LIVE Senate Hearing on Hamden Ruling C-SPAN 3 THREAD 3

[helderheid]

Thread 1
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1607924&mesg_id=1607924
Thread 2
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1608468&mesg_id=1608468

[shadowknows69]

1. Yes!!!

Harold Koh is laying it on the line.

[helderheid]

2. He's doing a great great great job

[TayTay]

4. I agree. Koh is trying to 'right the ship'

and is talking about how the President must obey the law, must submit to oversight and is not independent of the law. How refreshing to hear this today.

[shadowknows69]

5. boom boom boom

back on the right side of the law...back on the right side of history. BOOM!!

[in_cog_ni_to]

3. A voice of reason and SANITY! n/t

[helderheid]

6. I am really impressed with this guy

[shadowknows69]

7. Body slam

n/t

[shadowknows69]

13. I love this talking point

we need to hammer it home. We have sound laws. There is no reason the administration needs to go beyond them. They work.

[in_cog_ni_to]

8. SWIFT! This guy is AMAZING!

:loveya:

[Norquist Nemesis]

9. Swift up now! n/t

[blogslut]

10. Charles Swift!

Yeehaw. Go Swift! Go Koh!

[WilliamPitt]

11. HELP

Was the guy who said "The president is always right named Steven Bradbury? This guy:

http://www.moveleft.com/moveleft_essay_2006_02_06_bush_can_order_the_killings_of_people_in_the_us_says_bush_adminstratio.asp

[helderheid]

12. YES

Lehey asked "Was the President right or was the President wrong?" and he answered meekly "The president is always right"

[WilliamPitt]

15. A million thanks

[helderheid]

17. you bet - I edited my response to you to give you the context

[in_cog_ni_to]

14. YES it was. n/t

[TayTay]

16. Hatch talking to Cmdr Swift

Swift: (He was Plaintiff's attorney in Hamden.)

Should the judicial rules of the last 5 1/2 years be reinstated? No. And a lot of military lawyers believe this.

There are serious and responsible people in the JAGs who find this behavior reprehensible and dangerous for a democracy. They invite abuse without recourse in law.

What? The defense can't get evidence that might go to innocence? (The govt can withhold this? What?)

Coercion in testimony should not be allowed.

The military panel will be hand-picked and will not acquit these defendants. (OMFG!!!!!!!!)

[TayTay]

18. Swift more

The Defense in Hamden had no ability to subpoena witnesses. You can't see the evidence, you can't talk to the witnesses. (OMFG!!!!!!)

Military lawyers cannot operate in this.

I hope Swift gets to speak later on in the day. His testimony is to the heart of everything.

[helderheid]

19. thank you for the summary - you do that so well! I can't type that fast :)

[Norquist Nemesis]

20. Missed that...did Hatch cut him off? n/t

[TayTay]

21. Key features on

1: Specialized law of war court designed to deal with the underlying issues in a particular conflict.
a. Courts marshall not designed for war crimes trials.

2: Funciton of the military. (War crimes court.) Because m

3: Inclusive rules of evidence that allows the fact-finding to weight the evidence in each case.

4: Heightened protection of classified information. (Al Qaeda is so evil, they can't be given legal help.)

%: Arrrrggggghhhhh. didn't get it. Interrupted at work. Sigh!

[Norquist Nemesis]

22. Hatch apparently doesn't like this guy up now

Body language is crystal clear.

[helderheid]

23. folded arms

[malaise]

24. I noticed that n/t

[shadowknows69]

26. Former JAG of the airforce

good creds.

[helderheid]

29. seems like he has folded arms for all of panel 2

[Norquist Nemesis]

31. He's pissed he even has to 'have' a panel 2

Whatever and whomever Bush decides should be there is fully appropriate and necessary, for Hatch.

[TayTay]

25. Scott L. Silliman

The court did not deal with the Pres' authority to detain. The Detainee Treatment Act need not be addressed, The Court didn't.

The Congress should only address the concerns needed. Putting everything back the way it was before Hamden wouldn't solve anything, there would still be judicial problems and court challenges.

