Live-Blog Senate hearing on Hamden Ruling in Senate Judiciary

[TayTay]

Calling all lawyers! (I'm not one, but I know there are some very smart ones here at DU.)

You can follow this hearing on C-Span 3 at: http://www.c-span.org/homepage.asp (Pick up the C-Span3 link at the bottom of the page.)

This hearing is talking about the legal status of prisoners at Guantanamo and what the Congress should do in light of the recent Supreme Court ruling that the 'Special Military Tribunals' are not Constitutional. (Lawyers can correct my understanding of this.)

[TayTay]

1. Witnesses for this hearing

from the Senate Judiciary website: http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearing.cfm?id=1986

PANEL I

Mr. Steve Bradbury
Acting Assistant Attorney General
Office of Legal Counsel
United States Department of Justice
Washington, DC

Mr. Daniel Dell’Orto
Principal Deputy General Counsel
United States Department of Defense
Washington, DC

PANEL II

The Honorable Theodore Olson
Former Solicitor General
Partner
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher
Washington, DC

Professor Harold Koh
Dean
Yale Law School
New Haven, CT

Mr. Paul "Whit" Cobb
Former Deputy General Counsel
United States Department of Defense
Washington, DC

Lt. Commander Charles Swift
Office of Military Commissions
Office of Chief Defense Counsel
United States Department of Defense
Washington, DC

Professor Scott L. Silliman
Retired Air Force Judge Advocate
Center on Law, Ethics and National Security
Duke University School of Law
Durham, NC

Mr. Daniel Collins
Former Associate Deputy Attorney General
Partner
Munger, Tolles & Olson
Los Angeles, CA

[TayTay]

2. Sen. Leahy is up now

He is giving a fairly standard response that this SCOTUS ruling affirms that the President must obey the Rule of Law. Leahy stated that this hearing continues the thoughts of a prior hearing and notes that the path chosen by the Admin has not been productive and has been harmful to the separation of powers and to the idea of a fair trial.

The Supreme Court decision is a triumph for our Constitution .....

Sen. Leahy is giving an excellent summary of these points:

The President is placing himmself about the Rule of Law
The Congress is enabling this
The false argument about 'giving special preference to terrorists' is deceptive
Not one of the prisoners at Gitmo have been brought to trial. Not one.

[TayTay]

4. Dell’Orto: Making the case for the Admin

He is stating that there is a long history of alternative processes in 'times of trouble,' and that this is necessary today because of the extraordinary nature of the 'war on terra.'

[TayTay]

7. Bradbury: The limits of the Court's decision

The Court didn't declare a lot of what the Bush Admin wanted uncontitutional. Congress must step up and help decide what will happen going forward. The Congress can certify a lot of what the Bush Admin wants. The ilitary tribunals are necessary and Congress should authorize this.

The terrorists are terrible, terrible people and do not deserve any 'special preference.' (These people are so bad that Rule of Law shouldn't apply to them.)

What standard should apply to the terrorists. Well, we don't do cruel and unusual punishment. Congress stated this and, of course, we don't do torture.

What is Common Article 3?

[TayTay]

8. Pointed phrase:

We should rely on US Law to deal with the terrorists. Didn't the Admin just affirm recently that they would abide by the Geneva Conventions on how to treat prisoners?

[TayTay]

3. Calling all DU lawyers.

We could use an 'informed voice' in this discussion. I am not a lawyer and will 'miss stuff.'

[Norquist Nemesis]

5. THANK YOU!

I need something other than watching Bush having a royal visit with the press corps jesters.

[TayTay]

6. I am not the best one to write this.

I can only trascribe a tiny bit of what is said. (I am at work, which also makes this hard to do.)

But the hearing is about Gitmo and the recent hearing. This is prelude to whatever the Congress is going to do to cover Bush's butt on the disgrace that is Gitmo.

Dell’Orto is now talking about Court Martial and how that at least affords the military the right to call witnesses in, I think, a more open way. Sigh!

[TayTay]

9. Specter is asking the first witnesses

which provisions of the rules of the UCJ should not apply to Gitmo prisoners and why.

Interesting exchange. Specter was referencing the Senate bill that has been filed to deal with the Hamden decision. He asked these witnesses to provide the Judiciary Comm with the answer to the above question in two weeks. The witnesses backtracked a bit on who can answer this question and pointed out that only the Pres can file legislation.

[TayTay]

10. Should the rules on evidence be suspended

should the rules on coercive questioning be suspended.

The Admin Justice Dept lawyers are saying that they should be.

[TayTay]

11. More testimony

Preponderance of the evidence standard not necessary.

Sec of Defense should decide standards on 'C-Certs' (Do I have that right?)

