining. hereby released from liability in perpetuity our claim of damage, free access to come upon, and over said land. all of coal, gas, oil, minerals of every description, in, on, and under my forms and tracts of land situated in an on the waters of bull creek and its tributaries. extracting, handling, transporting all said minerals, whether contained on the set premises or elsewhere, and for any other purposes.

andier in the late 19thth a 20th century, that swept through the region, buying p mineral rights for as little as 50 cents an acre, separating the use of service and tax liability from the natural resources that might be below. other words, the hillbilly's still paid the taxes on land. initially, the deed separated mineral rights from our ship of -- ownership of service land, but in the 1940's, courts began interpreting broad form needs to mean the surface owner also sold with the minerals the right to extract them through whatever means the mineral rights honored shows. -- owner chose. written in finely printed legalese, they signed over the right to dump, store, leave upon set land, any and all muck, bones, shells, water, and other refuse, to use and pollute

water courses in any manner, to do anything necessary and convenient to extract minerals. these clauses eventually caused much regret on the part of the sellers' progeny, when kentucky courts continually interpreted them in favor of the companies. broad form each transfer the -- deeds transfer the land to the land companies, all the mineral rights, the right to remove it by any means necessary, leaving the original owners with he taxes. with the advent of surface mining in the 1950's, these old deeds took on new meaning as mining companies sought access without regard to any rights of the owners. roads cut across pastures, for as, devastated fields, ruined waterways. states upheld the rights of miners as convenient and necessary. families down their hope of -- found their meager hopes of

subsistence destroyed. they abandoned the armstead. -- farmsteads. the relentless migrants, unemployed workers, roamed the region, or left the mountains entirely. it was not until 1987 that this interpretation of the broad forms was finally struck down. kentuckians spoke at the ballot box and voted in favor of a homestead amendment which restricted strip mining by the mineral rights owner without the consent of the landowner. five years later, the ruling was appealed. i used the word "rape" earlier. him at the rio de north dakota, and dragging my morning cup of coffee and discovering -- i

remember discovering that which spousal rape was still legal in my state. would be legal for my husband to rape me. i felt horrible shame. kentucky's gender laws have come far since that time. the governor just signed a progressive policy requiring that men who beat women, and against whom an order f protection has been taken out, must be monitored with tps. -- gps. i salute the governor and the legislator for enacting this -- a legislature, for enacting this law. kentucky's environmental laws monitoring, inauguration, and enforcement need to move apace. the surface mining ann reclamation act passed in 1977 during the carter administration was inadequate to begin with. coal mining techniques outdistance regulation immediately, not to mention the appalling lack of oversight, reporting, and enforcement. as shocking as strip mining was then, mountaintop removal is warp speed, overdrive, "

streamlining on steroids. -- estrin -- estrin -- stripmining on steroids. first, a permit is applied for. often, aa least until recently, with lisa jackson at the epa taking over that administration, they were largely rubberrstamp. a friend in west virginia called it creeping permititis. what few restrictions therr were on the permit process could easily be waived by merely applying for a permit variation. often, however, a coal company did not even bother to apply for a permit. that sounded more convenient to mine without any permits and simply leave. others were good enough to sell the report, and state often -- self-report, and the state often showed them leniency for

having done so. access roads are made. the timber on those mountains, one of the most rich and bio diverse habitats in the entire world, which shares species with places like china, are not even harvested. the old growth trees, hardwood forests, and in some places 30 -pspecies can be found standing together, they are simply razed. explosive so volatile the must be carried on separate vehicles, small hills are drilled into the rock in the mountains and every single day, in kentucky and west virginia, around-the-clock, seven days a week, 2,500 tons of explosives are detonated. blast 1000 times greater than the blast that brought down the oklahoma city federal building.

