only defense in that case is if the regulation comes down and we do not like it, of course, we can go to court. that is a tough standard. it costs a lot of money to go to court. >> we see the battle is moving from capitol hill probably to the regulatory agencies. >> i am with cnn. to get back to the bush tax cuts and the expiration possibilities, obama and the democrats like to use the $250,000 figure. that is insane they will not raise taxes on the middle class. republicans -- that is saying they will not raising region be raising taxes on the middle class. republicans may find it expedient to allow them to expire so they can point fingers

at the democrats during an election year. is it possible you may want to accept the $250,000 level rather than risk that all the tax cuts would expire? >> our opposition has always been pretty firm, and that we support an extension of all the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. we believe in an economy as weak as the one we are living in right now that raising taxes on any individuals, and certainly on individuals that spend significant amounts of money as well as businesses that are successful and in a greater position to hire and expand output, we believe that is not something that should be done. when it gets into which ones we would or would not accept, i am not going to sit here and negotiate with myself and

public saying we will open the bidding at a certain number and see what comes back. congress is becoming more and more concerned with any negative impacts that derive from increased taxation after the beginning of the year. as a result, i think they are debating more and more whether they ought to suspend the decision until such time as they can discuss tax reform in a broader context. that might be next year going forward. certainly the chamber would support a complete extension of the tax cuts and a debate on the road about more fundamental tax reform. i think there are better ways to tap the business community than

to tax our society that meets the dual needs of generating revenue while still promoting economic growth. i think it is a debate that should be entered into. it will not be a fun debate at all. we have had them before. one thing that is interesting from the recent reports of the president's economic recovery group on tax options is that they did not come up with recommendations. they came up with options. virtually all of those options had been extant in the literature. there's very little new in this area. it is about recombining pieces of the old and what are the things that worked and did not. i think we look forward to having a very honest and open discussion about that. in the current environment, kind of taking half loaf is not

something we are prepared to do at this point. we want to see full extension of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts at least for some realistic, temporary time. . i think there is great potential for gridlock. we have seen that in a lot of areas. if you go back and look at what happens to the deficit during times of gridlock, there's been a lot of time we did talk about the clinton era and how we generated a purchase -- budget surplus. we did that because of gridlock and economic growth. we had significant productivity growth in those years. that is not due to any short- term policy. i do not know of an economist out there realistically that will give you the short run

policy to boost productivity growth. we know very little about it. it is primarily a long-term phenomenon. we had big growth and generated a lot of revenue base. we grew the tax base and generated a lot of tax revenue. if you look at the spending growth, it slowed in the early part of the 1990's from about 11% a year down to about 4% in total. certain components like defense discretionary or - three years. that is what got us. -- certain components like- discretionary were-for three years. that is what got us. i think you would aspire to having an honest a partisan debate and having lost past. if the alternative is bad laws and those that retard economic growth verses' gridlock, i think most people would take the gridlock.

>> i am with forbes. if businesses are not spending even though they're sitting on cash, why should we assume that if we extend the tax cuts that the wealthiest americans will start spending? we're constantly hearing that a lot of these folks -- why would these folks spend if businesses are not spending? >> the flip side of the question is that you are not talking about cutting taxes. you are talking about raising taxes. if you raise taxes and businesses are not spending now because of uncertainty and because of the underlying economic uncertainty and the lack of demand, they are not spending because they do not have to fulfil an increase in demand. if you were to put relative weights on those i think it may

be 60/40 or 70/30. i think overall economic weakness is not creating demand that needs to be met by increased and expanding business and increase in hiring. in that environment, do you want to take the risk of raising taxes, not keeping them the same, raising them? that is taking even more cash out of the businesses. if you are running a business, you say that you need this much cash. the government taxes a certain amount of that away from you. is your response to start spending or realize you have to go back and make up? that retards growth even more. do you think the response to a tax increase is going to be more spending? i do not. i think the response to a tax increase would be even less spending. that is why we oppose tax

increases in this environment. less spending by business and less spending by individuals. >> will you address the criticism of your argument that even though it is half of all small business firms that taxes may go up, that many are not typical of what you would think of as a small business? >> you are asking me to argue with myself. having graduated from the jesuit institution on the west coast, i think i do that well. the problem is winning that argument -- those arguments. when you look at the whole issue the like and whatgh you look to happen,

at the theoretical and then put that in the context of the current environment. the context of the current environment is a very weak demand, no momentum, uncertainty over that economic problem as well as uncertainty over the political problem. at this particular point in time, i think it is important not to put more weight on an economy that is struggling. it is quite clear that it is struggling. earlier this year and at the end of last year, a lot of people said that it was going to be a v-shaped recovery, come out of it and really start cooking. there are others like myself that saw the glass is half empty

and did not see it continuing. we've had a debatable stimulus program. we support the stimulus program even though we did not like the composition. we felt that things were dire at the time and that it was important to do whatever was possible and golan was something we did not feel was as efficient as it could be because it was necessary. we're now in a position where we're starting to grow again. we are saying, what needs to be done going forward? on one side of the out there debating whether there ought to be more stimulus. it is arguable just how much the stimulus work. that is versus putting on an additional burden. on the one hand, you are arguing about passing an additional stimulus and paying for it with an additional burden. i cannot see the logic in that. one of the shortcomings and major disagreements between the

way we see the economy working in the way the administration sees the economy working has to do with the synergies in the economy. we have members better big and small business. we know that many small businesses sell to big businesses. without the big business growth and demand, there would be no demand for small businesses to meet. there is a basic synergy. trying to rifle shot programs that will just stimulate this little piece instead of trying to stimulate and allow the market to stimulate broader demand is an unachievable task. it is the wrong way to look at it. the economy is all intra- connected. trying to stimulate just one little piece and paying for it with a tax on another little piece is not going to work. as a result, going after just a

higher income individuals or the more successful businesses we do not feel is an approach that recognizes that the six energy in the economy. therefore, we do not support it. >> thank you, everyone, for coming. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> right after the president's speech tonight, a town hall meetings with oklahoma senator and independent vermont senator here on c-span. >> tonight, another chance to see president obama as labor day address from milwaukee. that is at 8:00 p.m. here on c- span. >> ginni thomas, founder of the liberty center, and wife of clarence thomas spoke of the

steamboat annual conference. she discussed the problems she sees base in america, where he rose in current conservative political life, and the steps she thinks should be taken to help retake congress in the midterm elections. this is about 45 minutes. [applause] >> thank you. [applause] what a blessing. good afternoon, patriots. what a pleasure to be with you today. what a beautiful place. i told jennifer and rick that it is very distracting trying to save the country from a place like this where god's beauty is all around and you have such wonderful people and so many fun things to do instead. i am so proud to be here and be invited by jennifer and rep. what a great organization they have to help you and i saved this country. thank you for your time today.

thank you for coming. thank you for thinking with us. i ask you to bear with me as i speak to you little bit and then ask questions. then i will be out of your hair and on to the next speaker you will have. i am honored to see karen angle at the front table. what an honor. how many remember the famous coups that laid the golden egg? a man and his wife owned a very that lays golden eggs that made the couple very rich. the man's wife said that if we could have all of the golden eggs inside, we could be richer than ever. the husband said that she was right, we would not have to wait for the goose to lay her eggs every day. the couple killed her and cut

her open only to find she was like every other goose. she had no golden eggs inside of her. they had no more golden eggs. i know that i am speaking to the choir today, but our friends, co-workers, and neighbors have had false hope that america as we have come to know it will contain -- continue to be our golden goose. we have paid too little attention to the founding principles that made this country great. if the business community were mass, we could say that they've used government to hurt free enterprise. they've looked for short-term profit over the idea of sustaining the free-market system. we could go on and on. we're all guilty of taking it for granted and looking for the short-term payoff at the expense of the golden goose.

i am here to do three things with you today before i take questions. we're going to go over the bad news. we're going to talk about the good news. i am going to give you seven have its for the days and months ahead to do something to help. you can do something to help, all of you. as mentioned, i have spent the 30 years in washington after the magnet of ronald reagan's campaign pulled me from nebraska to the capitol when i was in my 20s. i think the small government- free enterprise agenda since then. i have had seats in various battles in washington. i have learned the way that washington works. i know the games. i notice broken. i notice disconnected from the people. -- i know that it is broken. i know that it is dusk connected from the people. i know that we can make a difference. -- i know that it is disconnected from the people. i know that we can make a

difference. if i had known, i would not have left the great job bi had with hillsdale. but what is happening in washington is far different from anything i have never seen or that you have ever seen. we're witnessing an acceleration of power grabs in washington. it is the last version of shock and are. they're oblivious to public opinion and perception. they are intent on trying to change the vision of america. -- it is the left's version of shock and off. every important decision affecting our lives and our children's lives, from which doctors we go to to the form of energy we use are all going to be made from washington.

this was not the case up to this point in our country. it has never been this bad. the stakes are high. the time is short. i am seeing it from the front lines. i am here to tell you that you can make a difference. we can save this golden goose. in the next election, we will be able to decide whether we're going to be self-governed as the founders intended with the rights coming from god because or if our rightsfo are loaned to the government and ruled by an elite in washington that thinks they know better. that is at the root of all the policy battles, whether we will be self-governed or rules. it is our generation will answer the question. ronald reagan said that socialism always works in two places, have and where they do not need it and help.

they already have it -- have been -- ronald reagan said that socialism only works in two where they doven not need it or how were they already have it. killing the goose, we have taken fat, andther,s, meat. we're down to the bones now. our founding fathers set up a system that. texas from a government that becomes interested and domineering while preserving adequate room for civil society , families and communities to guide our own destinies and live our own lives. the reason america became great, free, and prosperous compared to all of the other nations on the

earth had to do with the functioning balance of government. the heritage foundation has laid the hour on the table for you today. returning america to its greatest requires respect for, understanding, and restoration -- not revocation of the constitution. our current government sees the constitution and the words written in the document as an inconvenience and impediment, something to be misinterpreted and twisted so that they can have power over our lives even though the initial act of governance is to take an oath of allegiance to that document. they are concentrating power faster than ever in the hopes that it will be too late to stop them. there is a culture of corruption in washington where dissent is stifled, friends are rewarded,

enemies are punished. in my lifetime, it has never been this bad or blatant. there are death threats, intimidation, behavior that is not being reported in the mainstream media. you know it. if you do not know it, you should know. i just heard this morning as i was getting ready that dick armey's organization is had to move its office to a more secure location because of death threats. they very much play hardball game on the other side. it goes under-reported. voices are being ignored by those in power. those same voices are encouraging and inspiring the conservative elected officials who have principles and have been weary warriors on the front line. they are inspired by your voices. we see new people coming into the political equation like

karen angle in nevada that can beat harry reid. through the regulatory reform bill and numerous other pieces of legislation and regulation, we're granting large swaths of power over the economy and our lifestyle. they're moving at record speed without much transparency. be heard a speaker nancy pelosi said it we have to pass the bill to know what is in an. -- we heard speaker nancy pelosi say that they have to pass the bill to know what is in it. i used to be in dick armey's office. we used to read the bills. congress is not passing the bills because there is discretion written into the

legislation it is hard to understand. they are written by lobbyists and special interests to give authority to the unelected bureaucrats who will pick the winners and losers based on their own set of criteria. it is a real distortion of the probe -- process. professional political consultants are also a problem. they reassure elected officials that citizens will continue to be fooled by the titles, a focus group talking points that they design based on polling and testing. the washington gains continue by the political consultants. that is a big part of the equation. the mainstream media used to pride themselves on journalism. remember bob woodward and those who dealt with the abuse of power? they have gone to sleep or become watchdogs to those in power, based on the reality i

see at the front lines. -- they've gone to sleep or to those inapdogs power, based on the reality i see at the front lines. compare that went george bush had reforms and the country was focal. its load the agenda down. it is not slowing this agenda down. that should tell us something. it is a hard-driven agenda, an ideological agenda at work. the shift has been coming for a while. many of us have been asleep at the switch. many have been living their lives and raising families and taking vacations to a beautiful place like steamboat springs. but they have taken things for granted. we have let other people with extreme points of view berlin to hollywood, -- burrow into a

hollywood, the media, and our schools. would you recognize in american history textbook that dedicates one or two pages to george washington and a full chapter on the beatles? political correctness has so taken hold that offering a common sense point of view can be seen as an extreme and offensive. witness the debate we're seeing now over the building of the mosque at ground zero after the attack. government dependencies have grown exponentially. it used to be that just the disadvantaged or on welfare. now is almost all of us. it is our schools, churches, police forces. it is our largest corporation. in the last 20 months in washington, we have seen an acceleration the likes of which i have never seen. this runaway train headed for a cliff have to have the brakes put on with more sophistication.

if you and i do not do more now, our children will have no concept of what made america the shining city on the hill, a nation of hope, prosperity, and strength. america is being hollowed out by those who have or want more power. read the article in july or august in the "american spectator." is only 18 pages. it helps to expose what washington is in this bubble. the article frames the specific fights we've gone through since the fall of 2008 with president bush and before. angelo lays out the struggle occurring between the elites and the ruling class and the rest of us that he calls the country class who must prevail. they're like termites eating the foundation of the country. we have to stop them. enough of the bad news.

you knew that coming in, probably. let's talk about the good news. the good news is that the sleeping giant is a weakening. -- is awakening. the thirst for self-governance is awakening in the nick of time. new activists are rising up and being seen. that is evidenced by your presence today. you inspire more people. this is happening all over the country. i see it and feel it. i hear them. those who went to the rallies and protests early on are still out there. they are growing stronger and wiser now that they see that washington or the democrats in washington are not really listening to these people. that only helps all of us to see more clearly what is going on. the new citizen-activists are getting educated, enlightened. they are setting their sights

carefully and strategically on the ballot boxes where american revolutions happen peacefully and civilly according to the rules of our society. in the same tradition in which our country was founded, americans cannot sit idly by while their god-given and not government-granted rights are threatened. both parties ignore the constitution and our founding principles. they took too much for granted. to many of us trusted those present to washington to mind the store. i think it is important to reflect on our political first responders who have demonstrated courage and ability in the battles up to this time that have warned us and educated us. they're tired and weary but amazing wars on the front line. -- warriors on the front line. make your own list of those you can identify as those on the

front lines doing the right thing. i think of it as the awards for ronald reagan leadership and profiles in courage. let me tell you the first one on my list of 10. the first one has got to be rush limbaugh. [applause] i happen to know him. this is a personal privilege as well as a political observation. this is a man who stays on top of the news. that is no easy thing to do right now. he analyzes all of the current events. he makes it understandable and digestible for people to listen to. he uses humor and gives us some levity that makes us be able to digest some of the bad news going on. he gives us inspiration and insight. no wonder the left tries to do everything in their power to

discredit this man. i am pleased to report that he has a terrific new wife. he is the first one. there's also the talk-radio host that you see in a local or national area like qglenn beck or hugh hewitt. they are the first offense and call to action for patriotism and our age. the second is matt drudge, c- span, fox news. they are doing courageous things and under attack. the third is the tea party movement and the new citizen- activists. i have met so many of them. i have been honored and blessed to become a friend of some many of them. i am an ambassador in washington for those who seek my counsel.

i am happy to share the things i see and help them to connect to have resources and more power and influences. a number of them are reading a management book that talks about the beauty, importance, and power of decentralized movements that to not have clearly identified leaders. it is frustrating at times. we're all looking for leaders. but if the west could find the leaders, they would take it down. -- but if the left could find a leaders, they would take it down. we could still keep the good work going on. the tea party patriots, the homemakers of america, the 9/12 group, the state voting institute, so many powers and influence of a local level doing all the right things. you look at charles crouthammer

and michael barone helping us to see clearly. fifth, i think and elected leaders were the of our praise and appreciated. -- appreciation. i think of steve king and michelle boxman in the house. i think mitch mcconnell and john boehner. although i am always proud of what they're doing, they have been very effective on some major things. that is no easy task having sat in the leadership calls myself. 6, entrepreneurs and people of wealth and to see the risk in what is happening, coming to the cause and helping organizations and local entities like this have the resources to do what needs to be done. seventh, i think established institutions that have been there for a long time.

there grinning leaders for the future. -- they are grooming leaders for the future. all of the authors out there giving us books that we can be inspired by. eigth, the candidates, night, the military, -- . create your own list of people. do not forget to thank the people doing the right thing. we get so busy and politics that we tend to be up on the bad guys and forget to thank the good guys. more good news is the mainstream media has lost the hold on citizens. i say this tongue-in-cheek, but the only people watching mainstream media now seem to be the ones that do not get cable, do not have computers, or are sheltoutins. [laughter] the best news is that our

generation has the internet combined with other good forces. paul revere would have been in this -- envious of the internet. our website is poised to help you and other citizen-leaders lobby for liberty all the time. it takes just three to five minutes a day. libertycentral.org is the cutting edge web site that came on may 23. we have been building it since we got the bug in our head. it is for the paul and paulette reveres of our time. it is that the center of citizen activism and media buzz. we're pleased to be a cath catalytic, galvanizing force for ordinary citizens. let's talk about seven things

that you can do. edmund burke said that for evil to flourish, all that is needed is for good people to do nothing. i want each of you your today and listening to the speech in other places to promise me that you will change what you do with two of life's most important components, your time and resources. george washington did not know in 1764 as a businessman, his highest priority was paying off his debts, his future actions would have a large impact on our nation's future course. neither do you or i know what will become of our efforts together. not all of these things that we're involved in and politics are black and white. it is not easy. democrats are not necessarily automatically our enemies. republicans are not automatically friends.

honest liberals will debate you and me. they will not demagogue. there are a lot of liberals out there that we can talk to and have a civil discourse with over politics. they have something to listen to. we have something to be listened to. the hard left is to be pushed back at. that is really who is in control. i implore you to help lift the wagon and save what is great about our country. we believe that ordinary americans are heroes awaiting a call. here are seven things that you and your friends can do right now. changer improve your sources for news. embrace the internet and technology. you do not have to know everything about technology. i certainly do not even though i built the website. i learned things every day. just as you use a car or computer, you do not have to know everything behind.

do not be intimidated by technology. grab it. that is what we're going to use as paul and paulette revere. the mainstream media is missing a lot. speaking of liberty central, if you give my website 3 to 5 minutes a day, we will listen to you. we will inspire you with information, we will activate you around the largest threat to limited constitutional government, individual liberty, free enterprise, personal responsibility, and national security. those are our five principles very close to jennifer's. we are building a virtual public square where you will join with like-minded people. together we will have impact. it is like filling a football stadium. it is like the cornhuskers stadium versus being by

yourself. together, we will have a deafening voice that will be heard. third, connect and reach out to others. connect online or in person. build your own activist communities from your e-mail lists, friends or neighbors in your zip code, at work or place of worship. encourage everyone you know to do the same thing and we will build the army. find friends who think like you think or are willing to study the matters with you. virtual political activism on the website only goes so far. i know that. we need an actual community as well. it is coming. it is out there. i encourage you to find your local tea party group, connect with them, and support with them. that is us. reach out, study the constitution. express your patriotism by

wearing it, decorating your home and car, coming out of patriotic events. for some reason, that as a rallying clienry. there are 66 days until the election, november 2. where were you doing 66 days ago on june 22? that was not long ago. november 2 will be here before you know it. what can we do in the next 66 days to have the biggest impact on november 2 elections to put a pause on the big government agenda? commit to identifying at least 10 other people between now and election day, 52 are like- minded and you want to make sure get to the polls, five newbies who with conversation, reading, and talking with you may be

willing to listen and come our way. you are welcome to send all 10 of them to libertycentral.org stay focused now until election day on the politics of what is going on. there is something you can do. pick specific races that he will monitor or help. liberty central has 20 house races and 10 senate races where we think of the right person wins, they will bring a more constitutionally inclined congress in january. we will add to the number soon before labor day. whether it is our list or someone else's, find those people. remember what happened with scott brown's senate race in january. that was where the unimaginable happened. the republicans took ted kennedy's seat. when the race was nationalized,

and friends called friends, donations crossed borders, something special happened. it has to happen again in 66 days. we have to nationalize greece's and look beyond -- nationalize races and look beyond our immediate environment. they wanted to break a filibuster in the senate. they drove from western michigan to massachusetts in january and spent a week campaigning for scott brown. that was happening all throughout massachusetts and our country as people focused on the threat and not active. they got involved. whether it is to nations, calling your friends in important states and districts, volunteering if you have the time, if you can help for more effort you are. it may be at the computer or

physically. lastly, the hopeful and connected. the more you know, the more you fear. the more you fear, the more you respond. we cannot stop trying. in summary before i take questions, i will say that we're in the fight of our lives. we have 66 days left to set the pause button on the radical agenda. the sleeping giant has awoken. libertycentral.org and other resources are available to you for short investment of time. if you make modest changes in your time and investment of resources, together we may be able to restore the greatness of our country. our opposition who holds significant power right now wanted to be demoralized, intimidated, fooled, and just a

little too busy to notice what is happening. but we know that the courage and resolve of ordinary people armed with the truth can change the world. join me, an ordinary american from omaha, neb., on the front lines of freedom at libertycentral.org to save this country. [applause] jennifer, how much time do we have a question? ok. questions?ian we have a microphone. >> thank you very much. i would be interested in your take on career politicians and

what we should be doing with regard to our selections of politicians so that we do not get stuck with career politicians. >> i do not think career politicians are the problem as much as citizens who do not state cynically engaged. it is time and work. i am sorry. -- i do not think career politicians and the promise not to citizens who do not state civilly engaged. henry hyde was not a problem. dick armey was not a problem. even though another politician term limited himself and had to leave the house, he was not a problem. you want the good guys in there. for good guys to do good things, citizens have to have an accountability system. i am talking with many in the tea party movement and the established conservative movement to find ways to build accountability systems with

citizens and the new people coming in january, copley including -- hopefully including our candid. we will not always agree with how they vote. look at scott brown. he has disappointed us a few times. he has helped us a lot of times as well. washington is a tricky place. you have to do your best every day. i was tempted by the term-limit debate early on. but we are about to have a term limit on november 2. that will be quite a term limit. [applause] the question. what else? >> ginni, you point someone out and i will go to them. >> they key very much for being here with us today. -- thank you very much for being here with us today. my son is a law student at the

university of miami. some of the other students on campus and my son, who i am very proud of, started a young republicans group. they still have to fight the left-leaning propaganda professors and activist students. it is not as bad as it was in college, but it is still a force. i was wondering if you have any advice for these american- loving, conservative, future leaders of hours as to how they can stay true to their principles and values yet still get the grades that they want. >> that is a great question. two resources come immediately to mind. i know the conservative movement well enough that i know the

leadership institute has a resource that a high school, and college, and law school students need to know about. martin walker " has given us great service with this website. it has a page for every undergraduate college and i believe law schools. i did not look carefully at that. he will have to look. they rate professors and textbooks. the give people in the community ways to reach in there to find mentors. campusresource.org is another resource. there is another student in minnesota that created a web site called intellectual takeout. it is for students who find themselves getting a lot of bad information. xtingwant to use their testin

and phones to challenge professors who they think are giving them information that is not right. what else? >> i am related to a young woman who's been playing tennis for about two beers. i have been unable to move her from the far left. should i be more understanding or should i throw her out on the street? [laughter] [applause] >> i am covered by c-span and so i am saying love them over to our side.

there are a lot of questions in the middle of the room. >> can you speak a little bit about the 10th amendment and states' rights? at the federal government has s haveten that the state' given certain authorities to the federal government. they are running rampant over the states. some are standing up to the federal government. toginia, ariz., and taxeexas name a few. >> it is not simple. i do not know a lot about it. states are certainly overwhelmed by the federal government. they have led the federal government that way as well. they have been at the trough. they are looking for ways to infuse capital into state that is struggling with funds.

you can understand why it is happening, whether it is financial or granting power. it's challenging. the we have to work these things out together with civil discourse on all sites. we need to find a new level of respect for states' rights. we need to have an awareness that we have been going down a bad road for a long time. we will have to find people can talk this through and build a program that weans us from the serfdom system. >> what's the chance that puerto rico will be used after the election to add new seats to the house and senate? >> that is a great question. redistricting is something to keep an eye on. both parties are watching that. that will tip the equation. there are plenty of games to

watch. all i can tell you is that at my website with my team, we will try to watch for the things that are most important at the right time. i am sorry to use this as an advertisement for a website, but this is what i do now is a small business person. on our website you can easily contact congress. you can find out who your members of congress are so you can express yourselves on any opinion. when you pull into the activism side libertycentral.org, it is the coolest technology. you can say you want to call your congressman on the moscoque or were appealing health care, it dials up the number from wherever you are. yourself phone will ring. it will tell you to be kind and polite because you are about to be connected with your congressman or senator. ring andcell phone will brin

tell you you are about to be connected to your congressman or senator. rico is something we will be watching. >> do you have any thoughts on what the agenda ought to be for the new group considering the fact that they will be stuck with president obama for the next few years? >> that is a great question. there is a coming clash that needs to be worked out. it is so important. so many people focused on the election in getting replacements for the people who have voted wrong libertycentral.org as a scorecard we can see the members' votes. the agenda at coming up, there are contracts for america that have been circulating through the tea party movement. that is the website or the of looking at. there is something called peace

through strength. i know the heritage foundation has an agenda. i look at things i have just seen in the last 30 years and i think we need a constitutional audit of some sort. i do not know how we do it. either through the private sector -- i do not necessarily trust the speed and capabilities of members of congress, no offense. i think we need outsiders to have a constitutional audit to help set up a system where congress can be considered different functions and agencies. i think we've gotten our government way out of kilter. we need to somehow audit and go through the system. we need a big spending reduction and no new taxes. nobody's talking about as many spending reductions as i think are needed. we need more time on spending. i think we need to repeal obamacare and the dodd-frank

bill. we need to sunset programs all over the place. we need to freeze government employment and cap salaries a comparable level to the private sector. [applause] this is out of control. it is funny. i used to work for u.s. chamber of commerce on what was supposed to be a liberal women's issue, comparable work. we have a program that compares federal employee pay to private pay. you cannot go over a wage that is dominant in the private sector for the same service. there are a lot of great ideas out there and circulating. i think is worth a big discussion with the new team that comes. it will be challenging. we have two years until 2012 when we can see what the

presidential candidates want to put on the platter. we have to stop the big government agenda happening right now. other questions? >> welcome. do you see a push for amnesty, and if so, probably before 2012? >> it feels to me as if president obama and the groups that want amnesty are finding ways to try to press like they do on cap-and-trade for some change in the system. i wish they would first focus on national security and controlling our borders. [applause] it is done.

chris brooks is here. peter brooks is here. -- it is fun. having been at the heritage foundation with them, i know that even at heritage, immigration is a very tough issue. it is challenging. there is no clear answer. amnesty without national security is no answer. national security has to be at the forefront. i do feel like they're moving around. they are pushing. our website will let you know if we see something happening or your voice can be heard on amnesty as soon as we see the whites of their eyes. one more question. >> i was recently at a conference where a former congressman was a speaker. after the meeting, i went up to him announced he thought when we took over in november the new people in congress would have

the spine and backbone and intelligence to do what is necessary. he said no. he said it is because it is too easy for them to print money. i would like to comment on that. >> i think bob bowman is right. it is hard to help the people in elected office to the right thing. look at the hell that came down on jim bunting who stood up against extending unemployment. the culture was to say to help the people who are unemployed. it was light is 99 weeks of helping us? he asked common sense questions. it was not an easy stance to take on that particular issue. i am here to tell you we will not have a conservative majority in the house and senate, i hate

to tell you, after the election. we will have new warriors to fight the fight. even in 1994 as dick armey and newt gingrich talked about the new committed patriots, we did not have a conservative majority. we had a republican majority. that is different. the people from maine and rhode island cannot get elected they think on the platform that people can from colorado, but you have certainly had challenges here. nebraska, and other places. political process is a difficult one. the truth is that we will have disappointments and challenges. it will not be perfect anytime soon. let me tell you that we have got to stop what is going on. help me. [applause] thank you.

>> christine johnson, the undersecretary of energy talks about renewable energy. this is posted by renewable energy day in aspen c, colorado. >> we tried to put carmine in -- carbon in context. when you have to go back four billion years, that is a lot of context. i think we have done a pretty good job of establishing a couple of things. the same amount of carbon that exists on the earth today was also present then. climate change is becoming a significant national security issue. it is being considered as such

by the joint chiefs and all of the military in our country. we also know that food security is a critical issue in terms of the climate and how it is changing and our ability to sustain ourselves. moving quickly into the economic part of that conversation is key. we also feel that our state, colorado, is playing a key role in a conversation, not only in the region, but also in the the nation. i think governor river who will be joining us today -- i thank

governor ritter who will be joining us today. we also talked about political will. what does it take to break the gridlock that exists in this country? we are a divided nation. people seem to think that they can choose to believe in science. science does not really care if you believe in it or not. it just is. we are also looking towards cancun. we are very concerned that the nations that come together every year to wrestle with and tackled the issue of how we are going to cut the carbon, not only in each nation, but also as a world, together. the united states puts out 25%

of the world's carbon. that is a big piece. still, the rest of the world puts up 75%. how are we going to deal with that? yesterday, we talked about well, water, energy, climate, and there was a very marvelous conversation about how we can implement solutions rapidly, reinventing fire and off to the races. we heard about how one generation could go from creating fossil fuel to creating clean energy wealth. i thought that was an amazing display of what can happen in just one generation. that is required and more in

terms of the speed that we need to move on this issue. we talked about cities and the importance of how many people live there and how much carbon is released from the urban areas of our country and the different strategy that we can implement to very quickly bring that down. we know we can do it. general clark talked to us about energy and growth, with a particular focus on biofuels, which is important. one thing is not going to solve the problem. altogether, with wind, solar, and energy efficiency and the various strategies together, we can easily move immediately off of fossil fuels and into a clean energy economy. but it will take that political

will. we heard about how we language that and how we can begin to begin to communicate with ourselves, with our families, with each other, and with the rest of the world in a way that breaks through the barriers of stagnation and gridlock. i think that gridlock starts in our own minds and it goes from there. we must figure out a way to break this logjam in washington and we are and we will. tom strickland talked about the mediation efforts that our government is actually implementing and how they're taking that very seriously. we talked about the oceans also

as a whole system and how it is be overloaded. we have to give it a break and all those various strategies. we also talked about the lungs of the planet, the forests. after the oceans, the forests are the greatest carbon sinks. the primordial, christine force -- pristine forests are important. we ended up talking about a green bridge with china and india. china puts out 25% of the carbon. the u.s. puts up 25%. together, that is half.

and these three countries will obviously play a key role in the ability to actually solve the problem and we also -- solve the problem. and we had two movies that address this. "cove" emphasized the carbon building up in the ocean, the mercury in the feud change -- in the food chain, and we are experiencing a very fast warming in the polar regions. that brings us to today. today is an extraordinary day. we have chosen the title for today as the new clean energy economy. we have asked some of the leaders in the united states to

join us, it's business leaders like ted turner and boone pickens. they're going to talk about putting welfare to work. how do we put private capital to work on this issue? how can that come together with all of the public moneys and the other various capital sources to very quickly infuse what is required, to seriously address this issue. i have been told that there are $50 trillion sitting on the sidelines. it is not doing anything. what is capital if it is not working? i think today's conversation will be critical in forging the path forward. that is what we will talk about tomorrow. our day is very focused on

finding a way forward. this is about determining tavis: paths and a directions. i would ask everyone in this room to think about what you're doing in your own lives and how we can contribute together as a group. we have these subtext from competition to allow russian. i think it starts right here. i just want to tell you how grateful i am for everyone, to take times out of your busy lives and think about these issues over four days in aspen, colorado. sometimes it is more fun to be out in the mounds, hiking and fishing, riding horses and so forth. but this is an important conversation. thank you. i look forward to spending the rest of the weekend with all of you. [applause]

>> it is my distinct pleasure to once again invite dr. christina johnson who is the undersecretary of energy and works with secretary steven chu , of course, president barack obama, and we're delighted that she could take time out of her busy schedule to join us. i want to read to you her brief bio again. this way you know exactly who dr. johnson is. dr christina and johnson is an undersecretary for the energy department and was provost and senior vice president for academic affairs at johns -- at john hopkins. she received her bachelor's in science with the distinction,

masters of science and ph.d. from stanford university. in december 2009, she was awarded an honorary doctorate of science from the university of alabama when so. in 2010, she was an award winner of the women of vision for women in technology and received the arcs award for her dedication to science and education. dr. johnson has received -- has prepared 142 referred papers and proceedings and holds 45 u.s. patents and 129 u.s. and international patents and patent pending. chia's founded several companies, including south and, techibend, and more. dr. johnson, welcome to areday. [laughter] [applause]

-- [applause] >> good morning. thank you, a chip. it is my pleasure to be here today to talk about renewable energy. speed and skill is one of the more important themes. what will it take to achieve a clean energy-driven economy? the importance of this particular topic is that our president has said that a country that leads in clean energy will lead the world. secretary to has said that clean chu has-- -- secretary said that clean energy is the industrial revolution of our

generation. if we look historically before 1850, it has taken somewhere between 20 years and 100 years -- between 80 years and 100 years. we do not have that kind of time. we need to migrate to a low- carbon intensive fuel source over the next 40 years. if we are to achieve our goals of not increasing the global temperature by two degrees celsius and return our emissions by 2015 -- it is in this context that i would like to discuss renewable energy. this slide was taken from the

icebergs be 15-day -- from iceberg b-15-a. it is a slow process. you build a nails and the nails fall off. with the increasing temperature we are saying, these fragments are starting to break off more and more. the state that i am very familiar with, montana, when glacier park was named 100 years ago, there were twice as many glaciers as there are today. we see this happening all around. we do not have to go to the arctic to see the changes that are happening. i grew up in colorado. i spent 14 years teaching at the university of colorado. it is great to be back. i have a deep and abiding love for the environment. i couldn't be happier to have this current position as the undersecretary of energy. challenges -- one of the things

we have been looking at at the department of energy is what is the portfolio that will get us from business as usual -- which, today, we met six gigatons of co2 into the atmosphere every year -- if we went on with business as usual, by 2015, we would be up to eight gigatons of co2 -- by two thousand 50 -- by to eightwould be up gigatons of co2. when i would like to talk about today are 12 things that we can do to take our mission -- our missions down to less than 1.5 gigatons per year. one thing to start with this energy efficiency. i love this because it shows that sometimes we think about how to reduce greenhouse gas

emissions and it is such an enormous task. these are some of the simple things we can do in our everyday lives in order to achieve the kind of energy efficiency savings that we know are out there. under certain assumptions, we would expect that we can actually keep our energy consumption constant from 2010 to 2050. that means setting 20 quad's of energy from now until then. if we continue the historical increase in electricity, which has been 1% a year over the last 30 years and a reduction of our energy intensity -- if we just increase our energy intensity reduction from -1.8% to 2.3%, we

could achieve that clyde savings. something we could do everyday -- that quad savings. something we could do everyday, i was pleased to see that all of the light bulbs had been replaced. i want to thank the hotel for doing that. we could save enough electricity to power to launch tooth -- two million homes to 3 million homes. last year, for the holidays, and give everyone i know compact fluorescent light bulbs. just one will save us enough power to provide 2 million homes to 3 million homes with electricity. this is a smart meter. if we look at our demand response, we are just aware of when we use electricity and how we use it.

we could probably save another 23%. we get that number from experiments that have been done where they have deployed smart meters and giving consumers affirmation of how and when they are using electricity. the front-loader washing switched if you were to swis to a cold-water wash, you will save about 5% of total energy consumption. finally, if we switched to driving just 10 miles less with our automobile, that would be the equivalent of taking 50 million cars off the road. lastly, some of the things we are talking about in terms of whether is asian -- of weatherization, we have ramped that up to 30,000 homes per

month. each of them are hot swapping out furnaces that were only 50% efficient to ones that are over 90% efficient. we are looking at installation. with these are truly the low hanging fruit. we could save 30% of that during the more expensive changes, which is changing the windows. energy efficiency is huge. it is one thing we can do. each of us can contribute to this. the second thing is the topic of this conference, renewable energy. here is another great story that we have. due to the american recovery and reinvestment act, within the next two years to three years, we will double the deployment of wind and solar in this country. that is astounding. by 2003, we could have roughly a third of our -- by 2030, we

could have roughly a third of our energy replaced by renewable energy. wind, solar, hydroelectric. that's take hydroelectricity. my father spent 35 years at westinghouse. he worked on the grand canyon project. turbines that are in these projects were actually installed at the time of my fragrandfathe, in the early 1900's. small turbines that do not require damming particular strains, we could increase hydro in this country. looking at solar, there are only two gigawatts deployed in the u.s.. by 2013, we could have 64 gigawatts easily.

it would put it -- by 2030, we could have 64 gigawatts easily. if we were to continue on that same clip, we could probably provide about 15% of our renewable energy doing the same kinds of things we're doing now. but we do need the policies, the production tax credits in order to fuel this expansion. this is very consistent with the vision. we could have 30% of our energy come from ennobles. a third thing we can do -- from renewals. the third thing we can do is that we know that the sun shines turn the day and the wind blows at night. we need storage.

this is a large storage. it is a pump-hydro storage. during the night, when the wind is blowing, use the green to move the energy. that is one aspect where we could and are looking to emphasize the department of energy, large storage systems. we are also investing on battery technology. prior to the american recovery and reinvestment act, we only had 2% of the batteries for electric vehicles produced in this country. within the next two years, it will be 40% of the battery manufacturing in this country. this gives us the opportunity to do distributed storage. that is very powerful. that could be on or off the grid.

that is interesting. the third thing we need to invest in and in which we are leading in this country is not only through our core programs, manufacturing batteries, but also arpa energy. we are looking at dean changing technology. we can double, triple, or even get a higher factor in the energy intensity so we can truly start to be carbonize not only our electricity system, but our transportation system. we need to invest in start and be aware of the differences between central storage and distributed storage. that also implies that we have a smart grade that can bring on

renewable energy and understand that can bring on renewable energy. alexander crambo would not -- alexander graham bell would not recognize is cellphone. we have invested about $4 billion in the smart. -- smart grid program. the fifth thing we need to do is to recognize that, in this transition from a fossil fuel- based economy to a clean energy economy, which also includes carbon caption sequestration from fossil fuel sources, we

need to manage the emissions from fossil fuel plants. this is an image from the pleasant prairie power plant in wisconsin, which has the lowest emission rate of any coal-based electricity plant in the state. this has a 90% reduction in nitrogen oxide and 95% emission reduction in nitrogen oxide. we have invested almost $4 billion, the largest investment in the world, in capturing the ts andming out of plans, an looking into ways to retain their efficiency. working with colleagues in china, we are collaborating in a clean energy research center that looks into post-combustion captured co2 as well as pre- combustion captured co2. the sixth thing we need to do is

invest in nuclear power. we have done this in the last year through a loan guarantee program where we will build the first new two nuclear power plants in 30 years. 20% of our electricity comes from nuclear right now. if we took that to 30% by 2030, that would give us roughly another third of electricity from low-carb and sources. bon sources.an the seventh thing is that we need to decarbonize the public sector. a heavy vehicle to a low-carbon some automobile,

2020,have said that, by every vehicle will either be a hybrid or an electric vehicle. we purchased roughly 15 million new cars. if we were to do that starting in 2020 to 2013, we would have more than 100 million heavy-duty vehicles that would be hybrid electric vehicles that would allow was to migrate away from a totally oil-based and petroleum- based transportation sector. this means that, in my view, there are a lot of opportunities in the load and light-duty vehicle sector. we all can drive better. when i looked at the ford research lab, they said, you can become a better driver.

they saw me drive? it is certainly true. you can get 25 more miles per gallon just by changing driving habits. by adding a hybrid-electric vehicle, we can greatly reduce our emissions from hydrogen -- i mean, from fossil fuels. when looking at heavy-duty vehicles, we're investing in a super truck program to look at the aerodynamics and the system of how we take heavy-duty vehicles, which will probably not be powered by batteries, and look at ways to power them by either natural gas, compressed natural gas, or biofuels. lastly, when we look at this, a picture of the green hornet, a jet that was flown with biofuels, we have to look at the 9% of the transportation- energy consumption that goes into flight. the eighth thing we need to do is look at our existing

authorities. the department of energy looks at setting appliance standards. we have been looking carefully at appliance standards. we had a huge push on this last year, getting caught up with issuing what we expect from the efficiency of use in terms of towering our appliances. in the next 20 years, we could probably save another 20 quads by just getting out the standards for appliances under our party. one thing that is critical, access to capital -- how much money is waiting there on the sidelines to come in and invest in a clean energy economy? we have to give the market a price signal on carbon. in the meantime, we do have loan guarantee authority. i am pleased to say that the loan guarantee -- this is an example. this is in colorado.

