johnson, mr. kris, which is, why would one prefer, why would anyone prefer to try people apprehended for violations of the law or in an article 3 federal court, as you said, mr. johnson? i was disappointed with your answer and kind of pulled me back a little bit from my feeling of appreciation toward the administration for accepting a role for the military commissions in handling these people. i mean, the fact is that from the beginning of our country, from the revolutionary war we've used military tribunals to try war criminals or people we have apprehended, captured for violations of the law of war. again, i think the unique circumstances of this war on terrorism against the people who attacked us on 9/11 may have led us down, including the supreme court, some roads that are not only to me ultimately unjust but inconsistent with the long history that we've had here. . >> don't misinterpret my remarks. i applaud this committee's effort and this committee's initiative to rereform the military commissio

>> ideally, as mr. kris would tell you in dealing with civilian criminal defendants, who are prosecuted, you want to keep them close to the courtroom. >> and my time is almost up, my question, would the administration even entertain not doing that? >> that would not be -- that would not be an efficient scenario. >> thank you. mr. chairman, thank you so much for your patience. >> thank you very much. mr. connelly. >> yes, sir, in the interest of prolonging the misery of our panelists, i do want to talk again back on the forward-looking issue and that is the authorization for use of force. we had testimony from one of your colleagues last year that said in my professional opinion that it would be both constitutional and prudent to confirm the military's authority to detain, al-qaeda, taliban and associated forces. it was a mr. caddis who testified last year. he's a bush appointee i would suspect. mr. kris, your thoughts on that? >> if i understand -- excuse me, if i understand the question correctly, i think t

mr. kris, if trials were held in guantanamo or the united states, would there be any difference in the proceedings? >> senator, if military commissions were held in the continental united states, i think that we have to carefully consider the possibility that some level of due process may apply that the courts have not determined applies now. i think that that assessment has to be carefully evaluated and carefully made. i think that -- >> so, what you're saying is that you believe there could be some significant difference in procedure if the trials were held in guantanamo or the united states of america? >> i'm not sure i would be prepared to say significant difference. >> i think it would be important for this committee to know what your view is. it might have something to do with the way that we shape legislation. if they're going to have all kinds of additional rights if they're tried in the united states of america as opposed to guantanamo, i think the committee and the american people sh

>> it will depend on the specific facts and as mr. kris said these are fact intensive cases.is the admissible evidence in this case, what can the government meets its obligations under the principles of federal prosecution and sustain a conviction to map all of those who get to how easy it is to get the prosecution. if you begin with a presumption in favor of oracle three prosecutions is propelling down that road. >> i think that as part of mr. edney concern or question. >> but i'm not troubled as a policy matter if we all began in from the position of doing everything necessary and proper to protect national security if we have to some cases and some cases to military commissions to ensure that actors receive justice there can be no controversy as to do the same kind of have a problem with that. >> your response is a practical one and, yes, it may be one can argue relegating the situation to a second-class to racing, but to respond by saying, first of all, is not second class of have procedures bills and a specialist with the legislation i propose as a matter of national sec

is the assistant attorney general of the national security division at the department of justice, mr. krisu mr. chairman, senator mccain and members of the committee, i come from the justice apartment and this is my wrist appearance before this committee. i thought i might begin to us by briefly explaining how i think my work relates to that of the committee with respect to military commissions. at the national security division which i lead combines all of doj major national security personnel and functions. and our basic mission is to protect national security consistent with the rule of law and civil liberties and in keeping with that we support all lawful methods for achieving that protection. including but not limited to a prosecution in article three court over for military commissions. in the last administration and as these assembled a team of spears federal prosecutors from across the country to assist the dod i was a military commissions and litigate cases at gitmo. and can assure you that the systems will continue. a man and then let that team for the national security division

johnson, mr. kris, we appreciate your testimony today. please submit to us what else will be helpful including the official recommendations that we referred to a few moments ago. with that, we're adjourned. .. >> >> my name is robert churchill, i'm professor at the university of hartford, and tonight, we are going to talk to you a little bit and then discuss and maybe do a little debating on the history of the second amendment and the issues of gun rights and gun control and a concept known as the insurrectionary idea or what happens you could call it differently, insurrectionary politics. i would like to introduce to you now the first speaker for today, that is joshua horowitz. joshua horowitz is the executive director of the coalition to stop gun violence. he is a visiting scholar at john hopkins bloomberg school of public health and he is the co-author with casey anderson of "guns, democracy, and the insurrectionist idea." >> my name is josh horowitz, thank you very much for having me tonight. as professor churchill said i'm the co-aut

kris van cleave explains. >> marion barry had police stopped the ex-husband from entering the wilson building for an event. >> that individual had been confrontational with mr. barry in the past. >> his accuser wrote letters and said in part -- as for the events leading up to his arrest, his lawyer confirms he spent much of july 4 with his accuser. they had planned to go to rehoboth beach. they were -- they returned to dc. >> we believe the charge stems from a personal relationship that has gone horribly wrong. >> they left the home shortly before being arrested. they say barry was a frequent visitor. >> i have seen them together. i do not believe it. >> barry is expected to be in court on thursday. that is when they will learn if charges will be proceeded. his attorney says he is confident they will win if it goes to court. kris van cleave, abc 7 news. >> before the arrest, he only had a few ups and downs this year. he was threatened to be put in jail for failure to file taxes. it would have been a violation of his probation. the case was later resolved with barry not having to return to jail. then he received a kidney transplant. >>> still to come, the st

mr. kris? we would like to hear from you. >> thank you. mr. chairman, senator kyl and members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to testify. federal prosecution in article three courts can be an effective method of protecting national security consistent with fundamental due process and the rule of law. in the 1990s, i prosecuted a group of violent anti-government extremists. like their more modern counterparts they engaged in what now would be called law fare and the trials were very challenging. but prosecution succeeded not only because it incarcerated these defendants, but also because it deprived them of any legitimacy for their anti-government beliefs. military commissions can help do the same for those who violate the law of war. that is not only detain them for longer than might other wise be possible under the law of war, but also brand them as ill yit war criminals. to do this effectively, however, the commissions themselves must first be reformed. the legislation now pendin