we used to be home for humans, flora and fauna, and the potential economic boon for a classically exploited and distressed area has become in the coal companies' callous terminology, overburdened. the smoky mountains, as the crow flies, not so far away, generated a billion dollars in tourism revenue last year for tte state of kentucky. using shovels the size of buildings, the essential ingredients of deep time is pushed into the mystical hollers of appalachian, indiscriminately bearing all that exists and is -- burying all that exists and is produced there. contaminating groundwater in the process. for example, children in eastern kentucky did not know that creeks are supposed to run

clear. using a dragline 20 stories high, the thing rips out ribbons of coal like layers of chocolate cake, they are scooped out. in some cases, once the coal company is finished, the site is simply abandoned. the coal company often sets up a shell company or to to operate a job and then defaults on the bond. in other cases, the company decides to make the site a model example of their responsibility. they returned "to approximate contours." a farce. it was a government concession to coal interests.

they plant non native grasses and then celebrate the site as an example of how good for appalachia mountain top removal coal mining is. why, they even build a prison on one former site. the foundation subsided, and the locals call it "sink sink." [laughter] on another site, they built a golf course. i am not keen on reinforcing stereotypes, but i do not know a lot of hillbillies who golf. in less than one year, international coal groups and others to join in this list of shame bring down ineffable mountains of profound past that should have a future, and americans take even less than one year to burn up the coal for which it was all done

forever. shame on us. this practice is the stain on the conscience of america. there are many misseyths promuld by the coal companies, and those that keep dependent on them through the mano economy they have created in the mountains and maintained since the first broad form deed. the charleston, west virginia paper this week captured one such enduring myths dwelt in an -- myth well in an op-ed, talking about a hearing in which a permit application for what would become the largest mountain top removal site in west virginia was being discussed. a man wwnt all the way to charleston from pike county, kentucky, to plead, please approve this permit. it is all we know. the charleston paper said, what an indictment. what a credit-rating --

penetrating condemnation of all the leaders in this young man's life, up to legislators, governors, and presidents. and anyone else who meets and greets and congratulated themselves for being for jobs. no matter what you think, the epa regional matter what you think the epa should do regarding the mine in logan county, projections for coal employment for the future or the -- are the same. coal will never employ 100,000 west virginians like it once did. i hope to have the chance to address with you some of these other ridiculous yet persistent myths during the question and answer portion of our time. there are many individuals on the ground to live with the -- who live with the daily consequences and the nuisance problems, as they are called, caused by mountaintop removal coal mining. two daughters of coal miners

have been granted the goldman environmental prize for their grass-roots organizing and heroic efforts. there is another wonderful woman whose name i cannot think of right now who decided to get a college degree at a local community college when she was reached by a local grass-roots group that was teaching her how to go to her state legislators and lobby for her and her community's own best interest. her daughter graduated from high school the same time she graduated with her degree from the community college. upon receiving her transcript, her daughter explained she had made a 4.0. it is important for us to stick together, because we can feel totally and absolutely crazy. their denial, sleight of hand, smoke and mirrors, and relentless propaganda is absolutely stunning.

but i know what is happening. i know how outrageous it is. they try to make us feel like lunatics. they make us feel like fringe conspiracy theorists. no one would really let that happen. our government would stop it. 4 million pounds of explosives, everyday. that is a fact. i wrote a paper about mountain top removal at the harvard school of public health. it was hard. it allowed no advocacy. i did not know how not to include adjectives. she said it would be good exercise for me, and indeed, it was. i got my three minutes of advocacy when i presented my paper to my co-workers, who naturally were highly intelligent and engaged people. not a single one of them had ever heard of mtr.

