habeas corpus still applies. it is very clear in both sections 1021 and 1022 that protections for american citizens are clearly stated in there. in the senate, they added in 1021 the words, nothing in this section shall be con strured to affecting existing law -- construed to affecting existing law or authoritying relating to u.s. citizens, lawful residents of the united states or any other perps captured or arrested in the united states. in 1022 it makes it very clear, before somebody can be detained, there are two standards which must be met. first of all, there has to be association with an armed force that is in coordination and acting against the interests of the united states. and, not just member, but they have to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out attacks or attempted attacks against the united states or its coalition partners. can't just go out and pick people off the streets, there has to be a standard, and everyone gets habeas corpus rights in all these events. let me report --

not amend present law in a way that i would like to see it amended by clarifying that right of habeas corpus but it absolutely does not erode or reduce whever protections exist under existing law. so those who would share our view that the right of habeas should be clarified should work for a statute that clarifies that but we should not subvert this necessary and important bill. i would urge a yes vote on the bill and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from nework. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, i now yield to the distinguished ranking member of the judiciary committee, the gentleman from michigan, three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for three minutes. mr. conyers: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. conyers: thank you, mr. speaker. members of the house of representatives, this issue has never gone before the house judiciary committee. never. and i would like to put in the record a let

would be tried by military tribunal and executed, and that he would not tolerate a writ of habeas corpus as commander in chief. so you have this real problem that since 1958, when the warren court asserted by itself that the supreme court was supreme over the president and the congress, you've had a fundamental assault on our liberties by the courts. you have an increasingly arrogant judiciary. the question is, is there anything we the american people can do? the standard answer has been, eventually, we'll appoint good judges. i think that's inadequate. the constitution promises a balance of the judicial branch, the executive branch and the legislative branch. the federalist papers say specifically the weakest of the three branches is the judiciary. jefferson abolishes 18 out of 35 federal judges. >> schieffer: they had just been created. >> and they've been appointed. he abolishes them. over half of all the judges. jackson says of the court, they think the bank of the united states is constitutional. i don't think it's constitutional. their opinion doesn't matter to me. i'm the presiden

the reach of imperial wars including proxy wars in somalia yemen pakistan he has not restored habeas corpus on all of the major structural issues there is no difference there's a complete continuity and of course the working class and the poor and increasingly the middle class have to pay the price and it to end it doesn't matter whether it's democrat or republican and that's the fuel of these movements so how do you see this playing out do you think i mean for example let's look back at the occupy wall street the one that's going on in new york right now yesterday they saw some of the largest numbers that they had passed far and they were met with a police presence right people were arrested they were batons that worth around there was pepper spray does that have to be violent or can it be done peaceful of the more frightened the power elite becomes the more violent and drug tony and will be the measures of control and the security and surveillance state in this country is profound deep immense and brutal. and growing and where is the movement going i've covered movements all around the wo

during the bush administration, i made it very clear that i thought the suspension of habeas corpus even for noncitizens under this very difficult scenario that confronts us, we're really not at war, they're not prisoners of war, they're not uniformed soldiers you confront on the field. remember i said that my father was finance officer at a pow camp for ss officers. they were prisoners of war. they would be released at the end of the war. now, interesting enough a number of them didn't want to go the back to germany but having said that, i believe that habeas corpus of some type needs to exist. in this kind of environment. let me explain why. and let me explain to you young people why i'm explaining this because now a days everybody has their phone and it's a camera and they take down your phrases. now the problem is they only take one phrase they don't give the explanation. but this is a very complicated scenario that we are confronting with terrorists. terrorists who come at us abroad, whose intent is to kill us. and who are taken into custody and proof may be difficult. however, i do

individuals there have the right to petition for habeas corpus. it is a pretty dramatic conflict between the role of the executive in war making any application of constitutional rights. the court spoke loudly about what could go one at guantanamo bay and very much restricted the role of the united states there. i think we will continue to see the supreme court taking an active role in the national security -- the executive branch. that is my answer to my question. thank you for involving me. he made me feel more useful here, because i think the better questions are coming from you than from me. let me turn to david first to answer the question he posed to you. >> very quickly, it is crazy to be fighting wars and expending resources 12,000 miles away. we need a policy for developing renewable energy here at home, and in my mind, this is a great place for government to take the leading role. this is a strategic area, and i think the best thing government can do is to set a price on carbon. push up the price on carbon and the market will solve the r