Specter is trying to pin the witnesses down as to what they recommend on policy. The witnesses are evading the question.

[helderheid]

12. recommended

[helderheid]

13. kick - this man has a tiny head.

[cal04]

14. thank you TayTay

for the thread and keeping us updated on what they're saying
:hi: :kick:

[helderheid]

15. yes, thank you TayTay!

[TayTay]

16. Leahy: Congress asked, in 2001, for policy on these issues

After 9/11 Congress went to the Bush/Cheney Admin and asked for guidance and to work together. Congress was rebuffed.

The argument from Leahy is when did Congress say that the President could take the law into his own hands. Shouldn't the Bush/Cheney Admin not have gone off on their own and, instead, consulted with Congress, in a bipartisan way from the beginning.

Bradbury: Congress doesn't decide these things in time of war. The Pres and the military does that because it's a time of war. However, we do want to work with Congress now.

Leahy: Oh that would be great. If you had worked with us five years ago, we would be better off.


UCMJ rules and the rules on hearsay normally simply cannot be allowed here. (Hmmmm.)

[TayTay]

17. Retired JAGs point of view

Leahy has referenced a lot of retired military lawyers (JAGs) who strongly disagree with the Bush Admin's policies in this. Anybody in the Bush Admin care? No, not really.

[helderheid]

18. Sessions up

:puke:

[Norquist Nemesis]

47. I nominate Sessions to get a hands-on demonstration

of life at Gitmo and in the secret prisons. He can be an enemy combatant.

[helderheid]

19. The President has consistantly rejected torture????

Oh yea?? Why would he have a signing statement that says it doesn't apply to him????

[TayTay]

21. That is their silly argument

Torture doesn't officially occur. Individuals in isolated experiences simply got carried away. But it wasn't policy.

Agree: :puke:

[TayTay]

23. I have to be away for a few minutes

Anybody to take over for a few minutes? (Ah, the perils of posting at work.)

[TayTay]

20. Sessions: What is a legitimate procedure

Sessions is speaking to the standard RW argument that this fight is so extraordinary that we can't be bound by prior rulings and we need special dispensations in order to deal with the terrorists.

Sessions is arguing in favor of hearsay evidence and of lesser adherance to the rules of evidence. (Chain of custody rules can't apply because of the chaos factor and because these are such bad, bad people.)

etc. We have heard this before.

[helderheid]

22. Life and death issue - well yes and torturing people will only bring

on more death you MORON.

[helderheid]

24. FEINSTEIN!

Go Girl!

[helderheid]

25. bringing up financial times re: geneva conventions

[TayTay]

27. Feinstein: Are the Geneva Conventions being carried out.

Witness: Yes. They are being carried out according to Common Article 3.

Feinstein: All the standard niceties of American Law, according to you, like no hearsay evidence, Miranda, etc, are not possible to grant in Gitmo. Do you think Gitmo serves a useful purpose after Hamden?

Should we instead have a Commission that can adhere to American Rule of Law?

Witness: Gitmo is needed. (The terrorists are terrorists, you know.) We can fix this and adher to the rules under Hamden. But within reason. They are terrorists you know. You can't trust them. What is we need info right away? We can't go by the Rules in that situation. But we will try and get them lawyers at the appropriate time.

[helderheid]

28. kick

[TayTay]

29. Kyl: But we will be absolutely pure in applying standards

And of course the US will adhere to common standards. Of course!

Can we hold detainees and prevent from returning to the battlefield legally and without too much undue restricitons. (They are terrorists you know.) After all, the terrorists are not part of a real military. They are special cases and the Rule of Law would only cause problems. (Hello, terrorists!)

Witness: Detention vs. prosecution.

Battlefield: may be detained until the end of the conflict. This happened in WWII. US detained prisoners until the conflict ended. We also detain people in theater. Some are sent to Gitmo. We have actually returned some to their country cuz they are not a threat. There are special prisoners who are terrorists and they merit special and harsher treatment. Any legislation can't tie our hands on this. We need to be able to separate out some prisoners and have the legal weherewithal to deal with them at places like Gitmo.

Kyl: Difference between how US soldiers are treated and how terrorists are treated?

Witness: Ahm, yeah, we try to give our soldiers every benefit of the law. Our people deserve the best possible protection during Court Martial. (We are the best in the world at this, btw.) Terrorists can't get these protections because they don't deserve them and their home countries wouldn't give them to them either. (Sigh!)

[helderheid]

26. oooohhh she is throwing it (sooo calmly) in his FACE.

[The Witch]

30. Is this worth tuning in to?

(read: Is Russ there?) :-)

[helderheid]

31. YES!

and YES!