when i finished my paper and was leaving the cllss, they followed me out onto the street and said, who are the migrant laborers who are being recruited to work in these sites? at the harvard kennedy school, i thought for sure this issue would be the cri d'coeur of my class. the only other person who join ed with me in the fight to stop it is in this room, john gensler. together we applied for the forum, hoping to bring mr. blankenship, lisa jackson from the epa, bobby kennedy, jr.. they turned us down. my own class presented to one another every thursday our personal working interest. -- work and interest. i could not get mtr on the docket. the opportunity to be here today is very powerful and very special. thank you so much for your time, and i look forward to your

questions. i would like for those of you who are already working with me on this issue to feel free to raise your hand and contribute. we all have done a lot of work. we have lawyers, environmentalists, we have regulatory people. we have folks are very w-- who are very interested in creating clean energy jobs in the mountains. there have been some updates just today about solar and wind farms being built in west virginia and kentucky. we got an e-mail that jim was going to be here. i will read you the e-mail. the actionable thing that i want everyone to consider doing upon leaving here is to write these the jackson at the epa and say, -- lisa jackson at the epa and say, vetoothe permit for arch spruce onemine no. 1. -- arch spruce mine number one.

thank you. [applause] american municipal power announced an agreement create -- to develop 3000mw's solar power. duke energy said today it is examining its uue of mountaintop removal mined coal. there is some movement. [applause] >> i am looking at the clock behind your laptop. it may be the first laptop here. >> gotta be known for something. >> we certainly appreciate your words today and your willingness to speak with us. the first question from the audience, what is the worst consequence of mountaintop removal mining that you have witnessed? >> one-family comes to mind. i talked about the mountains

themselves. equally as important as the mountains are the people of appalachia. they were kind enough to show me what was happening on island creek in pike county. their little home is this ever diminishing oasis of green that is absolutely surrounded by a catastrophic moonscapes rubble. this is an illegal side, and -- site, and everywhere they turn, things have been blasted. they have health consequences. they are no longer able to use their tap water. they boil water and let cool before braving the baby. -- bathing the baby. they put juice in a cup before bathing the baby to prevent her from accidentally ingesting contaminated water. the loss of jobs is extraordinary. when i was researching the paper i told you about, i thought when i went on the coal website, somehow that would omit those facts. even their own web site documents and calculate the jobs

lost in kentucky and west virginia to mountaintop removal, because of its high mechanization. the question was, what was the worst? it is a little difficult to compare suffering, but those are of the worst. >> you paint a very black-and- white picture of the impact on the communities and of the min ing itself. the united states is a representative democracy. these folks have congressman and senators they can write. why are people from appalachian states not converging on capitol hill? why are there lawmakers not -- their lawmakers not representing them? >> with all due respect, it is because they have people like hal rogers in congress. and i do say that with all respect, congressman rodgers. i have met him, and he is a lovely man. his policy and stands about coal -- and stance about coal

mining is radically destructive to the people of appalachia. until recently, he was the single most tenured member of the house. i believe he still is, and documented as the single most unhappy and poorest place to live in the entire united states of america. his county is also the highest coal producing county. now there is good news, because we also have members in congress such as been chandler, who -- ben chandler, who opposes mountaintop removal coal mining. there are some folks coming forward on the right side of the issue and understand we need to develop clean sources of energy and get off and renewables such -- unrenewables such as coal, and we need more of them. >> could you elaborate on some of the efforts you have seen at

the state house are federal or federal level, attentively to stop this practice? >> folks are empowered with the facts. there are grass-roots initiatives. they have the opportunity to go through communication coaching -- and community building, and then they plan trips and go -pspend time at their state legislatures, making appointments, sitting in offices, and generally doing the deal. they make a difference, and every time i have the opportunity to visit with burt lauderdale, their executive director, he isappears. it is not about him and their staff. it is the people who are becoming engaged. also, there are some other organizations i should mention. [inaudible]

he has now stood against the coal industry. mining is not a right, but a privilege. is a ivilege. >> that is maryann who is speaking. she points out that senator byrd is having a change of heart about coal, and he has said that west virginians need to take a serious and realistic look at the fact that coal is no longer the future of the state. >> within the use and production of mining of coal, energy use is a broader issue. coal is being used because people want energy, and there are alternatives to that, as you well know. there are drawbacks to those alternatives, however. this questioner asks -- wind

