i think they're still a little bit confused on hamdi. hamdi had to do with the citizen fighting overseas and nothing to do with the citizen here. i have great confidence the supreme court, given a ruling on the right to trial by jury, will affirm the right to trial by jury whether they were appointed by ronald reagan or president obama. so we'll have that fight on another day. i will say, though, that our oath of office says that we will defend the constitution against enemies, foreign and domestic. i met with cadets this week and they asked me about, what is the freedom we fight for? the freedom we fight for is the bill of rights, is the constitution. if we have careless disregard for the constitution, what are we fighting for? i i will tell you since i know this record of this debate will be widely read that i want to make former objection to the crazy bastards standard. i don't really think that if we're going to have a crazy bastard standard that we shouldn't have a right to trial by jury, because if we're going to lock up all the cr

one of them, in 2004, was hamdi vs. rumsfeld. and it had one position. and then a second case, padilla v. rumsfeld in the second court of appeals took a different position. so what happened was that it, the detention act became sufficiently blurred as to exactly what was meant. and one of these courts held that the aumf was not an act of congress which dealt with this issue, so it did not qualify. what we are trying to do in this simple amendment is what's called a clear statement, to say once and for all that nothing in this section shall be construed to effect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of united states citizens or lawful resident aliens of the united states or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the united states. that was last year's law. and to that we have added one sentence, if i can have the amendment, i can read that one sentence. and of course i can't find the amendment right now. i'll read the one sentence that's added to that. the one sentence is that, paragraph 1 applies to an authorization to use mil

first, it does not change the ruling in hamdi v. rumsfeld. in that case, the supreme court ruled that an american citizen who wages war against u.s. troops in an active combat zone can be taken into preventive detention mured t in order to kt person from continuing to wage wars overseas against american military forces. when an american citizen leaves his country to wage war against his fellow citizens, he relinquishes certain rights otherwise supported by the constitution, and i agree with the court's decision in this case. next, this amendment does not preclude intelligence gathering subsequent to a suspected terrorist being taken into detention. the intelligence gathered from a suspect in the hours or days after his arrest can be vital to preventing further acts of violence or uncovering terrorists networks at home or abroad. this amendment balances the ability to gather this important information with the suspect's rights by providing some flexibility within the constitution's bound. for example, it does not circumscribe the existing publ

but let me discuss the facts of the hamdi case. because it's important to note that yasser isan hamdi was a united states citizen who took up arms on behalf of the taliban and was captured on the battlefield in afghanistan. the supreme court effectively did uphold his military detention so some of my colleagues seize upon this to say that the military can today detain even united states citizens who are arrested domestically. however, the supreme court's opinion in that case was a muddled decision by a four-vote plurality that recognized the power of the government to detain united states citizens captured in such circumstances as enemy combatants for some period. but otherwise repudiated the government's broad assertions of executive authority to detain citizens without charge or trial. to the extent the hamdi case permits the government to detain a united states citizen until the end of hostilities, it does so only under a very limited set of circumstances; namely, citizens taking an active part in hostilities, who are captured i

sequestration is not having savings so this stampede that was attempted as to people trying to start the hamdiak a stampede you didn't get a demand that the defense budget would be untouched either on the public opinion or in the house something the sequestration happens. the only thing i can imagine is that they would vote rather take it out of entitlement than out of the annual budgets. could they cut a deal with a save the same amount of money but out of entitlements? that is the only compromise that i could see and then you get the grand bargain idea which is fascinating because of a, have these conversations where people last about the grand bargain what is the non-negotiable for obama to go up? he also wants to spend an additional $500 billion on the stimulus package and he's not willing to discuss entitlements and the republicans would like entitlement reform and not have the rates change and the fantasy is that the republicans would cave on the marginal tax rates and the president would cave on significant spending reform something that he's been president for four years and recommende