tv [untitled] April 24, 2012 4:30pm-5:00pm EDT
explained. there's no reference at all to recruitment, either in prisons or in encampment. small wonder that it was applauded by care and organizations similarly minded. but what's the danger of such a document? well, take a long look at the social change that has overtaken some countries in europe, including france, england and even sweden and in which there are rules. that's what comes with dealing uncritically with sol stakes holders, what the dock also overlooks is that part pachblts have been successful and unsuccess if the plots have been radicalized not in the united states but in -- plane that was taken over by brave passengers over pennsylvania was raised in beirut where it was said that he never missed a party, but then
he went to hamburg germany, where it is said that he never missed a prayer. the would be times square bomber, a chicago native who changed his name for david coleman headily and he conducted surveillance to help carry out the terrorist attack in november of 2008. all of these and many others were radicalized in the west. what of the killing of osama bin laden, do those acts not suggest that perhaps those in control have changed their view? i would recommend before you decide that, you examine the surrounding circumstances before you determine whether what you're looking at is simply an event, an episodor a change in policy. the bin laden killing was announced with great fanfare, as
it deserved to be. but also announced with great fanfare was the fact that a trove of intelligence information had been seized from his resident isidencresidence. for someone who understands the value of intelligence make an announcement like that for the sake of a feel good moment when the main practical effect of doing so is the loss of numerous protective targets? and what drone killing was just and went through the list of criteria including the certainty that he was an operational terrorist, the likelihood that there would be few collateral issues.
limits how a -- if the first amendment's establishment clause means anything, it means that our government can pick winners and losers indoctrine natural disputes. but it can take irrational steps that undermine security. first those charged with protecting our securities have a duty to understand and to teach others under their authority what the basic tennants are of the people who are trying to destroy our way of life. in past conflicts, they may not always have been self-evident, what happens perhaps -- and in military culture of the religion. we could simply blast those countries to smithereens as we did because the evil had its own base there, but it was much more necessary to understand the enemy when we fought communism,
as whitaker chamber reported. also those charged with protecting us have a responsibility to avoid strengthening the hand of those who are trying to undermine our way of life by relying on them as our principal interlock cute fors in the -- branch of hamas and of the muslim brotherhood. the islamic society of north america is another branch of the muslim brotherhood. it's mod toe, which has not changed to this day is, allah is our objective, the prophet is our leader, the koran is our law, jihad is our way, dying in the faith of allah is our highest hope. if those are the people we empower by relying on them and reaching out to them, we not only damage ourselves, but we
correspondingly strengthen them in the islamic community and weaken more moderate voices. in addition, those charged with protecting us have a duty to avoid self-sense sure ship. for example the after action report on hassan's massacre at ft. hood does not mention the word islam. the army chief of staff said on television after that event was that the greatest tragedy would be if it had a negative effect on the -- john brennan, a national security advisor to president obama told an audience for the center for strategic and international studies, now this is a deep thinker, talking to other deep thinkers, he said extremists in the united states are products of quote, political, economic and social forces, unquote and should be
described in religious terms because to do so would create the mistaken impression that we ared a war with islam and therefore give credence to al qaeda propaganda. let's review the bidding. osama bin laden was a millionaire many times over. his successor and also coincidentally who planned and carried out the 2007 attack at the glasgow airport are physicians. the son of a former economics minister of nigeria. products of political, economic and social forces? i mentioned john brennan and the attorney general not because they are unique, but because they are perfect symbols of the kind of soft headed disdense that have infected the discourse of public figures.
not that the -- the smart said in the 1920s, ridicule the value and lifestyle lifestyles. anti-anti-come in addition was fashionable in some -- a great judge often called the greatest appellate judge that was ever to exist. that the spirit of liberty is the spirit that that is too sure that it is right. while that not be exactly true, at least an affordable indulgence at times, at the time he said it was in late spring of 1944. it's not exactly around the corner, at least pretty well certain, but today, when we are up against people who are sufficiently sure that they are right to fly airplanes into buildings, those responsible for
protecting us are sure enough that it is right to keep that spirit and us alive. i thank you very much for the honor of speaking to you. [ applause ] you may recall i introduced the judge bring mentioning that his moral compass being infallible. we have a few minutes and we can take two or three questions if you would like. yes, sir.
we have not learned to distinguish between islam which is a religion and the static people who misuse this name to spread terror all over the world. i love your country, i have been here many, many times since 1975, i was received as a guest by the majority speaker in '75. i had the pleasure of meeting president nixon. but as a great friend of your great nation and also as a great friend of israel, which i respect enormously, which was created by jews who were denied their rights, with people trying
thank you, judge, general. >> michael. >> michael. just call me paul. i think your remarks were great. i hope we can share those with our colleagues. i hope someone will also post the gentleman who spoke and my response to him because i think that properly communicates the spirit of the entire occasion.
>> mine is a more mundane question. what is your view of whether or where these enemy combatants should be tried in the military courts or do we need hybrid special'sed court like the fisa court. >> right now we have a binary choice, it's either civilian courts or military commissions. i think civilian courts are the wrong place for a variety reasons, both moral because the rules of war have been developed over centuries. so that if you wear a uniform, you carry your arms openly, you follow the recognized chain of
command and most important, you don't target civilians, then you're entitled to the protection of the geneva conventions. but if you violent all those rules, we have got an even better deal for you, we take you to a civilian court, where you're tried in public and have a platform for your views and you can have a lawyer try to mislead a jury. on the other hand military commissions, we have had military commissions in the past, we have had them since the revolution. but we have never done it long-term. and i don't know that the military's hereto is really in it. this is-the military is not there to run a parallel justice system. it's there to win wars. you win wars by blowing stuff up and killing people, which is what you're supposed to do and what they do very well. you don't win wars by running a
parallel justice system. particularly a justice system that is one where society is offloading a problem and telling you please deal with it out of our sight. i think what's called for is a third kind of tribunal, as you said like the fisa court, that would be created by congress, i think ideally it would be presided over by title 3 judges who would have faith in the proceedings, with jurors from the political tear as military jurors are now and trials held using rules of evidence that would allow evidence to be introduced. so you don't have to necessarily comply with all of the rigors of the federal rules of evidence. congress doesn't show any sign of doing that. yes? >> mr. attorney general, i have had the privilege of teaching the origins of terrorism for ron's college so i appreciate
your remarks very watch much. it's much misunderstood. i have two questions for you really quickly. first of all, how do you respond judicially to judges who attempt to adopt sharia law by use of contracts between private individuals who agree that sharia law will ajude date their contest. how do you objectively, what do you project for the incursion of sharia law into the judiciary of this country. >> that -- so far as providing for sharia law as a basis for a decision, if you're talking about a commercial case, then in theory, there's no reason why you can't do that. if two parties agree that -- and they want to go arbitrate or go in front of an arbitrator and agree to take that arbitrators -- and there's no reason to avoid that, we do it in other settings as well.
you can choose foreign laws to govern an arbitration, if there's an actual connection and both parties agree. so far so far as sharia law getting into the basis in decision for the u.s. law, it's happened a couple times. it's been turned around a couple times. there's a famous judge in intellectual who dismissed charges against a defendant because he raped his wife because he thought it was permissible for him to do that under his religion. the judge, said, gee, he practices a different religion and this is the case an dismissed the case. an appellate court turned that around. i don't think we're in any actual danger of having that happen. that's not to say that courts shouldn't be aware of it and deal with it. the problem is when you get enclaves in which not everybody has a choice about what law applies, and if you live in the enclave, the enclave's rules
control. that's what's gone on in europe and that is what i think we want to avoid. yes. >> senator schumer has recogniz recognized -- [ inaudible ] -- >> sure. she's a -- she's a superb lawyer and a sepuuperb person. i've worked with her on a number of cases and i think she would make us an excellent addition to the federal bench. she is a good sound common sense lawyer with her head screwed onto the front, which is what you need in a district judge. she's also not easily bored, which is also what you need. [ laughter ] >> which is also what you need in a successful district judge. >> i've known her since junior high or high school. >> worked with her and i think the world of her.
>> i thank you all. this clock has told us it's time to move on. [ applause ] >> michael carvin argued against the president's health care law before the support lathe suprem last night. last week, he spoke to the national republican lawyers association about the case and why he believes the health care law is unconstitutional. >> i hope everyone enjoyed the breakout sessions. we'll go ahead and get started with our final speaker of the day before our reception and open bar.
we're very happy to have mike carvin, who at jones dai focuses on constitutional, appellate and civil rights and civil litigation against the federal government. he's argued numerous cases in the united states sport and virtually every appeals court, obtaining the justice department from obtaining monetary relief against the tobacco industry under rico, overturning the justice department's ability to create majority/minority districts and upholding proposition's 209s ban on racial preferences in california. mike was one of the lead lawyers and argued before the florida supreme court on behalf of george w. bush in the florida recount controversy. he has represented state government, financial institutions, telecommunication and energy companies in takings, first amendment, civil rights and statutory challenges to federal government actions. he's a graduate of george
washington law school and earned his b.a. from tulane. he's served as deputy assistant attorney general civil rights division and special assistant to assistant attorney general civil rights division and he knows a few things about obamacare, which is why he's here today having argued the case before the supreme court on behalf of the nfib. please welcome to the stage mike carvin. [ applause ] >> thanks. i'll try and make this relatively painless and brief. you guys are already gluttons for punishment on this beautiful day sitting here talking about the commerce clause. i will kind of walk through it and then i'd be happy to answer any questions. as you undoubtedly know the issue we did argue a few weeks ago was for the first time in american history the federal government had compelled their citizens to buy a product, insurance. they were required to buy this product, even though it was economically disadvantageous to these people, which is not my
opinion but the express opinion of the congress that imposed it. they found because you were making healthy 30-year-olds buy health insurance they didn't really need because they rarely went to the doctor, this would lower everyone else's premiums by 15% to 20% or 28 to $39 billion annually. that was the avowed purpose of the individual mandate since congress had required insurers to sell below cost insurance to sick people, which would obviously drive up premiums, they wanted to bring in a bunch of healthy people in the risk pool in order to drive down the cost of insurance. so the question is where does congress get this power to force american citizens to buy products that they don't want, don't need and are economically counterproductive? it a relatively simple case for people who, you know, read the constitution. the constitution only gives congress congresses limited power and the
pourer it gave them was the power to regulate commerce. when you're sitting at home not buying insurance you're not involved in commerce. can they compel you? since they can regulate your transaction, when you go out to buy a gm car, can they require to you buy a gm car? since the word "regulate" doesn't mean compelled, the answer is pretty obvious. even the government didn't really push that argument. their argument was a series of cases that you guys undoubtedly know about from the 1930s, most notably wicker against philburn said congress can reach and get at local production of goods, it can get at people who substantially affect interstate commerce and it can regulate people who are only selling or involved in a small amount of wheat. that's the famous wicker against philburn case. our point was wicker did say you could get at people who were
only producing a small amount of wheat. what it didn't say or imply was that you could require americans to buy wheat, that people who are in the market, even though they're in at a very local level, are analogous to local bootleggers and congress power to regulate the interstate liquor market allows them to get at local bootleggers. what it doesn't allow them to get at is teetotalers, people outside the relevant market. that's what they're trying to do here. and that was the key point that we made, which is if you're not in the market, you can't possibly adversely affect market participants. supply and demand will be precisely the same as it was. you're in no way engaged in the kind of activity that has always been the rationale for congress to regulate local people like wicker. the government's next argument was, okay, even if you don't negatively affect commerce, you negatively affect commerce regulation.
this plan, this act won't work unless we can conscript all these healthy people in to buy insurance and we really need their money because if we don't get them to buy insurance and we're requiring insurers to insure all of these sick people, premiums will go through the roof and we won't be able to keep premiums affordable. and our point was that under the necessary and proper clause, congress does certainly have the ability to eliminate people who are creating problems for regulation. if you have in this case, a small amount of marijuana, you're creating a problem in terms of congress's effort to extrapate all marijuana. but we're not creating any problems between the insurers and the government. they're going to regulate the insurance companies and the insurance companies aren't going to deny people with preexisting any care. we don't have anything to do with that. we're not standing as an
obstacle or barrier to that regulation. we're being brought in not because we're a problem in terms of regulating the insurance companies, we're being brought in because we're a solution to the problem that congress has already created through its fully executed law. if that is a power that congress has under the necessary and proper clause, that means every time they impose a burdensome regulation or consider -- car company or drives up the cost of, again, cars, that means they can bring you in to offset the costs of their burdensome regulations and require you to buy gm stock and that can't possibly be the law. whenever we have told private companies like this case that they've got to take action for the public welfare, in this case because of charitable reasons 'r