turbines in mountain areas, one possible other form of energy, kill birds and bats. they conflict with endangered species proteetions. nuclear power creates radioactive waste that cannot be deactivated and poses storage problems. solar power is not economically viable. what is viable, if coal mining is not encouraged in this way for meeting our need for energy, and what is the timeframe in which they could happen? >> i cannot tell you how much i love this question, because it is difficult. the fact is, we have to be willing to look at uncertainties, ambiguities. however, i believe in american creativity, ingenuity, and i also believe in the power of markets. mark moody stewart himself said to me last night, the former chairman of shell, former chairman of the anglo-saxon big-ass mineral coal co.,

whatever [laughter] all over south africa. now i have said "ass" at the npc. great. -- he was talking about the early 1950's, when the british parliament and the burning of -- banned the burning of coal in open fireplaces. he said they thought their way of life would collapse, yet within three years, no one remembered that they used to burn coal in open fireplaces. it was a regulatory decision by a responsible governing body that set the standard. also with regard to this question, and i do want to pitch some of the questions to john, because it is his area of expertise. the definition of leadership -- taking responsibility to enable others to achieve purpose in the face of uncertainty.

what is certain is that blowing up mountains is not appropriate. that must stop. some of the other technologies, i frankly think or little less -- are a little less uncertain then this questioner -- than this questioner put forward. has anyone read van jones' amazing book? there are solutions out there. john? >> [inaudible] [ashley humming] >> i think right now, with regard to the development of renewable energy technologies, that the questioner asked, nuclear, wind, solar, things we have not even dreamed up yet.3

nation. the call of future americans really cannot be denied. we have been ripping down our mountains and burning coal for 150 years. we have been trying to harness the wind for a couple of decades. the sun, about the same time. these are nascent, baby technologies that deserve our support, just as coal deserved our support 150 years ago. nuclear deserve our support -- deserved our support after world war ii. but these technologies will be driven by american entrepreneurs. they will be driven by markets demanding ever more energy. 9 billion people we expect to live on this planet and a couple -- in a couple of decades. that is a 50% increase. we do not have enough coal to provide power for these people, so we have to come up with ways to harness energy from the sun

and from the wind. this is not whether or not thery are cost competitive toda. its tower going to make and cost competitive tomorrow, and how are we as americans going to create an economy based around that, so we can continue to share the weight of american life with the rest of the world? this is our challenge today. it is the fundamental challenge we face as a nation. >> thank you, john. >> certainly. >> there's a wonderful fact sheet available at sierra.org. coal is not cheap. that is one of those ridiculous, persistent myths that we need to debug. -- debunk. >> oxymoron. one word. [laughter] multisyllabic. carbon sequestration, that

technology already exists. it is called a tree. [applause] >> given your reverse internal -- diverse enviroomental interest, has your interest in mountaintop removal giving you a greater appreciation of mountain ecosystems in general? do you see other threats to mountains in appalachian or worldwide? >> the number one threat to the smokies is pollution. they actually have air pollution warnings throughout the peak tourist season in the smoky mountains. that is heartbreaking. so yes, by learning about about mountaintop removal coal mining, and being sensitized, i haae learned a lot broadly. i also really suggest you read "lost mountain," an explicit expiration of the buyout -- exquisite exploration of the

bio- diversity of appalachian mountains. >> also in the spirit of the language in the technology of the national press club, i have a question submitted by a black berry. [laughter] have you ever met don blankenship, and what is your interaction with folks who would be considered on the other side of this issue? >> on the other side of the issue. -- i would love to act with folks on the other sid e of the the issue. i don't have any difficulty whatsoever envisioning coming together in a spirit of dignity, respect, and good will, and talking with people. i was going to make a joke about not wanting to meet him because he might push me. i would love to meet mr. blankenship. he was the first person on my list of invitees on the kennedy school forum that never happened, but i woold absolutely love to.