the habeas corpus question. stevens wrote in a draft for rutledge in which he suggested in the united states law has jurisdiction over detainee's. the majority of the court and abroad which went ahead and incorporated stevens thinking on a matter that turned out to be a dissent because the majority ruled against the detainee. leader when stevens is a member of the supreme court we end of the question of the detainee's of guatemala of the jail near cuba and the issues were the same as the gerrans case. stevens wrote the majority decision saying that the supreme court had no jurisdiction over detainee's. >> i was struck yesterday as the senators were tracking the liking of thurgood marshall but justice stevens had actually seen thurgood marshall in the court. can you tell us a bit about that and what impact it had on justice stephen? >> there is along a legacy of action in the supreme court and others in the lamb bleating that to be brought the board of education decision of 1954. in fact books have been written a

. >> northup filed a lawsuit in federal court for a writ of habeas corpus, charging the state of virginialy imprisoning beverly monroe. it's the legal equivalent of a hail mary pass because the courts refused to review 90% of such cases. but in a huge victory, in april of 1999, a federal judge agreed to hear beverly's case. steve northup and katie monroe believed beverly had been convicted of murder based on statements that were coerced. they obtained detective riley's investigation notes, which katie described as revealing. >> he decided up front that it was a homicide, and he decided up front that my mom had done it. and then he viewed everything through that lens. >> and, she says, once the detective zeroed in on her mother, he resorted to police dirty tricks, and his bullying took its toll. >> he wore her down. and he caused her to second guess herself and her memory. >> but prosecutor jack lewis contends beverly wasn't coerced, saying she went along with riley because she had to explain why she flunked that polygraph and would say anything to keep the suicide theory alive. >> at this

. >> suspending habeas corpus, for example, probably the biggest thing, but the president was dealingsurrection and i don't think if you look back in history, he did what he had to do to try to hold the union together. we're not in a situation like that where woof that kind of problem, but, we do have problems here in our home soil and we have to, we have to make sure that the laws comport with being able to find terrorists who are here and home grown. >> thank you. >> you bet. >> and i know the strength in the family is important to you and to us. is that a proper function in your perspective with respect to the federal government? >> well. >> if so, how. >> yeah, you know, it is. as you know, karen and i are the father and mother of seven children and family is very important to me and to america. and we've seen a federal government that has undermined the family in a lot of ways, just look at what we've done and some of our welfare programs. i'm sure everybody, a lot of folks listening here tonight are going to know people who are, who father and mother are living together, but the

the greatest review procedure of all is habeas corpus. but there are also requirements in executive order for a periodic review process of whether or not somebody is still a threat or not a threat, for instance. the war may still be going on but the person ma n may no longe a threat. stlud be an opportunity for the person to say that -- should there be an opportunity for the person to say that? well, there should be, surely should be. regular review process. the senator from south carolina has been very much involved in this kind of due process. but what we put into our bill, which is now there, which would have been eliminated, by the way, if the udall amendment had been adopted yesterday, is a requirement that this executive order's procedures be adopted because so far we haven't seen that. mr. graham: nor did i want to do that. i want to be able to say, not o my political advantage, but i want to be able to tell people post-abu ghraib, post early guantanamo bay, we've cleaned up our act, we're trying to get the balance we didn't have o

individuals there have the right to petition for habeas corpus. it is a pretty dramatic conflict between the role of the executive in war making any application of constitutional rights. the court spoke loudly about what could go one at guantanamo bay and very much restricted the role of the united states there. i think we will continue to see the supreme court taking an active role in the national security -- the executive branch. that is my answer to my question. thank you for involving me. he made me feel more useful here, because i think the better questions are coming from you than from me. let me turn to david first to answer the question he posed to you. >> very quickly, it is crazy to be fighting wars and expending resources 12,000 miles away. we need a policy for developing renewable energy here at home, and in my mind, this is a great place for government to take the leading role. this is a strategic area, and i think the best thing government can do is to set a price on carbon. push up the price on carbon and the market will solve the r