The Congress could do something about the hearsay evidence. Never allow coerced evidence. We need a system of judicial review.

The current system is adequte to the task. Courts Marshall can work. We don't need these extraordinary measures that the Bush Admin and the lawyers that spoke earlier are advocating. We need some minor adjustments, and we need to work with Congress on this to fix what needs fixing. We don't need to rewrite everything or invent a new system that has legal changes without review.

[helderheid]

27. We are a nation under the RULE OF LAW

[shadowknows69]

28. that guy was awesome

n/t

[Norquist Nemesis]

30. Apparently, "Law" is Bush's code name. n/t

[TayTay]

32. Collins, former Deputy AG

Hamden causes enough doubt on the issues as to make it necessary for Congress to step in. We shouldn't make any changes without Congress.

1: Hamden decision did not rely on the Constitution of the US. Instead it went against the UCMJ.
2: SCOTUS did not question that a military tribunal is appropriate in this issue. This is a real war. We can deal with our 'enemies' in a military tribunal. No justice of the court questioned that, the argument is on how to do this, not whether or not we should.

[helderheid]

33. WILL RETURN AT 2:15 Eastern

[in_cog_ni_to]

34. recess until 2:15 ET. n/t

[Norquist Nemesis]

35. Thanks everyone!

In recess till later this afternoon.

:hi:

[The Witch]

36. DAMN IT!

I have a minor health problem and miss all of what swift had to say. CRAP. He was what I was looking forward to.

Oh well, if they will be back at 2:15...

[helderheid]

39. I hope you're okay!

[TayTay]

37. Recess! Back at 2:15.

We can pick it up here, this thread is not too full.

Or we can start a new one. It's fairly obvious that the first panel, with DoJ lawyers was very sympathetic to the Pres. (Ahm, he is always right after all. Who knew Bush and Pope are both infallible.)

The second panel is much more critical of what the Admin has done. I will still try and follow them.

There is also a House panel that is talking about IRaq. That is what is scheduled for C-Span 3 for this afternoon. If you want to continue following the Judiciary Committee, then you have to pick up the feed on the Judiciary website. Try and see if they are still webcasting at this link: http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearing.cfm?id=1986

*********************

Iraq Panel in the House: Webfeed on C-Span3.
House Committee
U.S. Policy Toward Iraq
Government Reform, National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations
Washington, District of Columbia (United States)
ID: 193378 - 07/11/2006 - 2:00 - No Sale

Shays, Christopher U.S. Representative, R-CT
Cordesman, Anthony H. Senior Fellow, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Strategy
Katzman, Kenneth Analyst, Congressional Research Service, Middle East
Christoff, Joseph A. Director, Government Accountability Office, International Affairs and Trade
Pollack, Kenneth M. Research Director, Brookings Institution, Saban Center for Middle East Policy
Walker, David M. Comptroller General, Government Accountability Office
Jeffrey, James Senior Adviser, Department of State, Iraq
Kubba, Laith Director, National Endowment for Democracy, Middle East & North Africa

A hearing is held on evolving a national strategy for victory in Iraq.

Rep. Chris Shays (R-CT) holds a Gov't Reform Subcmte. hearing on the evolving "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq." The strategy, issued by the Bush admin. in 2005, called for a three part program, emphasizing Political, Security and Economic tracks. The hearing looks at conditions in Iraq challenging the agenda for victory.

[helderheid]

38. heads up - they should be back in a few minutes

[helderheid]

40. WE'RE BAAAACK

[cal04]

42. Olson talking about the geneva convention

provisions added
the most flexibility to the pres. should be done
omg. Did I hear that right

[helderheid]

41. Ted Olsen up - didn't know he lost his wife on 9/11

[TayTay]

44. What a bastard

Olsen believes that nothing should stand in the way of Presidential ability to distort the law to 'fight the terrorists.' No mention yet of oversight.

[helderheid]

43. Tay Tay has a NEW THREAD:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1610052

[in_cog_ni_to]

45. Leahy questioning Swift! I knew he would.

:thumbsup:

[LSK]

46. aaahhhhhhhh its Jeff Sessions!!!

:banghead: