there is a lot of sources you can go to. you can go to thomas.gov and find out every vote i cast in committee and on the floor. in the to thomas -- you can go to thomas.gov and find that every bill i have offered. you can go to my website and read every press release i have put out. thomas.gov is a non-partisan fact source where you can find out what is going on in the government, especially about your elected representatives. .

that is what service is about. it is about sacrifice. it is not about elevating the individual. that is the measuring stick bayous. -- measuring stick i use.

the second is, do they agree to term limits? i think the number one problem we have is the desire to be there forever, and that tells me it is about them and not us. term limits is a wonderful measuring stick to judge. offer a piece of paper that says, i pledge, and make them sign it. if they do sign it, they have at least one piece of paper in the future. you're not going to get term limits passed by the u.s. congress. it is not fair to generalize it, but there are exceptions.

democrat and republican, so this is not partisan statements, but the fact is, too often it is about what is best for the next election and not the next generation. we are hurting america. >> newt gingrich would not make a good nominee for president because he could not make a commitment. are there other examples? >> newt gingrich's one of the smartest man i have ever met. i have served under him four -- four years in the house.

i think you can make judgments about the character based on what they're alive says. -- what the alive says. >> -- the life says. when i went into washington in 1995, the goal was to down size the cost and the effects of congress, and the first thing we got into was expanding the communities they you could hunt over bill clinton rather than doing oversight. the answer to him was political. i want a leader who wants the best for americans in the long term and is willing to sacrifice themselves and the criticism that comes with that by doing the best thing at every turn, not the smartest political thing, not to make the political

opponents look worse, but somebody who will make the country work better for us all in the long term. [applause] >> [inaudible] >> if you had a head trauma and you come to the states, and you have not been capable of managing your own affairs, the administration has the right without a hearing to take away your second amendment rights, so you may not be able to manage your money, but you could hunt squirrels on the weekend.

that is bureaucrats that did that, and i have been trying to get that reverse. we are going to give that to reverse. [applause] all of the bill of rights are hours and now, not just some of them, and those the server more important to them than any of us, because they have paid blood, sweat, and tears to make sure they are there. the second is reciprocity. we got 57 votes. we got 60 in the next senate, and i think you will see that. it is about freedom and liberty. i really work closely with gun

owners of america. i think they do a wonderful job of protecting the second amendment, and i have never seen them sellout the first amendment to protect the second amendment. >> wouldn't it be better if people who hired illegal immigrants were penalized? >> that is starting to happen. >> i would think if they did not get the job, they would not save. >> the other question is, how many of you are related to an immigrant? anybody that does not raise their hand has to be native american. what is the genius of americans?

we are not racial. we are not ethnic. nowhere else in the world is there anything like this. there is nothing wrong with everybody in the world who sees our opportunity wanted to come here. what is wrong is how we handle it. what we need to do is figure of the best legal immigration policy as well, and part of that is a social safety net that sometimes is too lucrative to cause people to participate in the private economy. we ought to do the oversight and study it and say we want to help people who want our help, but we do not want to create dependence. there is a great book. you ought to get this book and read it. it is called "the tragedy of

american compassion." it gives the history of how we as americans help take care of those who needed our help. you know when we got in trouble is when we started transferring that. that is when we got of abuse. i am not proposing we eliminate our programs, but we need to fine tune and them -- fine tune them rather than politically correct because you might offend somebody. >> would you speculate on the effect of the tea party? >> speculation would be all it

is. he is asking me to speculate on the long term. i think it is healthy that many more people are involved in our political process. the five more people are aware, that is what our country is filled in -- build on. i read this quote, but my staff cannot find it, so i will per 53 to paraphrase it. reagan said, freedom is a precious thing. it must be fought for and offended by each generation. he was talking to me and you.

they are making an attempt to correct what is happening. it is healthy because we have raised the awareness. we have had town halls with over 1250 people. that is wonderful, because it says, we want to express a view point. we have to be participants in our freedom or lose it, so you cannot sit back in a longer, and if you love your grandchildren, you will change what is going on, because you will have sold

them out in terms of your future. we have hobbled them with debt they will find almost impossible to raise a family, all in all home, and get an education. -- own a home, and get an education. we reverse it by holding congress accountable to do oversight they should have been doing but have not been doing and raise the awareness so you find out more information. you have had yours. >> what about our tax cuts that are set to expire? do you think they will be ended? what about this set up as high as 55%. if you have $1 million, you do not have to on too much property to be a millionaire.

>> his question is about the tax cut and the estate tax. this is the first time in three weeks i have heard somebody say it correctly. our tax cuts. the press has labeled them the bush tax cuts. he did not get your tax cuts. you got it. the only reason they are expiring is because they would not allow it in the first time when they pass it. when i studied of oklahoma state university, i do not care which philosophy, the worst time is when we are at the middle of a recession. what is happening is there is not a clear signal that says it

is ok to invest. you can make a measure of risk assessment with which you can invest your money in. if we were smart, we would have clarified, and we would have extended all of those tax cuts until we had a time to reassess where we are economically. a lot of them are guys who bought 240 acres. it was bought with after-tax money, not a pre-tax money. to me it seems unfair, which

goes back. we ought to save the tax system. you cannot figure out how to accurately pay your taxes, and there is not an irs office that will give you the same answer, and when they cannot figure it out and you cannot figure it out, i think it is time to change. i am looking at you. >> you gave us a list of your marks -- earmarks. is there anything that can be done to stop them from putting those on the bills? >> there is lots that can be done. there is nothing wrong with an elected member of congress wanting to benefit oklahoma in

the best way. there is something wrong when we want to benefit oklahoma at the expense of a higher priority in the country. transparency is a disinfectant that would kill most of the problems with the earmarks. i have never hear mark, and i did not want to have a perceived conflict of interest. they are sweetheart deals. we actually have an agreement. if an earmark is authorized, it went through a process where a

committee of your peers said this is a priority. we agree, so we authorize this. what happens is most earmarks are not authorized. the final thing that is wrong with earmarks is if i have an earmark on the bill, and all of the simon the bill is -- all of a sudden the bill is stinker, what do i do? it comes with the currency of drug addiction, and i think we

can tell. i have sent earmark transparency bill that i will try to block. i will try to win that and find out every year mark that is granted. we can get there and solve the problem. [applause] >> i would like to thank you for handling the message of the supreme court justice kagan. i cannot believe the border issue. it seems like what we said is

partially resolved. i am content it would be 20% resolved, but i am still unsatisfied with all these people coming over from the border and congress's and ability to stop it -- inability to stop it. >> they could stop it. >> they do not have the will. if you were king, what would you do to stop them illegally entering? >> i would increase the border control. i would put border control where we needed. i would change that exit and entry system where if somebody breaks are a lot in terms of staying longer, we know where they are. as soon as they do not report,

they are automatically ejected. the new catch an illegal alien here illegally, you give them a limited time for -- when you catch an illegal alien here illegally, you give them a limited time for a hearing, and they are deported. if you talk on the border, some get deported and some do not. most get an arraignment date. guess what happens? first principle -- the country cannot survive if it cannot control its borders. 20% are people of non-hispanic origin. that should give you great concern. as do we need to do?

it is mechanical to fix the border. the reason it had not been fixed is it had not been a priority of either president. i imagine it will be a priority of the next president. all i have is the vote in the senate and rhetoric in the sun. -- the senate. if you tell me, if we are going to do something about the, i think you would see something done. you have to fix the core problem. did you do not have control over the border it does not matter what you do inside. it is like putting in water in the sink knowing that it is training to the floor.

if you fix the drain pipe the leak goes away. >> is there anything we can do as conservatives during election time? >> how many of you know someone outside of oklahoma? have you talked to them about your feelings of where our country is? the only thing they can do is laugh for get mad at you, but neither is painful. and the fact is everybody in this room has so much more influence than you think you have, among neighbors, co- workers, family, and

acquaintances. the question is, have you done the job to bring the fire we are under to their awareness? you can work on other campaigns. with the internet the way it is and phones the way they are, you can be of tremendous help with somebody you truly believe is going to fix the real problems we have, so we can to say we are frustrated. we are doing ok. most districts think they are ok. the problem is the actions in washington are different from the words at home. eagauntil you are informed of wt we do, you cannot trust us.

you will be worried. that is the obligation. i think you have a lot more power than you think you have. go use it. >> [inaudible] we have spent most of our lives trying to earn a living. you move yourself away from what is going on politically, but when you finally say, what are we in right now, then you have to hold a lot of different parties accountable for where we are trapped, and because this is like the border problem. that is like -- that is more

than bush and obama. there are so many things that have not been reconciled that are a big issue now, but they have been an issue for some time. it is like the building, everybody wants it, but i have not seen them go anywhere. and these people are going to pay for a common -- pay for it, and that is a problem. >> nobody ever said freedom was easy. >> we are looking at you guys to take care of things because we put you in the place to do it, but i appreciate your stand on the health care bill. you are a little guy trying to do the right thing, but

[inaudible] it is like will rogers, i never met a politician -- >> that i did not like? i hear your frustration. i have been beating it against the wall. you are about to get some help on what you would like to see in washington. why is that? our founders designed the system so more people will get involved, and we are really off till, physically, foreign policy, culturally region in -- off tilt, physically, foreign

policy, cultural elite. i think our grandkids are worth the frustration from having a free republic, and what we have to do -- remember what sam adams said. it does not take the majority to change things. it takes the committed few, and what we have been fighting -- it is tons of others. if there are 41 to fiscal conservatives in the senate, nothing bad is going to happen to you financially.

i have to get four more to help me, four more fiscal conservatives common and a lot of this is going to go away, because they will have to work with us, and i am willing to work with anybody, as long as we are looking for the right thing to do for america. i hear your frustration. now i am there. i did not have any gray hair when i went to washington common and i have earned every one of them. -- when i went to washington, and i earn every one of them. >> the mosque at ground zero. what can be done?

>> i did not know if i can answer that question. under our constitution, that is a protected right. i think a better question might be is if this is about reconciliation and coming together, why would they want to continue to do it, which would make me doubt the sincerity of the purpose of the mosque? why would you continue to do this if there is this reaction? it is the most insensitive thing i can think about somebody would do who claims they would want to reconcile. some of the fights my wife and i have, if i use that word with her, i would get hit with a

frying pan end. -- frying pan. legally they can do it. if they are smart and love our country, they will not. it is that simple. we have time for one more question. >> is there concern of an inflated the government? is there anything you can do in congress -- [inaudible] >> that is a great question. it concerns me on two levels. the first is we enforce the law, and while we are not enforcing the law, we are going after someone who is trying to. more importantly is what is the real clue that binds us

together? the real clue is we all know in this country versus any other, your shot at justice is better than anywhere else in the world, and that is because we have blind justice, and the rule of law is even. when we start talking about what the laws we will enforce, and you are putting a solvent on the globue. if you think about the chrysler bondholders, we scuttled their rights under contract law, totally in error. when you think about voting rights not being protected, you have scuttled if the law.

when you are thinking about financial institutions to make people have to pay less common -- to pay less, you know what happens? we start thinking we can do it, too, and the glue that binds us as a nation, the thing that sets us apart from almost any other nation is this consistent application of fairness and the law. when our leaders are doing that, it sends a tremendous sense of -- tremendous signal. that means they have really missed what america is about. you may have heard something you absolutely disagree with. you owe me an e-mail if you do, because that is how i hear from you. a lot of people will not stand

up. it may take me two or three months. i will read it, and you will get an answer. god bless you. [applause] host: caller[captioning performy national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> of last the united states joins every industrial nation in the world of such health care is our right and not of privilege. >> senators have been holding town hall meetings, and we have been covering them. watch them on line and see what your officials have said. it is free on your computer any time.

>> questions about plans by a church to burn copies of the koran were part of the briefing. this is 15 minutes. , we have a special representative >> now we have a special session, and you have heard warnings. americans and moslems around the globe? -- muslims around the globe? >> first of all, people need to understand that in this country, we have freedom of religion.

we also have freedom of expression. we believe that these are our fundamental principles of u.s. society. we are very conscience of -- conscious of what has been discussed as potential acts down in florida. we think that these dark provocative? . they are disrespectful. they are intolerant. we are conscious that a number of voices have come out and rejected what this pastor and this community have proposed. we would like to see more american stand up and say that this isnconsistent with our american values. these actions themselves are on american. -- un american.

the pastor says that he has contemplated his actions to combat radicalism. if these actions -- these actions will feed radicals. the genel petraeus mentioned over the weekend they could have at least as a powerful impact. at the same time, people around the world need to understand that america is not represented by one pastor or 50 followers. we are a nation of 300 milln people. the vast majoritof americans are standing up this weekend saying that these contemplated actions are inappropriate and should not happen. >> you said a great many people are rejecting this. are you rejecting this?

do you feel that this particular group in florida should not do this? >> they should not do this. they potentially put soldiers at risk before any american who is traveling, a diplomat, these actions, whatever their motivation, puts americans and american lives at risk. >> why is it un americans? we did you point out that there are two principles here. -- you point out that there are two principles here. >> its one thing to have a right to as to halt 1 exercises that right. this is a divisive, potential act of disrespect of one of the

world's great religions. while we support -- this is an action that has serious ramifications. it is a statement of intolerance that we believe it is contrary to our values and how we conduct ourselves day in and day out -- what could be more american than expressing one's freedom of speech.

they are in d to us as americans. -- they are inmates to us as americans. there are far better ways to commemorate 9/11. it represents -- d another act of religious radicalism. >> -- i guess the point -- again, i'm having a hard time -- >> excuse me. i'm having a hard time understanding, first of all, why the state department is getting involved in an issue that relates directly to a florida church. >> well, first of all, i was asked. >> well, ok. fair enough. but you made the -- but then you made the observation that what they planned to do is un- american. and i -- >> i think -- there's -- there are a balance -- >> are you prepared to say the same thing if someone wants to -- >> look, there are a balance of interests here.

but this, in our view, has the potential to inflame public opinion around the world in a way that will jeopardize americanives and american interests. it does not represenour core values as americans. we hope it does not happen. we hope that between now and saturday, there'll be a range of voices across america that make clear to this community that this is not the way for us to commemorate 9/11. in fact, it is consistent with the radicals and bigot -- with those bigots who attacked us on 9/11. >> right. but in fact, it is -- but wait -- >> hold on -- matt. matt, others want to ask questions, too. >> you're saying thathis may be incitement, b it is still a first amendmenissue. what really -- what recourse does the government have to, say, go to the city of gainesville and say maybe you should not issue a bonfire or whatever it is permit and all thesthings?

>> well, i mean, all we really have here is a bully pulpit. thcommunity is going to do what they do. i mean, the city government has declined to provide a permit for this event. the past appears to be unswayed by comments by general petraeus and others who have expressed concern about the action that is being contemplated. we want to see -- we support a vigorous debate in this country, even about issues that have great sensitivity. that said, there is a point where the debate yields to something more significant. we are hopeful, betweenow and saturday, that a range of voices, whether they're political figures, religious figures, others, can rise and convince this community that there are better ways of commemorating 9/11 than through this action.

>> but, p.j., one more thing. the secretary is going to speak out this evening. and second, freedom of expression or frdom of religion doesn't mean that you put the whole country on fire. >> well, and, goyal, there is another side to this. that's true. but if this community goes ahead and -- with this proposed event on saturday, we would hope that the rest of the world will judge us not by the actions of one pastor or 50 followers, but judge us by a tradition that goes back to our founding. we did not indict entire countries or an entire religion over the actions of 9/11, and we would hope that the rest of the world does not indict the united states for the actions of one fringe element in florida. >> p.j., can i ask just one on this? are u absolutely certain that

you want to stick with the word n-american" to describe this potential action, or do you want maybe walk back from that word? >> let me define what i meant by this. we have a tremendous tradition of religious tolerance in this country. we believe that the potential act of burning a qu'ran shows enormous disrespect to one of the world's great religions. it is contrary to our values. it's contrary to how civil society has emerged in this country. it is un-american in the sense that it does not represent the views of the vast majority of americans who are respectful of religions -- of the world's great religions. so while it may well be within someone's rights to take this action, we believe and hope that cooler heads will prevail and

other ways can be found to promote a dialogue among the world's greatest religions, which is what we have been trying to do here within this country and within this department since 9/11. >> p.j., i wanted to ask real quick -- you touched on it earlier in your remarks that general petraeus talked about the risk to members of the military abroad. can you say whether you have similar concerns about whether this poses any threats to americans tourists, for example? >> i think i encompassed that in my remarks. it does. to -- we've already seen small- scale demonstrations in vious countries overseas where anxiety levels are building because of the publicity surrounding this proposed action. it does put the lives of ordinary americans at risk, as well as diploms, as well as soldiers.

>> p.j., you don't believe that as far as -- becau many americans don't like, as far as building the mosque at ground zero, you think anything to do with that? >> goyal, i don't believe that the proposed events in florida are related -- excuse me -- to the debate -- >> bless you. >> -- in new york. >> p.j., both general petraeus and yourself, and presumably -- and, actually, all federal employees take an oath to uphold the constitution, to defend the constitution. and it seems to me that whether someone wants to burn a qu'ran or a flag or an american flag or the bible or the torah or any other symbol of something that we think or that the general society thinks is a good or a great thing -- like the flag is a symbol of the country which people routinely say is going to have the greatest example of representative democracy on

earth, and yet, when people burn american flags in this country or around the world, we don't hear this kind of thing saying that that's un-american. in fact, that's protected speech. so i guess what my question is that it seems to me that while it may be against the valu of the great majority of americans for them to do it, you and people in this government, as sworn defenders of the constitution, have the obligation to defend their right to do it, regardle of how abhorrent you find it. >> and, matt, you've made a good scholarly and legal argument there, which i accept. i mean, i think you have to distinguish between legal rights that we have -- and freedom of expression and the first amendment are, in fact, enshrined in our constitution as something that we support here and elsewherevery day. what we're concerned about is

there is the right and then there's how you exercise that right. this is a potential action that has serious implications for u.s. interests around the world. it potentially puts american lives at risk. and when you balance out a right and a responsibility, in our view, we hope that this pastor and this community will find a different way to commemorate 9/11 and expre a justified concern about religious radicalism anywhere in the world. but as americans, i think this is an act of disrespect to a religious symbol and a great religion that we think is uncharacteristic of our tradition and the religious tolerance th has been an essential part of our society and our history.

>> on the iftar dinner tonight, in the original notice that went out, secretary clinton was going to speak and deliver live remarks. i'm wondering why she's now delivering taped remarks. and also, why was the time of the event changed? >> that's two different events. >> right. no, it's two different events. >> oh, she -- >> she will be delivering some remarks tonight. >> will she discuss this issue in her remarks tonight? >> i expect she will. >> to talk about what? the mosque or about the florida -- >> she -- i expect that she -- between her remarks tonight and her remarks tomorrow at cfr, i would fully expect that she will comment on this issue. >> do you know on how this individual might be held accountable for anything that happens some 7,000 miles away? >> and now that is a matter for local authorities. but our concern here is that the implications that this has in terms of our relations with m election and it is the "campaign 2010" update.

>> today we are looking at vice- president joe biden's old senate seat in delaware, two republicans vying for the nomination on december 14. joining us this morning is ginger gibson with the news journal of wilmington, delaware to talk about this. talk about. these two about >> thanks for having me. we have two candidates. mike castle, a long term congressman, selected in thehe in. was governor and for that and lieutenant governor before that, an attorney from delaware who has held office for quite some time. highest elected republican in the state. if the challenger is christine o'donnell. she used to commentaries. turan for the first time in 2006 for the u.s. senate as a reagan candidates. pulled an astonishing 1% in

2006. brannigan in 2008 against zero biden and is running again this year. -- she ran in 2008 against joe biden. she's against spending. >> does she have the backing of the tea party? >> tevez. the tea party express promised her $250,000 in spending for the race. and the dimond state tea party. and other tea party groups are supporting her candidacy. >> what to the polls show? >> the last poll from august, we saw the addition of mike castle against christine o'donnell where she was leading. and then we saw another where she is leading.

>> the house and senate are increasing debt and of great we have never seen before. i don't know how we will be able to work through the economic problems we have if we continue to spend at these levels? we need to. say enough is to we need to give everybody an opportunity to create jobs and do better for their families in our country. i am mike castle and i approve this message. >> in 2008 the american conservative union ranks mike castle of the most liberal republicans, giving him a score of 28 taliban 100. delaware and republicans deserve more. that is what the tea party expressive supports common-sense conservative christine o'donnell. she strongly supports repealing obama's health care scheme. our country deserves better.

tea party expressed.org is responsible for the content of this at. >> ginger dixon, could the tea party express make christine o'donnell the next joe miller? >> i cannot answer that. there will answer that on september 14, the voters. they are putting their money where their opinions are, spending on,ad we just saw and backing her campaign -- spending on that ad we just saw. >> there are a couple websites. what has been the impact of the websites? >> the mike castle -- boot mike castle website is dedicated to showing his record and showing why they think hwe has not been

conservative enough for the positions they feel most important. there's another website that points to a mortgage lawsuit christine o'donnell was in during her last campaign, pointing to lean that was filed by the irs. it is not clear how much it event that those websites will have. -- how much impact. >> the primary is a tambor 14. the winner will face chris koons on the democratic side. >> you the new castle county executive karlie. he is an attorney from the northern part of the state. -- the primary is september 14. this will be his first chance to reach out to voters in the southern part of the county. >> is getting help from the

white house? >> angela biden has been fundraising for him. -- joe biden has been raising funds for him. >> thanks, ginger. >> thank you. that included questions on a plan by a florida church to burn copies of the koran.

several live events to tell you about tomorrow. secretary of state clinton is going to talk about u.s. leadership in the world at 9:30 a.m. eastern. the purpose foreign affairs secretary haig testifies about foreign relations since the formation of the coalition government, and president obama will announce plans for new business tax breaks. that is live from ohio a little after 2:00 p.m. eastern. now for a mock on amending the constitution, sponsored by the national conference of state raging now a forum -- now a forum on amending the constitution, sponsored by the

national conference of state. >> we would like to welcome all of you to louisville, kentucky, and to the presentation we have this morning concerning the united states constitution. i would like to ask the panelists to speak into the microphone. please identify yourself, and we will recognize folks for questions. this will be available on the website, witches www.nc -- which is www.ncl.org. please fill out your form outside. the topic of today is a timely

discussion. it seems some of the hard times there is a tendency in the united states to have greater action by the central government. in the 1930's, 1930's, and in 2010, 2009. the talk is about not seeing a pendulum swing to a more active national government. while the 1980's repositioning with ronald reagan's and others talked about a new federalism, the conversation seemed to switch to a european-style government, so this is a timely discussion, because there are a lot of people of various political persuasions fatter talking about the intrusion where the relationship with the

federal and state government. we have a distinguished panel, and i would like to introduce it collectively. i will make some short remarks before we start the presentation. he is a professor of legal theory at georgetown, where he teaches constitutional law. he graduated from northwestern university and harvard. he was a prosecutor at cook county state attorney's office. he has been the visiting professor in harvard. in 2008, he was awarded the

guggenheim award in constitutional studies. he lectures hunan -- and appears on and talk showers read j -- talk shows. we also have the co-founder of a vote on taxes. this proposes voters approve new taxes and debt at a federal level. he is the common of -- and chairman of an organization that collected 3 million signatures in the 1990's. they co-founded a solar heating company, and finally, we have

speaker hackney, who was elected in 2007. he was the house democratic leader for one term, house majority leader for one term, and speaker pro tem for two terms. he has been a member of the assembly. he began his legal and the north carolina supreme court and work as a deputy assistant attorney in orange county, and he has been a partner in a law firm in chapel hill. .

.

they are embedded in the culture. it to be useful art form of military justice. what is the perceived need? i am wondering if you think that the ucmj process so they good?