it didn't have a jury trial or habeas corpus and the alleged slave was not allowed to testify on behalf. the federal commissioner get $5 if he decided the person was not a sleeve and $10 if he decided the person was a slave. northerners believe this was an attempt to buy justice. immediately after the law was passed, fillmore vigorously almost fanatically accused. i will give you two examples. in 1851 a maryland man tries to see the sleeve in pennsylvania and the resisted the maryland sleepovers killed. at the time about 50 men are hanging around watching this. they refuse to come to the aid of u.s. marshal. they just stand around and watch. 47 of them are invited not for violating the fugitive slave law but for treason. the treason trial in the history of the united states. president fillmore personally called the attorneys into the u.s. district attorney for pennsylvania to come to washington and insist that he seek treason and indictment and daniel webster, the great lawyer whose secretary of state helps him right up the indictment for treason. a weak leader, on october 1st with the

no appeal from a magistrate order but rather one can file what's called a petition for writ of habeas corpusd that. he litigated that. the district court felt there was adequate evidence. now of course this is not the same thing as a trial. he opted at that point, we can see not to further appeal but rather return to mexico. one can only assume that he feels that this is the quickest way for him to get a resolution that's favorable to himself because he has maintained and consistently maintained he is not guilty. julie: he says quote, he is eager to clear his name despite the evidence authorities say they found which include blood inside and outside their hotel room. his wife's family is surprised he is not fighting extradition to mexico. why waive it at the last minute? what is the strategy you? said he wants to speed things up. there has got to be more. >> of course one can't, as i said this many times, know exactly the thought process of counsel and his client but looking from afar, one could reasonably conclude that an appeal could be very difficult to obtain a successful and favorable r

individuals there have the right to petition for habeas corpus. the right to review the conditions and the basis of their confinement. it is a pretty dramatic conflict between the role of the executive in war making any application of constitutional rights. the court spoke loudly about what could go on at guantanamo bay and very much restricted the role of the united states there. i think we will continue to see the supreme court taking an active role in the national security -- the executive branch. that is my answer to my question. thank you for involving me. i think the better questions are coming from you. he made me feel more useful here, because i think the better questions are coming from you than from me. let me turn to david first to answer the question he posed to you. >> very quickly, it is crazy to be fighting wars and expending resources 12,000 miles away. we need a policy for developing renewable energy here at home, and in my mind, this is a great place for government to take the leading role. this is a strategic area, and i think t

individuals there have the right to petition for habeas corpus. the right to review the conditions and the basis of their confinement. it is a pretty dramatic conflict between the role of the executive in war making any application of constitutional rights. the court spoke loudly about what could go one at guantanamo bay and very much restricted the role of the united states there. -- what could go on. i think we will continue to see the supreme court taking an active role in the national security -- the executive branch. that is my answer to my question. thank you for involving me. i think the better questions are coming from you. he made me feel more useful here, because i think the better questions are coming from you than from me. let me turn to david first to answer the question he posed to you. >> very quickly, it is crazy to be fighting wars and expending resources 12,000 miles away. we need a policy for developing renewable energy here at home, and in my mind, this is a great place for government to take the leading role. this is a strateg

it didn't have a jury trial or habeas corpus and the alleged slave was not allowed to testify on behalf. the federal commissioner get $5 if he decided the person was not a sleeve and $10 if he decided the person was a slave. northerners believe this was an attempt to buy justice. immediately after the law was passed, fillmore vigorously almost fanatically accused. i will give you two examples. in 1851 a maryland man tries to see the sleeve in pennsylvania and the resisted the maryland sleepovers killed. at the time about 50 men are hanging around watching this. they refuse to come to the aid of u.s. marshal. they just stand around and watch. 47 of them are invited not for violating the fugitive slave law but for treason. the treason trial in the history of the united states. president fillmore personally called the attorneys into the u.s. district attorney for pennsylvania to come to washington and insist that he seek treason and indictment and daniel webster, the great lawyer whose secretary of state helps him right up the indictment for treason. a weak leader, on october 1st with the

