remember what the supreme court said in the hamdi case. hamdi versus rumsfeld i believe it's 2004. they said the purpose of detention against enemy combatants is to keep them from going back to the battlefield, from going back to the battle. if that's the purpose of our detaining these people in the first place, then this entire, you know, experiment and increasing the types of rights, whatever you want to call them of these individuals, is quite precarious for our future. our soldier's future. >> lawyer remarks under your scenario, why do we have a trial at all? why don't we just keep them? laura: you can have a trial, no, no, no. you can have a trial but it's not the trial that american citizens or people who are not enemy combatants would receive in the united states who do deserve constitutional protections. for instance, steven, do you think they should be able to make ineffective assistance of counsel claims, sixth amendment claims during their cases? >> i do. i think they are entitled to a fair attorney that's competent. yes, i do. i think they should have that right. i thin

why we think that we have law of war detention authority but i think even the supreme court in the hamdi case said circumstances could change depending on how far out you go in this conflict and it's the reason why we think some form of a periodic review of each detainee's situation is appropriate given the nature of this war. because there may come a point in the future when that person is no longer a threat or they are such that they could be transferred to some other country with appropriate security guarantees. >> questions asked by mr. forbes and mr. conway elised answers from you that indicated that if the courts found a detainee innocent that we knew was a really bad guy, that we weren't going to release him, that begs a couple of very interesting questions. one of them is, haven't we already adjudged him guilty by determining that he is so bad that no matter what the court does we're not going to release him? and if that is so, why do we go through a court proceeding, particularly, in a military tribunal? sir, there are millions of people in the world when you mention military tr

a bit on whether you see any common themes or important lessons in the court's decisions in rasul, hamdihamden, what is your general understanding of that line of cases? >> that the court is doing its task as judges. it's looking in each of those cases at what the actions are of either the military and what congress has done or not done, and applied constitutional review to those actions. >> is it fair to say given that line of cases that we can say that at least as regards the supreme court, it believes mistakes were made with regard to the post-9/11 policies? in each of those cases, there was an overturning of a decision either by the congress or the executive. >> i smiled only because that's not the way that judges look at that issue. we don't decide whether mistakes were made. we look at whether action was consistent with constitutional limitations or statutory limitations. >> in each of those cases there was a problem with either constitutional violation or a problem with the congressional action, right? >> yes. >> that's fine. as i'm sure you're aware, many of us on the committee d

a bit on whether you see any common themes or important lessons in the court's decisions in rasul, hamdi hamden, what is your general understanding of that line of cases? >> that the court is doing its task as judges. it's looking in each of those cases at what the actions are of either the military and what congress has done or not done, and applied constitutional review to those actions. >> is it fair to say given that line of cases that we can say that at least as regards the supreme court, it believes mistakes were made with regard to the post-9/11 policies? in each of those cases, there was an overturning of a decision either by the congress or the executive. >> i smiled only because that's not the way that judges look at that issue. we don't decide whether mistakes were made. we look at whether action was consistent with constitutional limitations or statutory limitations. >> in each of those cases there was a problem with either constitutional violation or a problem with the congressional action, right? >> yes. >> that's fine. as i'm sure you're aware, many of us on the committee

they made plain as justice o'connor wrote in the hamdi decision, a state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens. these were all close decisions. some decided by a 5-4 vote and that fact underscores the unparalleled power that the supreme court justice has. in my opinion one of the most important qualities the supreme court justice must have his courage. the courage to stand up to president, congress in order to protect the constitutional rights of the american people and preserve the rule of law. i have test on the crucial decisions of the court in the area of executive power but we know of course there are countless past supreme court decisions that had a major aspect of national life. the court rejected racial discrimination in education. guarantee the principle of one person and one vote and make sure that even the poorest person accused of a crime in this country can be represented by counsel in nature that newspapers can be sued for libel by public figures for merely making a mistake. the protect the privacy of telephon

a bit on whether you see any common themes or important lessons in the court's decisions in rasul, hamdiden, what is your general understanding of that line of cases? >> that the court is doing its task as judges. it's looking in each of those cases at what the actions are of either the military and what congress has done or not done, and applied constitutional review to those actions. >> is it fair to say given that line of cases that we can say that at least as regards the supreme court, it believes mistakes were made with regard to the post-9/11 policies? in each of those cases, there was an overturning of a decision either by the congress or the executive. >> i smiled only because that's not the way that judges look at that issue. we don't decide whether mistakes were made. we look at whether action was consistent with constitutional limitations or statutory limitations. >> in each of those cases there was a problem with either constitutional violation or a problem with the congressional action, right? >> yes. >> that's fine. as i'm sure you're aware, many of us on the committee disc