>> it certainly could be used illegally to try alleged terrorists. if there is a need to make any change, congress could amend the statute to address crimes. i do not think it is necessary. the reason i think they have been said jay who takes such a hardship -- the reason i think there been such a hardship is the tried and true have developed over time th some said was adapted in 1950 cannot of all that time we've had and build a military justice system that was talked as a possible solution to this is your power to try these people. judge advocates have experience

in that system and are familiar with it. it is heavily civilianized. it has been a major trend. there are subsequent reforms. our judge advocate score is the most elected it has ever been. the army had -- the army has the biggest corps of advocates. the navy is the smallest the navy had the biggest increase in applications over the last year, 100% increase. and is a testament to the job market out there for the young thirties. it is a sign of persons interested in public service proposed -- public-services. judges appointed to 15-year

terms are experienced in many of these same issues that attended these trials. they are trying trouser right now. they are hearing appeals right now. it has been a real difficulty for the military to maintain expertise. there are some of all reserved advocates who are certified but there have not that many cases that have gone forward. >> i've had several of the military folks call me and talked about how i tried moussaoui. i will shocked about some of the things available to is that the bill if you have and and really defendant, he would want to stand up and yell. my concern about controlling him

in the courtroom. we used a stun built on him. you have to a controlling one who will be uncontrollable a. it is a small -- the person shown a video about what happens if it is pressed. they get a shock. you can lose control of your bodily functions. you can be embarrassed. most of the series, i have dealt with the to of a certain sense of dignity. the last thing you want in a courtroom is to be on the ground moving around and selling yourself. once i had the bill put on, i've never had a problem with them. they were amazed we can do this. when he was in guantanamo, there

are no restraint at all on these people. is that right? >> in 9/11 case, there was no restraint whatsoever, physical restraint on any defendants. there is also about 15 armed soldiers standing on the wall as well. they do not even give a security briefing farook the marshals will they were protesting the defense lawyers and they talk moussaoui case. it is said to not give him a panic as the big kill you with it. he had special plans for him. when we got to guantanamo, there were no briefings at operative --- ata ll. i do not think there is concern about it down there. [laughter] >> unless i misunderstand the way that military law and structure, the system cannot

take a guilty plea that exposes someone to the death penalty. that is critical in these cases. ksm has tried to plead guilty several times. he was to be guaranteed the death penalty. if he came into my card and went to plead guilty, that plea could be accepted. then you would address the penalty. the military folks have their hands tied in that respect. there are still some structural differences. >> i do believe that your plane to a real issue. the federal bench has much more experience than back then american military justice of the that only goes to a small number of persons that can try. most persons who are facing involved drivers.

they do not involve the high- profile criminal defendants. >> the other irony is the corner public impression is the military justice was somehow be harsher. the secret is that the article 3 system is tougher. i'm thinking of the case of a man who got a five-year sentence for time served, had he been in the eastern district of virginia and convicted of those sentences, i suspect he could easily be doing 20 or life. it would have been completely different. when you look at the outcome, i have many defendants you are serving life sentences.

>> the note terrorism defendant in the united states ever got the death sentence either. when a promises one, he is gone against the tide. >> let me ask you about what you think about the claim of them. they say there is no ultimate due process. on the other hand, they are not

been applied for the hoehling. we are talking about this proposal. and do not believe that under no circumstances would the defendant be released. i suppose the will be a question for courts. we may never have to address the issue. i am wondering what you think about the impact on a trial of that position. >> what i was asking about -- i did not mean inherently. i was talking about that kind of background and assumption. >> i took it as that. i do not know the answer to your question. it undercuts it from the international perspective. it appears to be a show trial. what happens to the jury pool of that is the answer? >> i would do the same thing i

did with the moussaoui case began you have to talk to the jury honestly. i am a great believer in the american jury system. i think they take their jobs seriously. it is important for judges to explain to the jury exactly what their job is. i know is tell them that their point to become judges. i do not have a road that they can give them to wear what they are sitting in my courtroom. they should think of themselves as the judge. there'd judge -- their job is to judge the case. what do you expect of a good judge? you want a manner or woman who is coming into the courtroom with an open mind, who absolutely has no predisposition one way or another on the issue and to has the time to get to the case, to think about it carefully and not to rush to judgment. i give them a spill like capita -- -- spiel like that,.

if i had that case, i might even say many the may have read that everyone expects a certain outcome. regardless of what you have seen in the media, you are the judges. you will decide the case. can you do that? americans a rise to that kind of a challenge. it is important. the trial judge has to set back home. we really are very powerful. we have -- we can not be afraid to use the powerful. he had to be authoritarian in the courtroom. most jurors are coming into your courtroom having watched things on television or in the movies that is not the real it is important to take this step by step through the process. the other thing i most soldiers is like hamlet.

even a capital case there may be moments when something happens that is funny family laugh. it happened in the moussaoui case. is a human enterprise. and tell the jurors, and hamlet there is comic relief. it does not mean the whole play is not a tragedy. it just means it is a human enterprise or sometimes people laugh. he tried to set the tone for the jurors so they really understand what we are going to be doing together. even if the president thinks the outcome is a done deal, it is not. it is if we set the right tone in the courtroom. >> to you have any comments? >> you would do everything you could to get that in front of a juror. in moussaoui's case he could never tell the jury how they will get out one day. when they might see him walking

down the street. let's point out why these debt changes everything. a death penalty case is different predi >> we would tell the jury that the attorney general does not care what you think. no one cares what you think. it is the matter what you do. he will be held anyway. why bother? they are just want to hold him anyway. then iraq would object to the argument. -- in rob would object to the argument again [laughter] it the have any statement to that effect, some will find a way to use it in the trial if they can. there is no role of edison -- of evidence in a federal death penalty trial.

you just go on and on a put anything you want. i do not know how you can keep it out. >> that me ask the spread of -- ask this. one argument against the use a civilian trials is the creative use of rules and terrorism cases because they present different issues. we've talked about the issues that had been modified. there are conservation. confrontation clauses bottom -- there are confrontation clauses. when the miami use some is a very broad conception of conspiracy. some people think the comparative will lead to the contraction of defendants' rights that will spill over into non-terrorism cases i think this is a reason for separating of

the terrorism cases. what do you think of the argument? is it a valid concern? >> i think that is one of the legitimate arguments. if we tamper with the rules and create a bad precedent, the other problem is if we start creating special in judicatory assistance for crimes. what i worry about is the expansion of the military justice approach. we use the word "war" and so many ways. yet organized criminal activity in latin america accreting havoc in those countries beginning to leak into our border states. why would do not start thinking

about maybe putting narco- terrorsits into this system. probably the biggest threat we have is an cyber terrorism. people abroad to the literally shut down our banking system or our airplanes are whatever. it is potentially serious. much of it comes from abroad. an article in to start creating a special system of justice? it is a very slippery slope we create separate systems. i think article 3 court had worked in the past i think they can continue to work. we have to be careful. that is why the supreme court is here. that would be my approach to that question. >> widely take some questions?

i have been asked to urge you to ask questions and a tried to keep them brief. we do have an extraordinary panel here. i urge you to ask questions and try to keep them brief. >> is there a microphone? sorry. >> what do you think of the third system that he did not talk above detention without any type of trial? >> i have views on that. does anyone wish to speak on it? [laughter] like it you were appointed to represent someone and robb said

he would hold this guy for ever not tried to execute him, i would say thank you. that would be the end of the case. they would be fine. i will give you a moderator. there is no doubt the president has the authority to detain members of the enemy during wartime from many lower courts have now held that the authorization to use force triggers the president's power

until the end of the conflict. the problems are once that are indefinite and. there is a height impossibility of mistakes and determinations. for that reason, of the traditional power remains. many courts have held this. we have to develop more- procedures to minimize the possibility of a mistake. that is what we have been moving toward. congress has been involved a bit. their higher schillings to prove that the person is an imminent

combatant. other questions? >> i am from oregon. the justice department has been very effective. it is all this little cases that have been that are harder nut to crack. we have been very effective. my question and the civilian system is this, if you are 23 to this system, how do you sort to goes into the alternative system in a way that does not undercut the effectiveness that the civilian systems had in that way? it is not cast doubt upon by their system.

>> i guess it is mainly for jack. >> i will address it briefly. i am a believer in using the tools in your tool box approach. if you go too far one way or another, you undercut the other one. i told this story the we are going to get everybody else in the power was very much toward that is how we will treat all terrorists. that's long way back in the other direction. >> i think this is a big problem. i didn't think the government has a great answer to that yet

it does have the appearance of a lack of principle. you have some of the serious terrorists getting much more process before they are incapacitated. i i think it does threaten to have the appearance of unfairness. the government has the legitimate tools. it is those are successful. there is not been any challenges to the use of the difference systems for alleged terrorists. and an essay in alt. >> i know thinks this is part of what the judge is pointing out. she mentioned a different categories. i think the commission system is

difficult to build from scratch and the risk associated with i think in our past that we seem to have maybe a lack of principles about where we will try different persons are in now. i think that has long been the case. it has been relatively ad hoc. they have been thrust upon. i think that military commissions to not serve -- vera and enough of a precise it. they have different goals.

i think commissions are a different thing. >> any thoughts? we have microphones on each side you want to ask questions. >> what would take away the death penalty do? >> and 9/11 cases, if the deputy was of the cases, the penalty would be over. they would have pled guilty. it to be completely out the window.

ciardi said it was extraordinarily different -- difficult to deal with it. -- she already said it was difficult to deal with. the rules apply to it are different. it does not have the experience they can sit there for years one of the cases gut appeals. every death penalty case and there is more on the table. >> to give anything to add to

that? >> any other questions? >>, as you to come to the microphone? thank you. >> i understand the hesitation of but a specialized court system. would there be any value to the proposal of having a panel of article three judges likely have with the court that would be designated churches throughout the nation that might have special training in these kinds of cases that would be designated to try them? >> the reality is that it is happening right now. terrorism cases are being filed and almost every district. when moussaoui came into the eastern district of virginia, i think they are the first post- september 11 cases the web -- that were brought.

i have been pleased to see it spread around. [laughter] the reality is there is a significant body of article 310 judges to of had experience with terrorism cases. the judicial center has now phenomenal materials available to any article three judge. there are all kinds of standing orders to help. i didn't think you need a specialized branch. i think any competent judge can handle these cases. the materials are out there. the experience is out there now. i think we should not tamper was something that is not broken prevent the article 3 system is not broken. it is working just fine.

the start creating special groups of judges. i do not think that is a kit idea. i will leave it as it is. >> other questions? >> i did not mean to tell people when i said he had to ask certain questions. i did that mean to chill you. >> i district a question about the cyber terrorism. you wrote a spectacular piece in the "new yorker" about it. how the issues that came today apply in those cases? >> about cyber terrorism? i do not been back those issues yet intersect with these issues. the problem in those cases is not what you do with the defendants finding the

defendant. it is hard to know who is responsible for some kind of cyber attack. their use the offshore. it is hard to get into the country. -- they are usually offshore. it is hard to get them to the countries. i do think we will have similar issues with war on terrorism with the government being involved in the domestic, and indeed to medications -- in the telecommunications area and how far we will allow them in the network. that is an analogous issue. it'll be a big issue. >> other questions? >> i've another one and no one else does. >> you have a question? you do not. sorry.

[laughter] >> i understand that in the 1980's, looking at other ad judicatory bodies to deal with terrorism, congress created an alien terrorists removal court. it has never been used since it was created. do we get any reference from that as a failure? why has it not been used? what does that tell us about new rules? >> do you know about that? >> i do not know much about i do not either. owlet draw the conclusion that i do not know that we need it. >> i do not know anything about it. >> let me ask questions about miranda. in connection with the christmas day bomber, the government gave

him miranda right. that cause a political stir. within a couple of weeks, the attorney general announced the government might be thinking such as your authorization for a public safety warning. is anyone have a thought about that? more generally, if the importance of miranda warnings as a hurdle? is is a hurdle? >> it would depend on the case. in the case in detroit, it seems to be more political meddling. they cannot possibly need a confession to win the case. thank people saw him get on the plane. people on the plane saw him light the fuse. this of people that beat him up into the bomb away from him.

[laughter] their pictures of him leaving with the bomb. i can imagine what he said after that or what it would have to do in terms of winning the case. [laughter] >> how about more generally? it is a big deal for civilian court? >> it has not calmed statements. for years, most investigation was done by the southern district of new york. it is a very good record of getting people if they needed cooperators. i think we continue to that. i see it as a political issue more than an actual prosecutorial issue. >> do you agree with that?

>> i do. >> yes, sir? >> what happens with folks that are captured or rested that do cooperate? park police taken? as a go-between in article 3-? -- does it go before an article three judge? what happens to those? >> i had a case in 20032004 about the pakistani american citizen from ohio who do had been working with al qaeda to case locations for a possible second attack. he had looked at the brooklyn bridge in a tunnel under

baltimore. the fbi found out about him, called him into a hotel -- he was kept in hotels and then to live right to quantico. they debrief him for days. they got him in a very defense attorney. he came into my court and he pled to a plea that exposed him to 20 years. it is not a binding rule. what was interesting, the war on terror is a political issue. a lot of times, the administration was to get credit. part of the plea agreement had

been that it would be under seal and kept secret. this man had family left in pakistan i get a call from the u.s. attorney. you are not gone to like this fed is on the front page of the washington post. he tried to withdraw his guilty plea. it turned him against the government. that is just one example. there are tons of examples of people who to work out deals in the virginia jihad case. it involved nearly a dozen northern virginians who had gotten training in pakistan.

the of assonances for something. it ranged from just a couple of years to maybe 10. the people who went to trial were convicted, some more acquitted. it is not at all uncommon. they can make the case against a more serious one. there is an awful -- an example where they have a high level al qaeda guy who is testified in

prevented the witness security program and pled guilty. cracks -- >>'s corporate, do they go into the general population? >> it depends. the often will have a special administrative measure placed on them by the marshal service. they can carry over. i do have people convicted of crimes that will be considered terrorism crime store in the general population at it depends on the individual person. correct.

>> this experience was not evident in the federal judiciary. nothing compared to the federal effort structure. this level of expertise makes the dialogue very different products. >> thank you very much. let's give the panel our round of thanks. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] but in a few moments, and news conference on u.s. attitudes toward muslims and the islamic center in new york city. in an hour, tuesday state department briefing that included questions about a plan of a florida church to burn the koran.

>> several live events to tell you about. secretary of state clinton is that the council on foreign relations to talk about u.s. leadership in the world. that is on c-span2. karen c-span, british foreign affairs secretary testifies about foreign relations and the budget since the formation of the coalition government for them president obama will announce plans for new business tax >> united states of america in a torrent of the other industrial nation in the world's that says healthcare is a right and not a privilege. >> they have been holding town hall meetings in the states and districts. we have been covering them. see what your elected officials

have said. >> and islamic center and attitudes toward muslims. speakers include leaders from the jewish and muslim faith. this is a little more than an hour. >> we are gathered here today across christianity and american judea's them to discuss what we considered to be a very alarming

trend and a rise in anti-muslim bigotry in this country. it is a time that challenges americans to decide whether we are gone to live up to our values that has really been a hallmark of the american society for so long. i feel very privileged and honored to have such a distinguished day leaders come here to stand with this to assert their belief in the importance of the filling this american promise and these principles. i am grateful to my jewish colleagues who are very busy during the jewish holy days. the many things to do in preparation for that. i am grateful for them for joining us today.

many say few brief words about the climate that we find ourselves in. i understand there is a great deal of misunderstanding about islam and muslims in this country. i do not blame ordinary americans that do not have affirmation for feeling confused and anxious. it is our job to help provide them with better information what i do find this charming -- disturbing is the fact there is some people who were using that lack of knowledge and that anxiety for ideological purposes. because politically or religiously they simply do not like muslims, and they are fomenting dislike and hatred

against muslims in this country. having spoken to many families across the country over the last few weeks, i have heard many muslim-americans say they have never felt this anxious or this insecure in america since directly after 9/11. they are nervous about their children as they head back to school this week, that when they go to school they will face people who are looking at them as aliens, when, they in fact, our citizens born in this country. they are afraid of going out in public. there have been a number of incidents of harassment of ordinary people going about doing their or -- daily business. that is not something we want to see grow and continue. freedom of religion is, as i say, all hallmark of this country. lawsuit immigrated to the united states, many of them came here -- muslims who immigrated to the

united states, many of them came here because of religious persecution. we know what it means to live in an environment where that freedom is taken away, and that is why, as american muslims, we have been very assiduous in that last number of years working with our colleagues to make sure that we use the freedom that we have in this country to also promotes religious freedom and liberty as a principal of islam. it is why we have signed to a common word document and engaged in that as a principle of religious freedom, respect, and dresses -- reciprocity between christians and muslims. it is why we have engaged with our jewish colleagues and education of our conversation about each other's face so that there is not distortion of what

jews are and what judea's and is on the part of muslims. this is something that we are committed to. we want to make sure we're able to continue to fulfil this role which is unique in the world. american muslims have a unique ability to be this bridge and showed the muslims to do not live in this kind of freedom that an open, pluralistic atmosphere where there are diverse religions living together can really be good for everyone. >> with that introduction, i would like to introduce my colleague, rabbi david saperstein to say a few words. >> i note michael kamen, the national secretary of the united council of churches of christ. we're very honored to have posted this with the islamic -

co-hosted this with the islam society of north american. for thend thmem extraordinary work they have done in putting this together. for those of us who are jews who are part of this undertaking, jewish leaders who are here or those who could not be because of the proximity of the holiday but were part of the preparation for this, we could be nowhere else. we have been the quintessential victims of religious persecution and discrimination throughout history. we know what it is like when people have attacked as a verbally, attacked as physically, and others have remained silent. it cannot happen here in america. without the response of the religious community. we speak out because we know that hate speech are not mere

acts of disreputable talk of murder or assaults or arsons or derisive conversations or desecrations, they are attacks on the pillars on the republic and the guarantors of our freedom. such actions are patrolled the promise of america. the road our national well- being. those who commit those crimes do those of fully intending to pull apart -- the too-often -frayed threads of diversity that should bind us together and makes us strong. these people seek to divide and conquer. they do damage to america across the globe. they do damage to us internally. they seek to tear us apart, fomenting violence, civil

discord, and we stand here to say that is not who we are as americans and as religious leaders, that is not what we are about. it is not what our religions are about and it is not what this nation is about. released a statement on behalf of all of us who are gathered here. there represents the commitments of religious leaders throughout america. i believe you have copies or if you do not yet, they are available on the way out. it was a powerful experience shaping this statement. we came into focus on core issues of religious liberty and realize as we talked about this moment that dr. ingrid mattson has urgently described, that we have to speak more directly to bigotry that isim

going on across america, and reshaping the statement was focused on that. i will call on two of our distinguished members of a group, dr. gerald -- the pastor of providence missionary baptist church in inland, georgia, and a well-known figure going back to the early days of the civil-rights movement in the united states and rabbi nancy kreimer, professors specializes in intergroup relations at the rabbinical college. it is my pleasure to call on them now to read it three brief excerpts from the statement. >> thank you very much. what an honor and privilege is for me, having stood on the mall 47 years ago under similar circumstances, where we were talking about liberty and

justice for all. the statement that we worked together collectively reitz religious: leaders called for respect for america's tradition of religious liberty. as religious leaders in this country we have come together in our nation's capital to denounce categorically the direction, misinformation, and outright bigotry being directed against america's muslim community. we bear as sacred responsibility to honor america's faith traditions and to promote a culture of mutual respect, the assurance of religious freedom for all. in advance of the ninth anniversary of the terrorist attacks of september 11, 2001, we announced a new era of interfaith cooperation. >> thank you. we are profoundly distressed and

deeply saddened by the incidence of violence committed against muslims in our communities, and by the desecration of islamic houses of worship. we stand by the principle that to attack any religion in united states is to do violence to their religious freedom of all americans. the threatened burning of copies of the holy quran this saturday is a particularly egregious offense that demands the strongest possible condemnation. as religious leaders, we are appalled by such disrespect for a sacred text that for centuries has shaped many of the great cultures of our world and that

continues to give spiritual comfort to more than 1 billion muslims today. >> we are convinced that spiritual leaders representing the very face in the united states have a moral obligation to stand together and announce categorical aid derision, misinformation, or outright bigotry directed against any religious group in this country. silence, silence is not an option. and only by taking this stand can spiritual leaders fulfill the highest calling of our respective statfaiths and help create a safer and stronger america for all of our people. >> thank you so much. now i would like to call up

the reverend cardinal theodore mccarren, the archbishop emeritus of washington. we were together last enrollment where we both signed the documents -- last in rome where we both signed a document after deciding to meet to discuss the common word document, and which we supported freedom for international minorities everywhere in the world. i was honored to be with him there for that week in rome and also to be here today. >> thank you. i am honored to be here. i am really representing archbishop gregory, who is the archbishop of atlanta, the chairman of the catholic bishops' conference on interfaith relations. so i am delighted that i have a chance to be with you. i say to my brothers, i was there 47 years ago, too, when dr. martin luther king spoke so beautifully. that is one of the memories you

cannot forget. it was such a powerful moment in the history of our country. this is a moment that calls for a powerful response. i think that is what my brothers and sisters here have been doing, to give ea prayerful, firm, and customer response. why are we doing this? for two reasons. we are doing it because we have to do it. we do not have a choice. i think that document that was read about talking about responsibility of religious leaders is the document that tells the story. religious leaders cannot stand by in silence when things like this are happening, affecting so many good, wonderful people around our country who have brought islam to these shores and are playing a constructive role in our society. we have to reach out to them and say, look, we are happy you are

here. we love you, and we understand that bearing false witness against your neighbor is against the quran, the bible, the gospels. we have to be here. i think there is another reason. i have a great fear that the story of bigotry, hatred, animosity towards others is going to be taken by some to be the story of the real america, and it is not. this is not america. this is not our country. we need to make sure that our country is known around the country as a ploy -- around the world as a place where liberty of religion, respect for your neighbor, where these things are the most prominent in our society. america was not built on hatred. america was built on love. if we get away from it, tried to give that message out to the world, it is the wrong message. our message is a message of working together, taking care of

the person who needs help and making sure that we tried to live, everybody together in a good and holy life. that is what america is. that is what the message is that i pray we will get out all the people of the world so that we will -- they will know who we are and try to be. it is a joy for me and a great privilege to be here. thank you. >> thank you. next we'll here from reverend richard cizik, president of the new evangelical partnership for the common good, a visionary leader. >> thank you for inviting me, ingrid. cardinal mccarren, and my distinguished colleagues. we represent one of the largest constituency is that america has, that is the religious constituency with all of its breadth, from roman catholic,

to mainland protestant, muslim, orthodox, we are all here together to say what has been said, namely, that we are governed in this country by the constitution whose first amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion. and governments at every level have understood they have to respect that right, from the largest cities of our nation to the smallest. protection of religious liberty is what evangelical christians and most of all have come to appreciate. it is the one practice, i think that is a most exceptional about america. by the way, millions have come here through the centuries because of it, including millions of evangelical christians. now we know that the controversy is not that began -- part 51,

has become exhibit "a" in this contest between popular passion and constitutional principle. but that contest has moved into the smallest of communities around america. and i am here to say on behalf of the evangelicals consistency that those mainly conservative christians who responded to their muslim brothers and sisters, their fellow americans, with anti-muslim bigotry or hatred, they are openly rejecting the first amendment principles of religious liberty, which we as even juliet: christians benefit daily. and to those it wouldwho would

exercise derision, open rejection of americans for their religious faith, i say, shame on you. as an evangelical, i say to those who do this, i say you bring dishonor to the name of jesus christ, you directly disobey his commandments to love our neighbor, you violate the command not to bear false witness and not least of all you drive the watching world further away from any interest in our gospel message. let me say one more thing. watch out for so casually trampling on the religious liberty of others. you may be able to do tt