it is a thin-film solar power plant. we have been able to issue a conditional loan guarantee that would allow that plans capacity to skelp from 65 megawatts to two hundred megawatts. that is important. we can use this and the obama administration made the first loan guarantee for the clean energy economy. we have closed on three deals and made over a dozen conditional commitments. in addition to access to capital, we also have the advanced manufacturing tax credits. we have the 1603 in lieu of tax credits. we have the advanced vehicle technology in manufacturing tax credits. we're putting over $10 million to worked in treasury or doe credit subsidies. that is being matched by the private sector. these are just some of the

companies that have received either loans or conditional loan guarantees. but we also know -- this gets your attention later on for when jim cameron talks -- we also know that, over the last 17 years, 64% of the judge came from small business. there is something else we're doing in the department of energy. we are giving entrepreneurs staying power. if you come up with a new concept, you can apply across the energy in the innovative resource program. it will allow you to test your idea. will it work? build a modest prototype. if successful, you will go to phase ii of the program. over two years, you can get up to $1 million to build a robust prototype and tested. you are into it for about three years. if any of you have ever started a company, you know that about three years is the make-or-break

point. that is about when you run out of money. what do you need in order to get venture-capital? you have to get a customer. it is a chicken and egg. you have a prototype, the customer will say, that is nice,, said it cost to make that? i had about $1 million from the government over three years. that is great. $1 million per copy. any to make it for $10. then you have the valley of death. the manufacturing process will take one copy to scale. that goes back to the other part of the theme of this conference, which is not only speed to get going on this migration to a clean energy economy, but stealing it. hat we have done in a phasei iii, we instituted a new program.

this is to the benefit of the investment and recovery act. we will be granting up to $3 million for 30 on deplores in the clinton drew sector that can come up with using those funds to take to scale their particular technology. we plan to continue this program as we go forward. the reason why i know about staying power is that, back in 1997, i started a small company in boulder, colorado. we had gone to that three-year place. we did not have any staying power. we ran out of money. we apply for the events technology program. we had a prototype. we wanted to take it to market so we could make millions of this. we received a grant of two million dollars. over the next three years, we were able to build a product at scale. when the movie "chicken little" came out, we were able to

produce the glasses that you could see christine 3-d. pristine 3-d. from that opportunity, to have staying power for three years, to have clean energy -- a clean view of a three-be seen, we were very pleased about that. i love the movie. when i came to doe, the need to provide that opportunity came. you can have a energy efficiency. you can have renewable energy. you can manage the carbon from fossil energy. .ou can have smart grid, you can bring in the capital from the sidelines by giving an entrepreneur is staying power. but none of this will make any

sense if we do not have an educated work force. we are really at the crossroads here. the first time in the last 50 years that the u.s. has not led the number of college graduates per capita in the world, in a 25-35 demographic, we are not even in the top 10 countries. 45% of our work force is estimated to retire in the next five years. it comes at a time when less than 4% of our graduates are engineers from our colleges and universities. we're very focused on training the workforce. that is why $100 million of the smart grid grant is going to work force preparation and training. that is from our programs that span to new -- stan community colleges to programs at universities -- that span

community colleges to programs at universities. the first clean energy ministerial, we got together over 20 energy ministers from around the country to sit down and say what can we do together because we all on the co2 in the atmosphere? one of those programs which hits on international cooperation and workforce is the so-called ce3 initiative with 32 female leaders in the world. bit stands for cooperation in energy and education and empowerment for women. this is an initiative that we are continuing to build on. if anyone is interested in that, you can see me afterwards.

the 11th thing is international cooperation. secretary chu has been a pioneer in fostering cooperation. so what is the last thing we need? it comes back to wallace. it comes back to collective action. each of us needs to commit that we will do our own part personally. the second thing we can do is connect to a movement, like spending time today to learn more about the american renewable energy day and the speakers that will be here talking about what we can do. lastly, the thing we can do is let our voices be heard, that this is important, and that we need to give the market a signal that creek -- that clean energy is going to be here and in the future. thank you very much. [applause]

>> tonight, another chance to see president obama's labor day event. >> right after the president's speech tonight, a town hall meetings with tom coburn and bernie sanders. now a panel of legal analysts on issues involving the trials of suspected terrorists. >> the united states has confronted a new reality. terrorist groups, many of whom are fueled by religious fervor,

have declared a holy war on the united states and they have killed thousands of people within our own borders. since that same date, the country has wrestled with how to deal with a lead to the terrorists that are detained by military forces or other agents of the united states. it is that topic that we will briefly touched on today because of the unusual nature that happened on 9/11, a newly muscular executive-branch and a strong response from the judiciary, to some degree, the legislature, we have a new climate with which to deal with on these issues. they continue. at this moment, the united states is trying to decide where

and how to try colleague shake muhammed. they are debating whether the christmas shoe bomber should have been mirandized and whether a person 15 years of age captured in afghanistan should be tried in an american court. we have a distinguished panel of experts. this is a subject to be discussed for years. i think you will find that our panelists today will spark your interest and enlighten you in areas that you perhaps have never considered. our chair today, our moderator, is dr. jack goldsmith, a professor at harvard law school and also previously the head of

the office of legal counsel in the department of justice. he is also a former law clerk of justice kennedy who is watching him carefully today. judge leoni greg lamotte. professor elizabeth l. mann, professor of law at the hastings institute in california. then we have two joellyn, ed mcmahon who was the lead -- two men, ed mcmahon who was the lead lawyer in me masai week

trial -- in the moussaoui trial. i will turn it over to professor goldsmith. >> we will focus on civilian

trowels, using the ordinary criminal justice system to try and convict and incarcerate the alleged terrorists. civilian courts have been used to try hundreds of terrorist and those related to acts of terrorism in the last couple of decades. this is a true and tried system, but some people think it is not adequate to deal with the threat and challenge after 9/11. so the government has developed, in addition to the civilian criminal system, which is still used a great deal to try terrorists, [unintelligible] [no audio]

it was very controversial in a 9/11 that he would use a military commission. we had a debate in this country for the last nine years about their proper use. congress has twice way been. the supreme court weighed in in the spring of 2006. [no audio] congress responded with a the military act of 2006 and had non-trivial challengechanges. congress ratified some additional changes. we now have commerce weighed in twice on military commissions. but, as a system, they have not

worked very well at all. nonetheless, that is another option that the obama administration views using to deal with terrorists. the third one that has been relied upon most heavily is a military detention. this is a basis for incapacitating terrorists. it has been used in prior wars. the diet -- the idea is that, during wartime, a nation has the power to detain a member of the enemy armed forces for the duration of the conflict simply to incapacitate the person and keeping a person from returning to the battlefield. that traditional power has been used and has been approved by courts in various guises, but raises questions in this war because the conflict may last and likely will last indefinitely.

the members of the enemy in this war are harder to distinguish from menacing civilians. all three of these systems, civilian trucks, military commissions, and military commissions -- civilian trials, military commissions, and military the attainments have been used by this government. the question is which one to use in which circumstances. assistant attorney general david crist gave a speech in which she said the president should use every tool in his toolbox and these are three different tools that would be used for different circumstances. we will be focusing on this panel primarily on civilian trials because our panel has expertise in that. that is the baseline against

which these other systems are measured. i want to raise a couple of framing points and then turn it over to the panel. the first one is that congress has been engaged in military commissions in theory. but not really in military detention or on civilian trials. mostly, what is going on is a dialogue between the executive branch and the judiciary. that is what we have been doing for the last eight years to nine years. it is safe to say that the courts have asserted an extraordinary and unprecedented role in this war by being much more involved in reviewing the presence wartime actions with regard to detainee's than ever in the past. this is mostly a dialogue between the president and the courts. this frames the use of civilian trials. the bush administration and the

obama administration have asserted that, if a terrorist is acquitted at trial and if that person is deemed dangerous and is still deemed to be a military combat, the u.s. government has authority to detain the prison indefinitely on the military detention rationale. this raises the question on whether it is a genuine triolet the person will be incarcerated nonetheless if acquitted. with that, we will go down the panel this way. that will give us some historical perspective. barack and ed will talk about the prosecutorial perspectives in the moussaoui trial. then we will get the judicial perspective on terrorism trials. with that, we will turn it over to the palace. they will speak for eight minutes. then we will turn it over 2

discussion. >> i would like to thank judge smith' and the conference committee that put this together. i am surprised that we're here to talk about this because it seems like a long time that we have been hashing over these issues. also, my chosen field of study, american legal history, i did not become -- did not expect to become more of a niche issue in the study of law compared to the bombshell that it has become in recent years. when i started to write a dissertation about u.s. military justice 10 years ago, at best, military law was a sideshow in american legal history. it is not that at all. it is being integrated into the great narratives of american law, into the bed and flow of constitutional interpretation, into the rise of federal laws or -- fedele ford, the right to jurisprudence, -- into the rise of federal law, the right

tutorjurisprudence. what to do with a specific group of persons accused of crimes with these competing systems available to try them? i do not have to belabor the point. the military commissions are not new. we have many judicial opinions that do that quite elegantly for us. i do not have to say that military of laws and operations create procedural issues that make us question the meaning of due process and had to parse the different categories of persons to whom we will offer varieties of do process. instead, as one of the historians on this stage at least, i would like to give you some details from military commissions passed to highlight the role that the law and politics have played in prior instances of military

commissions and threats to the nation that have precipitated new forums in which to try crimes against the state. i would also like to remind you, before i close today, out of the impact that the commission's head had on the u.s. legal system within our armed forces. there are not any judge advocate on the panel today and we do not have any folks from the military. but from all the groups within american law that the structure has affected, it is judge advocates who are laboring in the trenches, trying to navigate these confusing waters in what is happening in these military commissions. jack mentioned that the two instances in our past that you know about, where we have most use military commissions, have been the civil war and world war ii. let me take a couple of instances to remind you of the high-profile cases during that time and talk about the details of those trials briefly.

first, the civil war -- lots of military commissions, military tribunals took place at this time. there were nearly 6000 during the war and reconstruction. the authority to try persons before military commissions outlasted hostilities themselves. they also did not only take place in the battlefield between union and confederate troops or in occupied territories. one of the most celebrated of the military commissions took place on the frontier. in 1862, an uprising of four of the sioux tribes in minnesota in which more than 400 settlers and american soldiers and dakota soldiers who were working with the american troops were killed. there was a mass trial of the sioux indians who were charged with those crimes. it took place very quickly with a summary justice on the frontier. those were sent to president

lincoln during the war. when he got those records, he asked his attorney general for guidance. his attorney general said, "you are on your own, mr. president." [laughter] he said, you cannot delegate the authority to review these records. it must be done by the president. so lincoln being lincoln review all of those records. there were 303 death sentences. he approved only 39 of those. in the commission itself, which is much denigrated for its procedural irregularities, there was an 18% acquittal rate. i point in raising that is to say that it is possible that a commission, a military commission, taken under a exigency, cannot be the caricature of justice that we sometimes assume it to be and that the political and military

objectives a search by that commission -- objectives usurped by that commission will be reviewed afterwards. president lincoln road, "if the guilty are not all executed, i think it nearly impossible to justify the indiscriminate massacre of all indians, old men, women, and children, who are being held as prisoners." 1500 sioux were being held. the general said that he could not keep his men from killing them. the president did not approve and the massacre did not ensue. on april 9, 1865, lee

surrendered to grant. on april 14, john wilkes booth assassinated president lincoln. president andrew johnson faced difficult decisions, how to try these men, whether to make the trials secret. johnson wanted to make the trials secret for the eight who were accused. general grant convinced him not to do that. there were convicted quickly by a panel of officers and sentenced to hang. only four of the death sentences were approved. even in that instance, not all of the death sentences were carried out. that was still when the country was still in a state of martial law in many places that had yet to be lifted. let's set the civil war aside

and step forward to world war ii. we are in the place where the most military commissions were held. hawaii was under martial law for 15 months. mostly post cards were held here to keep the peace. -- mostly provost courts were held here to keep the peace. the best known trial of world war ii that is relevant to the terrorism trial is that we're talking about today is the trial of the nazi saboteurs. you know that story. nazi submarines with saboteurs armed and ready to attack the united states. they landed outside of jacksonville, on long island, and led by of an incompetent and a troubled man who spent most of his time playing pinochle and drinking before he decided to turn himself into the fbi.

the president wanted him to be convicted quickly. the trial has led to some incredible precedents. the last thing i want to mention is the impact that the judiciary legal court of today. the cost of trying to convict between civil and military courts is hard to pin down. a military commission, the military legal court is spending lots of its energy on these cases. there are about 4000 judge advocate's. everyone will have an assignment the tent -- by the time they are in the commission structure. we have had more chief prosecutors then we have had trials in the military commissions in nine years.

the cost and time and little impact is a drain on the rest of the duties that they have in military criminal justice, the prosecution of war crimes, and military operations that are difficult to manage illegally. that is all the time i have. let's turn it over to rob. [applause] >> thank you, professor hellman. let me go from the sublime to the practical, if i may. it reminds me of a story, soon after we indicted zacarias moussaoui. we were visited by the chief prosecutor from the newly- minted tribunals that were to be held at guantanamo bay. we sat down in our office in alexandria and said, what can we do for you? he said, why not give me all of your evidence. we said, why? he said, because, within a

couple of weeks, you will not have moussaoui. we are going to move him into the military system and we will have him and others tried, sentenced, and executed before you ever get this thing off the ground in a civilian court system. about three years later, a different chief prosecutor came to visit us in alexandria. he was a marine corps lieutenant colonel. it turns out the marines were really good at landing -- at launching amphibious landings, but not good at administering the judicial system. can you help us with this? we lived through the moussaoui case for about four and a half years with the notion that anytime a learned decision would be handed down from the bench. we are giving up on this guy and he's going to gitmo. the joke among us was that you could hear the sound of the

black hawk helicopter coming to the alexandria detention center to pick him up. but that did not happen. i have a couple of additional parts to make. number one, the key to doing this in the civilian system is the classified seville and procedures act. some believe there is a well settled application that allows these trials to occur in the civilian trial system geared basically, you have to work out, pre-truck, what kind of classified security information -- pre-trial, what kind of classified security information can be exposed. you get clear defense counsel like mcmann here, a terrorism defendant who has no clearance, and it is unlike a typical

lesbian irish case who will not get access to -- a like a typical espionage case who will not get access to resources. in the moussaoui case, it came to be applied in permitting substitute testimony for held enemy combatants that were held by the enemy abroad. .

back. they're charged with material support for terrorism. the way that we typically prove

those is to get a witness who said i saw ed mcmahon in the training camp. that's material support for terrorism. that essentially makes our case worse. but sometimes they are held by foreign governments and they're not going to let that flipped al-qaeda person come to, for instance, sacramento and testify. what we did under the moussaoui case is, for example, we took the videotape deposition, a live security link from a prison in singapore of a guy named faez bufana. moussaoui confronted him via a live encrypted two-way video link and we played that for the jury in the death penalty system. in my view that type of

evidence is necessary if we're going to try a run of the militarism cases in the article three courts. i might want to address jack's point whether these are genuine trials. my view having lived through the moussaoui case is that it was worth it. it was worth it on number of fronts. it was worth it because the system worked. even moussaoui admitted that the system worked. we got a look at him. he spoke publically. we got a view how he rebeled in the mizry and horror that he created in america -- helped create. we got a view what motivated this person and what we're against. and also provided a venue for some victims to testify. above all, we showed that we could do it. and that's my final point. thank you very much. [applause]

>> thank you and i've never been to the training camp in pakistan since this is being televised. i don't want anyone leaving that. rob and i worked on this day-to-day. one thing that's lost in the academic debate about moussaoui's case and the 9/11 case is that this is really justice. we had to almost live with some of these people. more if you add the embassy bombing and the cole bombing as well. there's people just yearning for justice out there. i know rob, out of the government, still hears as a lot of these people. even as a defense lawyer you have to remember that i think at all times if you're going to

be effective. for me the lesson from the moussaoui trial, is that the government has to decide whether it really wants to have a trial or not. the idea of having a trial where the president says i guarantee a death sentence before it starts and the attorney general says, we're not going to lose. that's not a trial in the united states. as a defense lawyer in federal court you don't get a lot of wins. you get used to losing. but you don't want to be told by the president that you're going to lose. the moussaoui case that was a great trial in the sense of public disclosure. family members in the learn lurning what really happened with the c.i.a. and other places but it still wasn't a fair trial because of what the c.i.a. did. just this morning the c.i.a.

announced that there's three more tape os of the interrogation of benanosiam. nine years later telling them that there were none. now what kind a trial is that? where we have this kind of evidence nine years later coming out? but when the government started to capture the navep terrorist we read about it -- the 9/ terrorist, we read about it in "the washington post." the judge found that the evidence was necessary for a fair trial. she ordered us to take depositions to get this evidence to the jury. the fourth circuit reversed after judge brinkman sentenced with the death penalty. i've never accused rob of being

involved in this. but the fourth circuit issued an opinion -- of course we have the power of these witnesses being interrogated. they issued an opinion that we had to tell the jury that although you do not have the witness' demeanor. you must approach under the understanding that they were made designed to create elusive testimony from the witness. we didn't know how that was how they were being interrogated. but last year there was a man named moumed katani. and he can't even be prosecuted because of the way he was interrogated. according to the judge in that case, the circumstances designed to elise it truthful statements from him is 160 dwace continual contact only with interrogators. 48 or 50 days with 20-hour

interrogations standing naked in front of a female agent with standing result -- insults. with a leash led around the room and forced to perform dog tricks. now that's childs play compared to what happened from what's publically reported to ca leek sheik mohammed. because the c.i.a. decides not to disclose this we had a very serious trial. if we're going to have these trials whether they're in commissions or federal court, there's to be a decision made that full disclosure of what's happened. i think everyone on this panel agrees that you cannot have a

death penalty trial con sys -- consistent that cannot be put forth. the guantanamo trial was the worse form of law that we've come up with. they just have no respect around the world for one thing. these are very important trials for the truth to come out for people all over the world to see it. a lot of it has to do with the infrastructure. in the 9/11 trial, i can't remember, judge, i think you called 1,100. they called 25 in guantanamo to try to seat a jury in that case. i don't think they have a single death qualified lawyer. if there is one, i don't know who it is. the new fix from the obama administration is the presence of death penalty lawyers in the

guantanamo trials. the same statute prohibits payment of nonjag lawyers. congress just passed a bill to investigate guantanamo for endangering maximum security. i don't know who's going to participate in this trial. if those are the circumstances that go forward. the courtroom itself if you want a public trial is going to seal off -- the people in the audience are behind a piece of glass. they can't hear the proceedings. it's on 45-second delay. someone from the c.i.a. sits in the courtroom and if someone says something classified, they hit a switch. and everyone goes what happened? it's really ridiculous of having a public trial at all. ca leek sheik mohammed mentioned a conversation

between richard nixon and pat buchanan. all of us were shocked. it turned out that the agent had sat on the button is what it was. they don't have any translators that could really do real-time translation. they don't all speak the same dialect. you have ca leek sheik mohammed correcting the interpreters. and it's just a farce in term of how judge brinkman and any of you judges would run a trial. you wouldn't start the the day in court without a translator. he wouldn't leave it up to chance. i wanted to say one chance that rob and i had to come all the way to hawaii to speak to the judge once in our lives. [applause]

>> well, i'm here to give you the judges' perspective on trying these types of cases in article three courts. and to sum it up in a nutshell, i think we absolutely can do it. we can do it with the existing procedural tools perhaps having to be a little creative in how we use them. but i think the moussaoui case is a great example of how the system does, in fact, work. i don't know if you've heard this joke or not but it's an accurate one. do you know the difference between a terrorist and an article three judge? you can negotiate with a terrorist. that's an extremely -- [applause] >> i say that because those judges -- those of you colleagues who get cases like this need to remember that. there's an incredible amount of

control that we have as article three judges an often you have to use it in these cases. i want to just quickly pick off the key structural element os of the moussaoui case which i think would represent the ultimate perfect case. perfect being complete as in the perfect storm, those of who have who have read the book or seen the movie, in that book two massive storms came together and formed one perfect storm in the case of moussaoui and k.s.m., if he would to ever be prosecuted you would have a perfect case. the moussaoui case involved aspects for anybody who's been a trial judge or trial lawyer you know are going to greatly incress the complexity of that case. you vu a pro se defendant who doesn't trust anybody. in the moussaoui case, and he

was allowed to go pro se. ultimately his status was withdrawn. it was not uncome mo mon for him to file a pro se pleading in which the prosecutors would agree and stand by defense council would write the opposition. how many times have you seen the prosecution aligned with the defendant and defense council being the opponent? but those things happened in that case in part because moussaoui distrusted the system that he was rinsed that his defense lawyers were there to sentence him to death. any judge that has tried a death case know they're extremely complicated. they have different rules about the number of jurors and

pre-emptories. it's a much more difficult case. in addition, there's frequently and there was in the moussaoui case classified informs. now the real write strange thing that happened in moussaoui that what was classified was not the traditional issue that comes up in national security cases. sepa which is a classfied information procedures act was modeled on a concept of espionage cases. someone had a clearance. and was leaking or giving out government secrets, documents that's been the traditional model. >> in the moussaoui case, the classified information became human beings, that's when k.s.m. and others were arrested and as ed said we all knew about it from the front pages of "the washington post." at that time the united states government was not officially acknowledging that they had

these people in their custody. we would have moussaoui say, i want to hear from k.s.m. he will tell you what my role or nonrole was in september 11th and this is a very important issue in a capital case. because the role of the defendant is critical to whether or not he is death eligible. so moussaoui knew the names of these people. he had read they had been arrested. he wanted access to it. the government wouldn't let us use their name and they'd would black out the name. the defendant requested access to -- and you would see a black, two inches in the pleading because that was so classified. it became very strange how you balanced that kind of classification. and what i did in that case is i took the sepa statute and try to carve out a way and talk about individual questions down the road. any time you have classified information in a case, it

greatly increases its complexity. trial judges all over the country have dealt with sepa matters and people who go pro se. there will be incredible concerns. it wasn't just the external security, keep the building safe from attack, also keep the building safe from victims who might have very strong views of the case and want to attack mr. moussaoui and otherwise want to interrupt the proceedings. i talked about maintain the decorm. there were commentators who called it a circus because moussaoui would do extraordinary things in the courtroom. but i felt to keep the decorum absolutely press teen. in most cases i think we were

successful. there were thousands of victims which create a whole different dynamic. they changeed venue this that case. compared to the september 11, it was a minuscule amount of them. they wanted them to have access to the trial proceedings. trials cannot be vied in the federal system. there was a law that required that there be closed-circuit video available to the victims. that added a whole visual level of complexity. and i think if k.s.m. was prosecuted there would be a similar requirement. lastly but not least there was

extraordinary, national and international attention in the case. our legal system was significantly on flile that case. moussaoui was a french citizen. so the french press was particularly interested. but because of just the nature of the case, we had people everyone from a jezeera on up who wanted to cover it. and it was very important in that kind of a case to make sure that things were done appropriately. so those were the challenges that we had in this moussaoui case. the ultimate conclusion of the moussaoui case was that the jury system in all of its brilliance did not agree unanimously on the death penalty. one jury, 12 angry men those of who saw the movie, one juror held out. he was not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that moussaoui was eligible for the death penalty in part because he felt

that he had not heard all of the relevant information. and because of that juror moussaoui was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parol. i think it's interesting to get the final word on the moussaoui trial from moussaoui himself because it's quite extraordinary. he had pled guilty. so what was tried with tuzz penalty. it was a capital case. there are multiple layer offs the trial. but four or five days after the verdict came in he filed a motion to withdraw a guilty plea and atatched an affidavit to it. he said i was extremely surprised when they didn't sentence me to death. i thowling i had been sentenced to death on the emotions and earnings for the deaths of

september 11th, but after reading how the jurors set aside their emotions and disgust for me and focused on the law and evidence that was presented during the trial, i came to understand that the jury process was more complex than i assumed. because i now see that it is possible that i can receive a fair trial even with americans as jurors and that i have the opportunity to prove that i did not have any knowledge of and was not at member of the plot to hijack planes and crash them into buildings on september 11, 2001. i wish to withdraw any guilty plea and ask the court for a new trial to prove my innocence of the september 11 plot. and it was signed slave of allah a.k.a. sa car ass moussaoui alsahara. and that was his view of the trial.

-- zacarias moussaoui al sahara. and that was his view of the trial. [applause] >> do any of you want to comment before i ask any questions? >> no? let me tell you about the alter native of civilian trials. jill mentioned how difficult to operate on this system. it's because they've been raised in a cult chur and their completely absorbed in the coid of military justice. it would be useful to know why we need an alternate system than the ucmj. you've been very critical of the commissions. whether you think that the ucmj

could be used? >> if there was a need to make any particular changes in it, congress could amend the statute to address particular crimes if that were necessary. but i don't think it is. to me the reason i think the commissions have been such a hardship for judge advocates not only the leaders not consulted in the initial versions of military commissions but the tried and true, the common law developed over law statutorily driven military justice system in effect since it was adopted by congress in 1950 and went into effect in 1951 in the midst of a war in korea. all that time we had a military system that was chucked as a possibly solution on how to try these persons and judge

advocates are familiar with it. and it is very heavily civilianized. it has been a major trend in the post world war ii period not only with the ucmj but with reform in military law since then. our judge advocate score is the most selective it's ever been right now. the army -- the navy -- the army had the biggest core. the navy is the small egs. the navy had the applications in the last few years. they've had 100% of increase in the number of people. it is a sign of person's interested in public service and also a sign of the opportunitys that military opportunity offers. the ucmj could have been used. the judges on the court of appeals, appointed to 15 years

term. our experience in many of the same issues that attend to these trials. they're trying war crime trials right now. they are hearing appeals and not with standing -- it has been a real difficult if the military jag court to maintain expertise. there are some reserved judge advocate who are certified. but i don't think ha the active duty jag have certified torns yet. but i've had several of the -- of the military folks call me and consult about how i tried moussaoui. and i was shocked at some of the things that we had adds article three judges that we had but they don't. for example if you have an unruly defend. moussaoui would want to yell and speak inappropriately.

and my concern by controlling him in the courtroom. we used the stung belt. you have to have a way of controlling a defendant that's going to be uncontrollable. it works beautifully. it's a belt under the clothing so it can't be seen. the person is shown a little vool by the marshalls about what happens if the buzzer is pressed. quite frankly you can lose control of your bodily functions. most of the terrorists and serious criminals i've dealt with do have a certain sense of dignity. the last thing you want is to be on the ground moving around and perhaps soiling yourself.

they were amazed that we could do there. there were almost no restraints at all on these people. is that right? >> in the 9/11 case there was no restraints whatsoever, physical restraints on any of the defendants at any time. that said, there's also about 15 armed soldiers standing on the wall as well. but -- when i first got there, i was really shocked. they didn't even give a security briefing. the marshalls were great in protecting us. they would tell us, watch for this. don't give him a pen. like this kind of a pen. he could kill you if they wanted to. they had special pens. when we got to guantanamo there were no briefings, not a single one if something happened in the courtroom. i don't think there is concern about it down there. >> and the other thing, that

system cannot take the guilty employee that exposes someone to the death personality. now that's critical in these cases because k.s.m., as i understand it, has tried to plead guilty several times but he wants to be guaranteed a death penalty if he wanted to plead guilty to a capital kiss that plea could be existed. he would get a standard rule 11 colloquy. military folks, they're hands are tied in that respect. there are some real structure differences between the two. >> i do believe -- what you're pointing to is high profile criminal trials and the federal criminal bench has much more experience than american military justice. that does go only to a small purm of persons who we might try before the commissions. most of the persons that we're facing -- all the -- of them

involve cooks and drivers. they don't involve the high profile criminal defendants. >> the other irony is i think the ordinary public impression is that military justice would somehow be harsher. i think the article three sequence is tougher. i'm thinking of hamdon. who got a sentence with basically time served. had he been in the eastern division of virginia and convicted of those same offenses, i suspect he could be doing 20 to life. the sentence would have been completely different. it's ironic when you look at the outcome of the few cases that have been through the military system and compare them to the outcomes in our court. i have many, many defendant who are serving many sentences in cases that didn't involve actual violence other than they

were shooting r.p.g.s or other dangerous weapons over in pakistan. it's interesting when you think about it. i think the perception of the two systems have become warped. no terrorism defendant in the modern times ever got a death sentence either. the embassy bombing there's not been that when he's fighting against the tide. >> someone acquited a trial a civilian or military trial could still be detain on a military rationale. there are supreme court precedents that say there's no due process for detaining someone after acquital. if there's an independent bases for danger or something like

that. i don't believe in any of those cases the executive branch announced that under no circumstances would the defendant be release. that's going to be a question for courts. i just wonder what you think about the impact on our trial of that position of the executive branch? rob? >> when i was asking about the legitimate massy of the trial. -- legit massy of the trial, i wasn't talking about that. i was talking about the background. >> i took it as that. i guess another question is what happens to the jury write pool if that's the answer? >> i think i would do the same

thing if i had the case i would do the same thing i did for the moussaoui case. you have to honestly talk to the jury. i'm a great believer in the american jury system. i think our jurors really do take their jobs seriously. i think it's important for judges to explain to the jurors exactly what their job. is i always tell jurors that they're going to become judges. and i don't have a robe that i can give them to wear while their sitting in my courtroom. but they should think of themselves as judges because their job is to be the judge of the case. you want a man or a woman who's coming into that courtroom with an open mind who absolutely has no predisposition one way or the other on the issue and who has the time to give to the case to think about it carefully, not to rush to judgment. and i give them a spiel like that. i think that jurors when they

truly understand the significance of what they're going to do is important. and if i had that case, i might even said, everyone expect ascertain outcome in this case, regardless of what you've seen in the media, you are the judges and you're going to decide this case. can you do that? and jurors, americans rise to that kind a challenge. i think it's important the trial judge has to set that tirm. i always go backing to the article three judges. we really are very powerfulful we can't be afraid to use that power. you really have to be authoritarian in that croor. most jurors are coming into your courtroom having watched things on television or in the movies that is still not the real thing. it's important to take them step by step in the process, especially in important cases. the other thing i tell jurors

is i refer to hamlet. even in a capital case there may be moment when something happened that it's funny. and it happened to the moussaoui case. with the human enterprise trial. remember in hamlet, there is comic relief. it doesn't mean the whole play isn't a tragedy. if this means this is a human enterprise where people laugh. you try to set the tone for the jurors. they really understand what we in the courtroom are going to be hearing together. and so i think even if the president thinks the outcome is a done deal, it isn't if we set the right tone in the courtroom. >> i would say if you were appointed defense lawyer in the case you would do everything you can to get that in front of the jury buzz of the fruche dangerousness of the defendant. rob and i were talking about. you could never tell the jury he was going get out sun some

day. one day you'll see him walking down the street and you'll say hi. >> death changes everything. a death penalty case is different because for every sergeant that you can think he's guilty. you can turn that around on whether the death personality would be arrive. we would tell the jury that the attorney general doesn't care what you think. nobody care what is you think. and it doesn't really matter what you co because he's going be held anyone. what why bother to go through this expensive time if they're just going to hold them anyway. and thern rob would object. i think we go back talking about the military interference, the judicial process. if you have some kind of a statement out there to that effect. somebody's going figure out at way to use it in the trial if you can. there's no rules of evidence if you can in the federal death

penalty trial. condoleeza rice testified. you can put on anything you want. i don't know how would you keep it out. >> let me ask this and then i think we'll turn it over for questions for the audience. so one use is that judge brinkeman taked about the rules of terrorism cases because thea such different issues. the padilla case in miami is relied on that the commission there on a very, very broad conception of conspiracy. so some people think that the compare topity to civilian trials will lead to the con trappings of civilian rights. i think that this is a reason for separating off the

terrorism cases from nonterrorism cases. so i'm wondering judge brinkman what you think of that argument whether it's a valid concern and how much of a concern it is. >> well, i think that's one of the few really legitimate argumentings. if we tamper with -- legitimate arguments. the other problem on the flip side of that is if we start creating special ajduicatory systems for crimes i worry about the expansion. we use the word "war." narco-terrorism is a big word right now. significant organized criminal activity in mexico and latin america. much of it beginning to leak into our border states. so why would you not start

thinking about maybe we should put narco-terrorisms into this terrorism system. probably the biggest threat we have is from cyber terrorism. people abroad who could literally shut down our banking system or our airplanes or whatever. a very, very potential serious problem. are we going to create a special system of justice for those types of cases in it's a very slippery slope. i think argue three courts have worked in the past and i think they can continue to work. we have to be careful. we to maybe sure in addressing these cases in article three coirts we don't go -- cours we don't go too far. that would be my approach on that question. >> anyone?

why don't we take some questions from the audience? i've been asked by the judge and the committee to urge you that you can questions and not just speeches please and that you try to keep them brief because we do have an extraordinary panel with extraordinary knowledge. try to keep them brief so we can get as many questions as possible. yes, sir? >> [inaudible] >> is there a microphone? >> what do you think of the system that you didn't talk about instead of indefinite detention without any kind of trial? >> i have views on that but does anyone in the panel want to speak to that? >> i could say if you were appointed to represent somebody in the death penalty trial and

rob said i'm going to hold him and not try to execute him, i would say thank you. and that would be the owned of the case. and that would be your ethical obligation as a lawyer. that's an ethical answer to your question instead of a legal one. that would be -- i think the view of most -- most death eligible defense lawyers would be that's fine. just for this guy though. i don't agree for anybody else. there may be a different legal answer to it than that. >> there's no tchute the president has the authority, in my opinion, to detain members of the enemy during wartime. that was a power that was affirmed at hope. many lower courts have now held that the authorization to use military force triggers the

president's power toe detain until the owned of the conflict. the problem -- that right there should be controversial. this it's problems are are one that it's literally indefinite. and two that there's a highn'ted possible of mistake. i mean you combine those two principles, that means there's a heightened possible of putting someone away for that mistake. that that reason it remains. but we have to develop much different, much more heightened procedures to ensure, to insure it. we have insisted on higher and higher showings by the government to approve that the person actually is an enemy

come pat tant. whether we've reached that level, we haven't formed an opinion on that. other questions? >> hi, i'm an torn from oregon. my question is this, the justice department has been veryer fisket. i was thinking that these death eligible cases are wrong. we've been very effective -- we've incarcerated some 400 people since september 1, developed sources and developed plots. my question is this -- if you're going to create this alter native system how do you sort who goes in a way that it doesn't under cut the effectiveness. and it cast down on the fact of -- or the credibility of either

sister. i guess it's mainly for jack and -- >> anyone want to address that? i'll address that briefly. i'm a believer in the used tool in your toolbox approach. but i think you're right that you cannot -- if you go too far one way or the other, too much toward our commission, you under cut the other one. the power very much was toward that's the way we're going treat all terrorists. i think i share the idea that it still belongs. we have one or two systems that can deal with the k.s.m.'s of the world.

i don't think the government has the answer to that yet. you have some of the most serious terrorists getting much more processed and getting much more processed before they're incaption -- incapacitated. i think it does threat on the have the appearance of unfairness. but the government has the legitimate tools. it has the hard task to try to incapacitate the terrorist. there were two arguments that argue that. >> i'll just add briefly, to me this is a part of what the judge was pointing out when she mentioned the different categories of terrorists and alleged that might be tried at

different systems. the system shows us how incredibly difficult. the unjus outcomes that can result. i think in our past jack mentioned that we steam have maybe a lack of principles or just a system of add hock decision about whether we'll try different persons right now. i think it has been relatively as hot. they have been political leaders faced with disciplinary challenges within ok paid areas. i think that military commissions don't serve their ends do not do that. i think one of the things we see is that they've been used as a substitute for force as much as they been used as a

truth seeking retributive justice sort of measure. the commissions are a different thing as well as being a potential substitute. i don't think anyone is saying it's an appealing, special substitute. >> other questions? >> yes, sir. could i ask you to -- we have microphones, if you want top ask a question, try to approach the microphone, please. >> real quick question, why don't we take a way the death penalty due to the mix of choices? >> very good question. >> ke pending in specific cases in the -- depending on specific cases. the defendants would have pled guilty, been sentenced to life and the issues of how nay were interrogate, where they were. everything would be completely out the window. the death penalty -- not all these cases are death penalty

cases in the moussaoui case. he's the already said it's extraordinary difficult to deal with. but death is different. and the rules that apply to it are completely different. they were saying before the military justice system and, especially the commission system doesn't have the experience -- they don't have the eighth feament juris prudence. i think these cases could be sitting there for years before they go all the way to the supreme court. in terms of national security the decision to try to seek the death peblet is extraordinary. but every death peblet case, every federal case is very, very different from one where there's no death on the tablet. so.

>> judge, do you have anything to add to that? >> i think he said the same thing. >> other questions? >> could i ask you to come to the microphone? thank you. >> would it be any value -- does anyone think of the proposal to having a panel of argue three judges like we have with the fisa court that would be designated, judges might have special training in these type of cases that might be designated in different parts of the country to try them. >> well, the reality of it is that that's happening in the sense that these terrorism cases are being filed in almost every district. when walker len and muemow saw by came boo the certain division of the system they were brought. it looked for a while as to virginia was going to be one of

those special terrorism courts. i've been very pleased to visit spread around. richard reid was in boston. jose padilla was tried in miami. but the reality of it now is that there's a realy bad exerningses. the federal judicial system has now phenomenal materials available to any district three judge. -- i done think you need a specialized bench. i think any competent article three judge can handle these cases. the materials are out there. and as i said the materials is out there now. and i again think that -- we shouldn't tamper with something that's not broken. it's not broken. it's working just fine.

if you start creating special core group -- i don't think i fit. so i would leave it as it is. >> other thoughts? other questions? >> i didn't mean chill people when i said you have to use short speeches. >> the judge raced a question about the cyber terrorism. you wrote a niese "the new yorker." really trusting how bad the aspects. how did they apply in those sorts of case? >> about cyber terrorism. i don't think so -- i don't think that enter sects with the cyber terrorism issues. it's about finding the dfts

because it's very hard to know who is responsible for some kind of cyber attack and it's also very hard, they're usually very short to get them toe this country. so i don't think that the trial issue is the type of trial issues that we were talking at the front or something. i do think we're going to have issues with the government being involved or the domestic homeland in the telewhune cases and computer network. how far we're going to allow them to the be in the network consistent be the the fourth amendment and the number of statutes. that will be a big issue. other questions? i've got another one if no one else does. you have a question?

no, you don't. sorry. [laughter] >> sir? sir? yes? >> i'm standing in the 1980's -- looking at other ajudd catory body -- ajudicatory body. in the 1980's they built a alien removal court. do we get any lessons from that as sort of the failure of that body, why it hand been used? >> rob, do you know about that in >> i don't know either. i would draw the same line that judge brinkeman said. >> your thoughts? >> i don't know i don't know anything about it. in connection with the christmas day bomb erring, the

government gave him i think within a day or two read him his miranda rights. and that caused a political storm. and the government might be looking at the quarrels case. does anyone have a comment or thought about that. generally the importance of miranda warning. is miranda a hurdle to terrorism trials is the question? >> well, it depence on the case. but the case in detroit, it seems be again more kind of political meddling in the system. because that case they couldn't possibly need a connection to win that case. they've got people on the plane, saw that. they've got people that beat

him up and took the bomb away from him. they have pictures of him legaling with d bomb. what he said about that. i can't imagine remotely what it would have to in order to win the case. i don't know the answers to this question. it steemed be a big deal. i'm wondering in theory is this a big deal for civilian courts or is it more of a plth cal issue. it hasn't chilled statements for suspected terrorism. i think more years most terrorism investigation and progs cushion work was done by new york. they made a very, very good system. i think we continued that in alexandria. i see it as a political issue. do you agree with that?

>> yes, sir. >> what happens with folks that are captured or arrested who do flip or do corporate? does -- cooperate? >> does it go before a trade commission, another is people who are cooperating with their interrogators, what happens to them? >> it depends on the individual case. i had a case probably in three or 2004. a pakistani-born naturalized citizen is a truck driver from ohio who had been working on a case by case location for a

possible second attack. he looked under a bridge in baltimore. the f.b.i. called it in to a hotel -- i don't think he was ever in hame. he was kept in hotels and eventually brought him in. they debriefed him for days and days and days. he came into my court and he pled to a plea that exposed him tom 20 years. it was not a binding rule. but it was as 20-year exposure. what was interesting in that case an we've had some references to the political process anded what is so difficult in a judges' standpoint is that the war on terror is a political issue. and a lot of times the administration has to look at

that. part of the agreement was that it would billion kept sealed. he was concerned that fit got out that he was corporating with u.s. officials that his family might be injured. so we took the plea on a seal late friday afternoon. and i i got at call from him. judge you're not going to like this. but it's in the front page of "the washington post." that had been someone from the administration who had leaked it. he tried to result his guilty plea. it totally turned him gonzales the government. that's just one example. but there are tons examples that involved nearly 100 northern virginia who is had

gotten training in pakistan. several of those individuals cooperated with the government. they all pled guilty tor something. between their corporation and the lesser charges to which they pled, their seasonses ranged from a couple of years to maybe 10. where as the people who were convicted got more serious sentences. so it's not at all uncommon as in any other criminal activity. you can deal with a m.s. 13 gang. to get their cooperation and make the case. in my experience terrorism cases are no different. there's a wonderful example from the southern district of new york. there was one guy who testified

and put into the witness security program. >> [inaudible] >> the question is if those who cooperate, please guilty do they go into the general population? it defense. they will often have a special administrative issued placed by the marshall and that. i also have several who are not. i think it depends on the individual person. >> i just want to make a quick comment on the difference in the