i would also love to meet president barack obama. i would love for him to do a flyover of mountain top removal sites, the way he has recently of the gulf. one of the things i want to make sure i leave time to read very briefly before we close is a remarkable essay by an exceptional writer who is now the director of appalachian studies. he wins the informal prize of best blog name on the internet. his blog is entitled "a country boy can surmise." he challenges us to look at what has been going on. he said with a profound respect and empathy for the people of the gulf, look at what has been happening in appalachia for the last 0 years. >> how long did it take you to

read that essay? >> not long at all. >> hands off the gavel. >> he summarizes that the president recently toward the gulf to see -- toured the gulf to see firsthand. i cannot imagine the president doing a flyover are holding a press coverage about it. i have nnver seen a mountain blown up on national television, not even once, much3 the today show. i venture to say mtr is as devastating as the oil spill. i don't mean to compare suffering. what i am saying is actually the opposite of comparison. they are equally as bad, yet everyone is outraged about the spill, while few people even know about mtr. the oil spill and mtr are --

both are in purnell, cultural, and economic health disasters. they are devastating an entire way of life and disrupting generations of knowledge. every time someone says that more than 100 miles of shoreline have been affected by the oil spill, i want to shout at 1,500 -- that 1,500 miles of waterways have been lost forever in appalachia. i also think about the pollution pumping into our creeks and rivers. every single body of water in the commonwealth of kentucky is under advisement of contamination. i added that. i think all the people in appalachia that cannot find a good paying job besides the miners -- i think of how the spill could affect the region so badly that the region's fishing industry could be wiped out, and i have said this -- we are witnessing the death of the

gulf, and that is a heertbreaking prospect. it seems true, unfortunately. we have been witnessing that for 44 days. the president said every day this week continues an assault -- leak continues an assault on the people. it be traced back to win now and talk removal started, it would be 2950 days, a lot more than 54. the big difference between the gulf and appalachian, the gulf is not caught up in a maono economy. we actually have fisherman on the news who constantly complain about oil companies. miners lose their jobs if they complain, and we have been taught that to opppse coal mining is actually unpatriotic. the lack of outrage over mtr may boil down to images and quick definitions. it is easy to turn the oil

into a signpost. it is more complicated with mtr. the spill was preventable. mtr is intentional, and sanctioned. >> we have a couple of questions about your role on this issue and questions about your life as well prefers a wall, with the -- as well. first of all, with the many causes your support, had assured celebrity support the causes your supporting? what are the risks of you being3 >> again she would have to ask the organizations that do not ask me to work with them what the risks are? i just take that question. -- hate that question. you are so serious. why are you people not laughing? [laughter] i am being coy, but i do not know how to begin to answer that question. i am an activist and an advocate and an artist, and i have

portfolios of experience. i don't have to decide or choose. i am not limited to just one. they each give my life meaning, direction, and purpose, and i ain't changing anytime soon. >> you also recently got a degree from harvard. can you tell us why you felt like he needed that -- you needed htthat accomplishment in your life? >> i have such poor self-esteem, i thought going to harvard would make me feel good about myself. i always wanted to go to graduate school. it was through the entorship of some powerful women who make valuable contributions in my life that ultimately made that decision. the story i would want to tell is the one i have. i thought that new energy and clean, renewable energy and a green color economy would be the cri d'coeur of my class, and i was sorely disappointed about that. 1:52, does that mean we have 8 minutes?

>> we have eight more minutes in the program. foring at your own vision an what appalachia look like 50 years from now if mountain top removal is banned, is it realistic without mining jobs to see it as a growth area? if not, where does the growth come from? >> of course, something does need to be done with the 800 mountain tops that have already been leveled, and it is not strip malls, which is what the coal companies have suggested hillbillies do with this now flat land that they allege we so desperately need. i believe that the federal dollars and the state dollars that are being set aside to invest in clean energy jobs absolutely should go first to apalachia. -- appalachia. our coal has powered the

country for a long time. our environment is ravaged and contaminated by the practices, the mitigation something which defenders of wildlife need to begin immediately. industries are kept out by coal companies' collusion and various and other practices to keep employable people exclusively dependent on coal related jobs, and of course, the next big industry is health care, because as michael hendricks in his -- asnd his research and writing partner are doing the science to show a causal links between coal companies, coal mining, and poor health outcomes. there is a variety of investments needed, both in cleanup and mitigation, in job- creating, in education, in skill building, and then bringing in new industries.

>> what are your thoughts regarding the recent bp oil spill. -- spill? >> just devastating. just absolutely devastating. i like what my doctor said about it best. he said if you have a six story building in your toww, you do not have a two-story fire department. i just thought that captured it beautifully. i had the coincidental good fortune of actually flying with the executive director of noaa from new orleans to washington, d.c last week and her executive -- staff. i am grateful for the opportunity to do of field visit with hurt. -- her. she said the planes go out every day, and there are usually one or two in the seats. while i am doing a picture in baton rouge, i hope to rally the captain and crew and to make a difference in some way to the people of the gulf. >> on mountaintop removal, what

will it take for their to be a -- there to be a tipping point in ttis debate where you feel like you have sufficient profile and the momentum is on your side where change is tangible? >> press, press, press. this issue needs press. in 2000, the martin county oil sludge spill was bigger than the exxon valdez spill. how much bigger was it? it was enormously bigger. we are talking three digits bigger. have you ever heard of the martin county sludge spill? point taken. ther eis a -- there is a-- i don't want to be quoted on the numbers if i don't have them exactly right. there of billions and billions and billions of gallons in a sludge pond, held back by an earthen dam 600 feet above an elementary school in martin

county, kentucky, right now. the tipping point is you putting this on the front page of your newspapers at the top of your news program, on your online links, in your blogs, and in your hearts. >> we are almost out of time. we have a couple oo important matters to take care of before the last question. and june 15, the editor in chief and chairman of the committee to protect journalists will be discussing collaborating and competing in journalisms new era. we are trying to figure out what the economic models will be. on june 18, we will have the administrator of usaid who will speak about the u.s. rrsponse to disasters in haiti and elsewhere and the outlook for international development. on july 17, the national press

club will host the national press club beat the deadline 5k benefiting our professional development and scholarship programs. to register go to www.press.org. with that, we would like to present our guest with first, the traditional national press club mug. i think you have a message for us. >> i think my dad got the last one, and he might get this one, too. i think very highly for your time today. i would just close with a brief excerpt from a letter that my great aunt wrote to my other great aunt in 1975. talked to daddy day before yesterday. they are millard and coal company tried to get road coming over our place, get it through the country, but thank god, so far it has not worked. made me awfully nervous and have had headaches so much.

another place down the road, across the creek and over from the spencer place. however, that would have to come across our place and strip mine. dispensers will let them. -- the spencers will not let them. how i wish they would outlaw strip mining. people do not want the country torn up by strip mining. thank you. [applause] >> and thank you for coming today. we would also like to thank the national press club staff for organizing today's event. for more information about joining the press club and how to acquire a copy of today's

program, please go to our website, www.press.org. ashley, which like to adjourn -- would you like to adjourn this meeting? >> i would be delighted. thank you. >> script. >> ok. thank you. we are adjourned. [laughter] >> thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> pauline judd bradley. , to mark, -- tom hartmann -- the bill may alter the financial community. the congressman will be intervi

ewed on "newsmakers." >> we have three new books. each has a unique perspective . to order, go to c-span.org/ books. thee are great gifts. >> in a moment, barbara perry gives a lecture. that is followed by a discussion of the oil spill. after that, a talk about law enforcement. the fcc regulate the

internet? two views with catherine sloan and waltter mccormick. >> our content is available online, twitter, facebook, and youtube. sign up for our emails at c- span.org. >> y walkedou are watching -- this event took place in april. chief justic john roberts.

>> good evening and welcome. lawyers are given to some strange language called "legalese." this is a no-no. [laughter] this pda, ipod, whatever -- off. not on silent, but off, because it can affect the sound system. i am ralph lancaster, president of the supreme court historical society. i am pleased to welcome you to " the series about the supreme court. the society has been holding lecture series since 1993. each one is published by our each one is published by our society in the journal