we're still debating lincoln and his definition of habeas corpus. host: our next call is david on the republican line. good morning. you're on the air. caller: hi. how are you? about the other caller, i think with the ushering of the law which is ushering in the pour of the news coverage to detain u.s. citizens anywhere in the world, domestically, it's kinds of scary. last time i called to c-span was in the 1990's when brian lamb was on there, and i think the world has changed significantly. it's a little scary, although he was a disgusting figure. i think it's being used as a symbol to expand the purview of power, and it really is not the united states united states that i remember, but i was born in the 1970's. host: victor looks, middle east tyranny and terrorism died in 2011, payful protest proved more powerful. fear is dead in syria for good. that's the viewer's thoughts on what significant deaths happened in the year 2011. we have governor of carey of new york. former senate mark hatfield of oregon. general john shalikashvili. betty ford, two

and it's not as if an american citizen doesn't have the habeas corpus protection which still a attaches whether or not that individual is taken into military custody. so the basic constitutional right of an american citizen is preserved, and yet the government's ability to interrogate and gain intelligence is also preserved by the existing law, by the status of the law as it exists today, and we would not want to change that law by something like the feinstein amendment. mr. graham: simply stated, when you decided to help the nazis, the american citizens questioned decided to give aid and comfort to the nazis, i am very glad they were allowed to be held by our military and interrogated about the plot and what they knew because intelligence gathering is the best way to keep us safe, and i would be just absolutely devastated if the senate for the first time in 2011 denied the ability of our military and intelligence community to interrogate somebody that came back from pakistan and started killing people on the mall, that you could no longer hold them as an enemy combatant and find out wh

it didn't have a jury trial or habeas corpus and the alleged slave was not allowed to testify on behalf. the federal commissioner get $5 if he decided the person was not a sleeve and $10 if he decided the person was a slave. northerners believe this was an attempt to buy justice. immediately after the law was passed, fillmore vigorously almost fanatically accused. i will give you two examples. in 1851 a maryland man tries to see the sleeve in pennsylvania and the resisted the maryland sleepovers killed. at the time about 50 men are hanging around watching this. they refuse to come to the aid of u.s. marshal. they just stand around and watch. 47 of them are invited not for violating the fugitive slave law but for treason. the treason trial in the history of the united states. president fillmore personally called the attorneys into the u.s. district attorney for pennsylvania to come to washington and insist that he seek treason and indictment and daniel webster, the great lawyer whose secretary of state helps him right up the indictment for treason. a weak leader, on october 1st with the

opportunity to present serious constitutional claims of any -- and effective assistance council in habeas corpus. the claim is meritless and clearly will have little burden on it but simply allowing those claims to be adjudicated on the merits in federal court will go a long way to preserve them in the municipal system of criminal justice in a case where a man's life is at stake. >> thank you council. the cases submitted. >> this week week on q&a, former supreme court justice, john paul stevens, looks back on his 34.5 years on the court and speaks about his new book,. c-span: justice john paul stevens you have a book called the supreme court memoir, but it's called five cheats. why? s. go well, because it's a book about chief justices of the united states and the reason i have written about five is that i have had personal contact with five of the most recent five chiefs, so they are the five. rieke let me put on the screen a slide that shows these five names and the times that they were serving on the court, and it starts with fred vinson, who was nominated by president reagan in. he served sev

individuals there have the right to petition for habeas corpus.ourt spoke loudly about what could go one at guantanamo bay and very much restricted the role of the united states there. i think we will continue to see the supreme court taking an active role in the national security -- the executive branch. that is my answer to my question. thank you for involving me. he made me feel more useful here, because i think the better questions are coming from you than from me. let me turn to david first to answer the question he posed to you. >> very quickly, it is crazy to be fighting wars and expending resources 12,000 miles away. we need a policy for developing renewable energy here at home, and in my mind, this is a great place for government to take the leading role. this is a strategic area, and i think the best thing government can do is to set a price on carbon. push up the price on carbon and the market will solve the rest of the problem. if we do not do that now, quite apart from the challenge of climate change, we're going to continue to be dep