[The Witch]

32. If you say so

Sorry, steph miller. (I hope she doesn't read my letter on-air now... sigh)

[helderheid]

34. don't switch - I'll let you know when Russ is up. :)

[TayTay]

36. It is a restatement of the sides in this debate

You can hear the Admin lawyers from Justice instructing Congress on what they want. You can hear the various voices in Congress of dissent. The Dems have been strong today in dissent. The Rethugs are emphasizing the idea that these are, duh, terrorists.

I like this, but your mileage may vary.

[helderheid]

41. RUSS IS UP!!!!!!!!

[The Witch]

43. i desperately want to say something dirty

but i suppose i'll just be quiet and listen.

[helderheid]

44. LMAO

[TayTay]

33. Kohl: Again probing the idea of what is the Law here

Witness: The PResident just wants some guidelines. Trust us. We will do the right thing. Congress should allow us to go forward and not tie our hands overly.

:puke:

Kohl: Is this an abuse of executive power?

Witness: Oh no. There was no mention of whether the President exceeded his authority. All the Justices in Hamden thought the Congress could deal with this. (No abuse of power at all.)

How to deal with the prisoners?

Why ratify what we have already done and put this into the law. Sigh!

[helderheid]

35. it is sickening

[TayTay]

37. Hatch: Classified material must not fall into the hands of the enemy

We need extraordinary measures in order to keep info from getting to the bad guys. And, military justice is every bit as rigorous as civilian law. Don't the prisoners already have all the protections of law. (This is why Hamden bothers him.)

Does the Supreme Court decision allow for testimony damaging to the US. (Witness will blab in public, the terrorists will find out and bad things will happen.)

Witness: Ahm, yeah, what he said.

[helderheid]

39. perfect summary

[TayTay]

40. This is the Rethug answer to everything.

The terrorists will find out and bad things will happen. The NYTimes can't print anything about the NSA or the SWIFT banking system, cuz the terrorists will find out.

Same argument here. We have to ignore international standards because it will damage the security of the US. BTW, the fact that the treatment reflects badly on the US would also get out and make trouble for the US. So, we should never let bad things get out. Sigh!

We must allow special legal procedures, otherwise we will be 'fighting the terrorists not only on the battlefield, but in the court room.'

[hootinholler]

83. Truly...

How is violation of US and International law not an abuse of power?!?!

-Hoot

[helderheid]

38. Jesus Hatch is slimey

www.peteashdown.org

[The Witch]

53. "Jesus Hatch" = oxymoron

:spray:

[helderheid]

55. LOL!!!

[Norquist Nemesis]

42. Feingold up now

Reading statement. Hope he asks some hard questions.

[helderheid]

46. he's doing GREAT

[Norquist Nemesis]

49. "I find these arguments to be astounding."

Go RUSS!!!

[TayTay]

52. Feingold: How does Hamdan affect say, NSA justification.

Feingold is stating that this Admin is 'out of control' and is claiming powers that are not constitutional. Does Hamden further that view that this Admin doesn't believe in a restraint of power?

Witness: Ahm, no. Hamden says the Pres can legally detain enemy combatants. The Pres can do this. The Supreme Court is picking nits. As to NSA, well, you can do this. It is in the statutes. He can wiretap. It's not an abuse of power.

Feingold: Nothing doing. These are illegal abuses of power. The twisted logic necessary to get to where the Admin wants to go is unsupported.

Feingold: We are doing harm to our system of government. We have to establish legal boundaries.

[The Witch]

45. OH YES Russ brings it back to NSA spying!!!!!!

I was hoping he would

:loveya:

[helderheid]

48. doesn't disappoint!

[helderheid]

50. Flies in the face of reality!

WOOT!

[The Witch]

51. "astounding" "flies in the face of reality" --Russquotes

"enormous impact" "clearly illegal"

:loveya: :loveya: :loveya:

[Norquist Nemesis]

57. ROFL! That mouth twitch on Bradbury!!

He looked like he wanted to take it outside with Feingold. LOL!

UGH! Now Cornyn...ugh ugh ugh

[The Witch]

59. I'd pay real cash money to see him "take it outside"...

if only for the chance to see Russ with his shirt off. :P

[The Witch]

54. Russ won't get off the mike

"You can litigate this all the way up to the Supreme Court, and my guess is you're going to lose again."

Russ PUNCH-OUT!

[helderheid]

56. that. was. AWESOME.

[The Witch]

58. "pre-911 mindset that terrorists should be treated like criminals."

Is this Cornyn? It smells like the Great Cornholio.

[Norquist Nemesis]

60. Yep! Cornyn. Orrin Hatch is his mentor

:puke:

[TayTay]

61. Cornyn: We have courts and they are in line with the law

The Court hasn't decided the procedures. We need to find out what is practicable in regards to the Gitmo situation. The pre-9/11 mindset that treated the terrorists as mere criminals didn't go far enough. Our wussy treatment of these people has allowed bad things to happen. They are, hello, terrorists after all. We can't coddle them. Don't you Justice guys agree with this.

Witness: Ahm, yeah. What he said.

Cornyn: Red Cross says that POW status is accorded to established military. So it doesn't apply to these people who are not part of a standard national army. They don't get POW status and we shouldn't be held to the standards of treating them that way.

Witnesses: What he said.

Cornyn: Gee, we couldn't interrogate them if they were entitled to be treated as POWs. (Name, rank and serial number is all they could give out.) Gee, if we can't torture them, how are we going to save American lives?

[Norquist Nemesis]

69. And if they're not we'll take out those activist judges

That his underlying message (emphasis on the lying)

[The Witch]

62. Bloviatin' Biden says there are 2 paths -- constitutionality & efficacy.

so far so good. But I'm fairly sure "effectatious" is not a word :rofl:

[The Witch]

63. he's still babbling. joe. we're NOT nominating you for prezzie.

so ask your damn question.

[cal04]

67. talking about when he went to Iraq

things aint good
talk to them

[The Witch]

66. "I don't know what PLANET we're on!" "things ain't good in Happy Valley!"

:rofl: :rofl: He's bloviating, but still... :rofl: :rofl:

[helderheid]

68. I agree - that was funny!

[TayTay]

64. Biden: Actions and results. Are we getting what we want and need

Biden rambles and is hard to transcribe.

Biden says Rumsfeld asked are we deterring more terrorists than we are creating. Answer: No.

Are we winning this war on terror? Is the price being paid worth trashing the image of the US and it's laws? Are the actions taking place at US facilities, including Gitmo, not doing more harm than good as regards treating our troops. (We are not helping ourselves here.)

9/11 Commission wanted some rules for how to treat the prisoners from this occupation. US should work with allies to develop a mutual standard for treatment. Isn't that a good idea?

witness: The State Dept (which we regularly ignore) is working on this. Besides, we had to protect the country.

Biden: Yeah, that hasn't worked out too well, has it.

[helderheid]

65. things ain't good in Happy Valley... I don't know what planet we're on

[in_cog_ni_to]

70. *sigh* Even though I like what Biden is saying,

is this really the time for a freakin' speech? JUST ASK A QUESTION, JOE! Geezus....the guy just loves to run the mouth.

[helderheid]

71. He has been so wrong, so many times, so consistantly

GOD LOVE HIM but his judgement is TERRIBLE.

[The Witch]

72. That was unbelievably entertaining.

I hope someone got that on video :)

[in_cog_ni_to]

73. Oh great...Graham's up......another appeaser.

:eyes:

[helderheid]

74. what an ass kisser.

[The Witch]

75. I can't wait for panel 2

with Lt. Cmdr. Swift -- that will be a hell of a statement, etc.

[TayTay]

76. Graham: Shouldn't Congress and the Pres work together.

Graham: We should all joing hands and work together.

Witnesses: Ahm, yeah.

Graham: We need to have things in the US set right so that we can go to the rest of the world and be clear on how we treat people.

Do we need to show why the changes in law are needed? (Good point.)

Witness: Ah, no not really.

Graham: Why woud the Congress authorize two trial forms if one size fits all. Why do we need two?

Witness: Well, we have precedent. We have always needed two types of trials. This is not a change. (Goes to the argument of the 'power grab. We ain't grabbing no power. We always had this right.)

Graham: Okay, we hae a standard for our troops and one for military but not covered by our mmilitary laws. So we do have two tracks already. This is a good idea.

[TayTay]

77. CAN SOMEONE START A NEW THREAD

I have to be away again for a few minutes. Sigh!

THANKS!

[The Witch]

79. never mind

HH beat me to it, damn it :)

[helderheid]

80. done

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1608468&mesg_id=1608468

[The Witch]

78. Teddy Lion up. ROAR, baby, ROAR!

going to talk about how we want our prisoners treated.

[TayTay]

81. Kennedy: How does this affect the treatment of US Prisoners

How we deal with the alien combatants will rebound on to how our people are treated. The Pres has exceeeded his authority. The Court restores the Rule of Law.

There is no 'get out of Jail Free' card for Gitmo prisoners. The Pres can prosecute war criminals. But the Pres is not following the law, it is creating it's own unchecked system that is unaccountable to anyone or anything. This will rebound on our people as they are captured.

[helderheid]

82. NEW THREAD >>

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1608468