tv Today in Washington CSPAN September 7, 2010 2:00am-4:37am EDT
does go to a small number of persons we might try before the commissions. most of the conditions we have had so far, they involve drivers and clerks and child soldiers. they do not involve the high- profile criminal defendants where we have these various issues. >> the real irony is that, i think the public impression is that military justice would somehow be harsher. . tougher. i'm thinking of hamdon. who got a sentence with basically time served. had he been in the eastern division of virginia and convicted of those same offenses, i suspect he could be doing 20 to life. the sentence would have been completely different. it's ironic when you look at the outcome of the few cases that have been through the military system and compare them to the outcomes in our court. i have many, many defendant who are serving many sentences in
cases that didn't involve actual violence other than they were shooting r.p.g.s or other dangerous weapons over in pakistan. it's interesting when you think about it. i think the perception of the two systems have become warped. no terrori defendant in the modern times ever got a death sentence either. the embassy bombing there's not been that when he's fighting against the tide. >> someone acquited a trial a civilian or military trial could still be detain on a military rationale. there are supreme court precedents that say there's no due process for detaining someone after acquital. if there's an independent bases
for danger or something like that. i don't believe in any of those cases the executive branch announced that under no circumstances would the defendant be release. that's going to be a question for courts. i just wonder what you think about the impact on our trial of that position of the executive branch? rob? >> when i was asking about the legitimate massy of the trial. -- legit massy of the trial, i wasn't talking about that. i was talking about the background. >> i took it as that. i guess another question is what happens to the jury write
pool if that's the answer? >> i think i would do the same thing if i had the case i would do the same thing i did for the moussaoui case. you have to honestly talk to the jury. i'm a great believer in the american jury system. i think our jurors really do take their jobs seriously. i think it's important for judges to explain to the jurors exactly what their job. is i always tell jurors that they're going to become judges. and i don't have a robe that i can give themo wear while their sitting in my courtroom. but they should think of themselves as judges because their job is to be the judge of the case. you want a man or a woman who's coming into that courtroom with an open mind who absolutely has no predisposition one way or e other on the issue and who has the time to give to the case to think about it carefully, not to rush to judgment. and i give them a spiel like
that. i think that jurors when they truly understand the significance of what they're going to do is important. and if had that case, i might even said, everyone expect ascertain outco in this case, regardless of what you've seen in the media, you are the judges and you're going to decide this case. can you do that? and jurors, americans rise to that kind a challenge. i think it's important the trial judge has to set that tirm i always go backing to the article three judges. we really are very powerfulful we can't be afraid to use that power. you ally have to be authoritarian in that croor. most jurors are coming into your courtroom having watched things on television or in the movies that is still not the real thing. it's important to take them step by step in the process, especially in important cases.
the other thing i tell jurors is i refer to hamlet. even in a capital case there may be moment when something happened that it's funny. and it happened to the moussaoui case. with the human enterprise trial. remember in hamlet, there is comic relief. it doesn't mean the whole play isn't a tragedy. if this means this is a human enterprise where people laugh. you try to set the tone for the jurors. they really understand what we in the courtroom are going to be hearing together. and so i think even if the president thinks the outcome is a done deal, it isn't if we set the right tone in the courtroom. >> i would say if you were appointed defense lawyer in the case you would do everything you can to get that in front of the jury buzz of the fruche dangerousness of the defendant. rob and i were talking about.
you could never tell the jury he was going get out sun some day. one day you'll see him walking downhe street and you'll say hi. >> death changes everything. a death penalty case is different because for every sergeant that you can think he's guilty. you can turn that around on whether the death personality uld be arrive. we would tell the jury that the attorney general doesn't care what you think. nobody care what is you think. and it doesn't really matter what you co because he's going be held anyone. what why bother to go through this expensive time if they're just going to hold them anyway. and thern rob would object. i think we go back talking about the military interference, the judicial procs. if you have some kind of a statement out there to that effect. somebody's going figure out at way to use it in the trial if yocan. there's no rules of evidence if you can in the federal death
pelty trial. condoleeza rice testified. you can put on anything you want. i don't know how would you keep it out. >> let me ask this and then i think we'll turn it over for questions for the audience. so one use is that judge brinkeman taked about the rules of terrorism cases because thea such different issues. the padilla case in miami is relied on that the commission there on a very,ery broad conception of conspiracy. so some people think that the compare topity to cilian trials will lead to the con trappings of civilian rights. i think that this is a reason
for separating off the terrorism cases from nonterrorism cases. so i'm wondering judge brinkman what you think of that argument whether it's a valid concern and how much of a concern it is. >> well, i think that's one of the few really legitimate argumentings. if we tamper with -- legitimate arguments. the other problem on the flip side of that is if we start creating special ajduicatory systems for crimes i worry about the expansion. we use the word "war." narco-terrorism is a big word right now. significant organized criminal activity in mexico and latin amera. much of it beginning to leak
into our border states. so why would you not start thinking about maybe we should put narco-terrorisms into this terrorism system. probably the biggest threat we have is from cyber terrorism. people abroad who could literallshut down our banking system or our airplanes or whatever. a very, very potential serious problem. are we going to create a special system of justice for those types of cases in it's a very slippery slope. i think argue three courts have worked in the past and i think they can continue to work. we have to be careful. we to maybe sure in addressing these cases in article three coirts we don't go -- cours we don't go too far. that would be my approach on that question.
>> anyone? y don't we take some questions from the audience? i've been asked by the judge and the committee to urge you that you can questions and not just speeches please and that you try to keep them brief because we doave an extraordinary panel with extraordinary knowledge. try to keep them brief so we can get as many questions as possible. yes, sir? >> [inaudible] >> is there a microphone? >> what do you think of the system that you didn't talk about instead of indefinite detention without any kind of trial? >> i have views on that but does anyone in the panel want to speak to that? >> i could say if you were
appointed to represent somebody in the death penalty trial and rob said i'm going to hold him and not try to execute him, i would say thank you. and that would be the owned of the case. and that would be your ethical obligation as a lawyer. that's an ethical answer to your question instead of a legal one. that would be -- i think the view of most -- most death eligible defense lawyers would be that's fine. just for this guy though. i don't agree for anybody else. there may be a different legal answer to it than that. >> there's no tchute the president has the authority, in my opinion, to detain members of the enemy during wartime. that was a power that was affirmed at hope. many lower courts have now held that the authorization to use
military force triggers the president'power toe detain until the owned of e conflict. the problem -- that right there should be controversial. this it's problems are are one that it's literally indefinite. and two that there's a highn'ted possible of mistake. i mean you combine those two principles, that means there's a heightened possible of putting someone away for that mistake. that that reason it remains. but we have to develop much different, much more heightened procedures to ensure, to insure it. we have insisted on higher and higher showings by the government to approve that the person actually is an enemy
come pat tant. whether we've reached that level, we haven't formed an opinion on that. other questions? >> hi, i'm an torn from oregon. my question is this, the justice department has been veryer fisket. i was thinking that these death eligible cases are wrong. we've been very effective -- we've incarcerated some 400 ople since september 1, developed sources and developed plots. my question is this -- if you're going to create this alter native system how do you sort who goes in a way that it doesn't under cut the effectiveness. and it cast down on the fact of
-- or the credibility of either sister. i guess it's mainly for jack and -- >> anyone want to address that? i'll address that briefly. i'm a believer in the used tool in your toolbox approach. but i think you're right that you cannot -- if you go too far one way or the other, too much toward our commission, you under cut the other one. the power very much was toward that's the way we're going treat all terrorists. i think i share the idea that it still belongs. we have one or two systems that can deal with the k.s.m.'s of the world.
i don't think the government has the answer to that yet. you have some of the most serious terrorists getting much more processed andetting much more processed before they're incaption -- incapacitated. i think it does threat on the have the appearance of unfairness. but the governme has the legitimate tools. it has the hard task to try to incapacitate the terrorist. there were two arguments that argue that. >> i'll justdd briefly, to me this is a part of what the judge was pointing out when she mentioned the different
categories of terrorists and alleged that might be tried at differen systems. the system shows us how incredibly difficult. the unjus outcomes that can relt. i think in our past jack mentioned that we steam have maybe a lack of principles or just a system of add hock decision about whether we'll try different persons right now. i think it haseen relatively as hot. they have been political leaders faced with disciplinary challenges within ok paid areas. i think that military commissions don't serve their ends do not do that. i think one of the things we see is that they've bn used as a substitute for force as
much as they been used as a truth seeking retributive justice sort of measure. the commissions are a different thing as well as being a potential substitute. i don't think anyone is saying it's an appealing, special substitute. >> other questions? >> yes, sir. could i ask you to -- we have microphones, if you want top ask a question, try to approach the microphone, please. >> real quick question, why don't we take a way the death penalty due to the mix of choices? >> very good question. >> ke pending in specific cases in the -- depending on specific cases. the defendants would have pled guilty, been sentenced to life and the issues of how nay were interrogate, where they were. everything would be completely out the window. the death penalty -- not all
these cases are death penalty cases in the moussaoui case. he's the already said it's extraordinary difficult to deal with. but death is different. and the rules that apply to it are completely different. they were saying before the military justice system and, especially the commission system doesn't have the experience -- they don't have the eighth feament juris prudence. i think these cases could be sitting there for years before they go all the way to the supreme court. in terms of national security the decision to try to seek the death peblet is extrrdinary. but every death peblet case, every federal case is very, very different from one where
there's no death on the tablet. so. >> judge, do you have anything to add to that? >> i think he said the same thing. >> other questions? >> could i ask you to come to the microphone? thank you. >> would it be any value -- does anyone think of the oposal to having a panel of argue three judges like we have with the fisa court that would be designated, judges might have special training in these type of cases that might be designated in different parts of the country to try them. >> well, the reality of it is that that's happening in the sense that these terrorism cases are being filed in almost every district. when walker len and muemow saw by came boo the certain division of the system they were brought. it looked for a while as to
virginia was going to be one of those special terrorism courts. i've been very pleased to visit spread around. richard reid was in boston. jose padilla was tried in miami. but the reality of it now is that there's a realy bad exerningses. the federal judicial system has now phenomenal materials available to any district three judge. -- i done think you need a specialized bench. i think any competent article three judge can handle these cases. the materials are out there. and as i said the materials is out there now. and i again think that -- we shouldn't tamper with something that's not broken.
it's not broken. it's working just fine. if you start creating special core group -- i don't think i fit. so i would leave it as it is. >> other thoughts? other questions? >> i didn't mean chill people when i said you have to use shortpeeches. >> the judge raced a question about the cyber terrorism. you wrote a niese "the new yorker." really trusting how bad the aspects. how did they apply in those sorts of case? >> about cyber terrorism. i don't think so -- i don't think that enter sects with the
cyber terrorism issues. it's about finding the dfts because it's very hard to know who is responsible for some kind of cyber attack and it's also very hard, they're usually very short to get them toe this country. so i don't think that the trial issue is the type of trial issues that we were talking at e front or something. i do think we're going to have issues with the government being involved or the domestic homeland in the telewhune cases and computer network. how far we're going to allow them to the be in the network consistent be the the fourth amendment and the number of statutes. that will be a big issue. other questions? i've got another one if no one else does. you have a question?
no, you don't. sorry. [laughter] >> sir? sir? yes? >> i'm standing in the 1980's -- looking at other ajudd catory body -- ajudicatory body. in the 1980's they built a alien removal court. do we get any lessons from that as sort of the failure of that body, why it hand been used? >> rob, do you know about that in >> i don't know either. i would draw the same line that judge brinkeman said. >> your thoughts? >> i don't know i don't know anything aut it. in connection with the
christmas day bomb erring, the government gave him i think within a day or two read him his miranda rights. and that caused a political storm. and the government might be looking at the quarrels case. does anyone have a comment or thought about that. generally the importance of miranda warning. is miranda a hurdle to terrorism trials is the question? >> well, it depence on the case. but the case in detroit, it seems be again more kind of political meddling in the system. because that case they couldn't possibly need a connection to win that case. they've got people on the plane, saw that.
they've got people that bt him up and took the bomb away from him. they have pictures of him legaling with d bomb. what he said about that. i can't imagine remotely what it would have to in order to win the case. i don't know the answers to this question. it steemed be a big deal. m wondering in theory is this a big deal for civilian courts orst more of a plth cal issue. it hasn't chilled statements for suspected terrorism. i think more years most terrorism investigation and progs cushion work was done by new york. they made a very, very good system. i think we continued that in i see it as a political issue. alexandria.
do you agree with that? >> yes, sir. >> what happens with folks that are captured or arrested who do flip or do corporate? does -- cooperate? >> does it go before a trade commission, another is people who are cooperating with their interrogators, what happens to them? >> it depends on the individual case. i had a case probably in three or 2004. a pakistani-bor naturalized citizen is a truck driver from ohio who had been working on a case by case location for a
possible second attack. he looked under a bridge in baltimore. the f.b.i. called it in to a hotel -- i don't think he was ever in hame. he was kept in hotels and eventually broht him in. they debriefed him for days and days and days. he camento my court and he pled to a plea that exposed him tom 20 years. it was not a binding rule. but it was as 20-year exposure. what was interesting in that case a we've had some references to the political process anded what is so difficult in a judges' standpoint is that the war on terror is a political issue. and a lot of times the administration has to look at
that. part of the agreement was that it would billion kept sealed. he was concerned that fit got out that he was corporating with u.s. officials that his family might be injured. so we took the plea on a seal late friday afternoon. and i i got at call from him. judge you're not goi to like this. but it's in the front page of "the washington post." that had been someone from the administration who had leaked it. he tried to result his guilty plea. it totally turned him gonzales the government. that's just one example. t there are tons examples that involved nearly 100
northern virginia who is had gotten training in pakistan. several of those individuals cooperated with the government. they all pled guilty tor something. between their corporation and the lesser charges to which they pled, their seanses ranged from a couple of years to maybe 10. where as the people who were convicted got more serious sentences. so it's not at all uncommon as in any other criminal activity. you can deal with a m.s. 13 gang. to get their cooperation and make the case. in my experience terrorism cases are no different. there's a wonderful example from the southern district of new york.
there was one guy who testified and put into the witness security program. >> [inaudible] >> the question is if those who cooperate, please guilty do they go into the general population? it defense. they will often have a special administrative issued placed by the marshall and that. i also have several who are not. i think it depends on the individual person. >> i just want to make a quick comment on the difference in the federal judiciary todays.
the last time. this sort of experience was not evidence in that fedal judiciary. nothing compared to the federal government. this level of expertise makes it very, very good in either of these situations. >> thank you very much. >> let's give or panel a round of >> anderson talks about free- market environmentalism. after that, ruth marx from -- remarks from ginni thomas, wife
of supreme court justice clarence thomas. tomorrow morning, a discussion on changes to the health care system. after the, george melloan talks about the u.s. economy and the federal reserve. then anthony placido on u.s. drug enforcement and intelligence gathering. later, religious leaders will hold a news conference to talk about religious tolerance in the u.s. they will discuss the reaction to the proposed islamic cultural center near ground zero. live coverage begins at 1:00 p.m. eastern. follow the people and events that make his three online at the seas and video library reaching the impeachment of the
president -- online on the c- span video library. it is washington your way. at this year's american renewable energy day, a group of executives laid out their ideas. they emphasize the benefits to renewable energy. ted turner, t. boone pickens, and james cameron giant -- joined. this is a little over an hour. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> i would like to welcome to the stage for our next analysts, and this is an extraordinary panel we're very pleased we can present.
she has 30 years of experience. she served as president of american wild lands and designed satellite mapping and management programs. commission includes appointment by president reagan. she has received numerous awards. a us trainee of al gore's project, her affiiations include round rock partners,
not waste time, they are fearless in reaching goals, they seem to be using the left and right brain, they have self- designed lives, they are philanthropists, adnd they are overachievers perry earned -- overachievers. you may not know about their accomplishments. ted turner founded cnn and served as ceo for many years. he has 5 foundations, which
james cameron. he is an award winning director, writer, and inventor. his work includes titanic an avatar, and he also has a string of exceptional documentaries and other movies we all know -- true lies and aliens. i understand when he came across space odyssey -- >> 14. >> he to develop a camera system that has contributed to
underwater filming, and now he is focused on climate change, the amazon, and the oil spill. james cameron. sam wiley. sam is one of the most important entrepreneurs. he has founded so many different types of companies -- bonanza steakhouses, michael's stores, and green mountain energy. he has also written a book, which is part autobiography and part inspirational.
what it takes to grow a successful company, and the ideas that came into fruition. we are going to be talking about green mountain energy. he started this in 1997, when hardly anyone knew about renewables. sam wiley. michael is the founder, president of ceo of a company that is the largest independent wind developer, and it is
actively expanding smaller operations. they now have 5000 megawatts of renewables. in less than 10 years, he grew to a 12000 megawatts of grenoble's -- grenoble's -- renewables. he also is a philanthropist. in the 6 years since it has been founded, it has the highest visibility of any program in the business school.
congress. he founded the largest natural gas company in north america, and he is invested in wind. he started to launch the largest development project in the united states. we are going to be talking abou how we can reduce dependence on foreign oil t. boone pickens. [applause] i am going to start with ted turner, and i want to know what
you are doing and why you have to step in a new arena. >> i believe the greatest opportunities for the foreseeable future will be in renewable energy, because we have to retrofit the entire system, and it is huge. and and and food, it is the single biggest thing and we have, and i wanted to set an example. in the us, it is not easy to make alternativ energy investiments, because we do not
have a level playing field. our economy is attached to the coal industry, and our government will not do anything about it. half. they do not have a gov in iraq. we ont have one here either. i have a $10 million wind investment in new mexico. it is hard to find viable investments in clean alternate energy with current laws. laws need to change.
we need to encourage what we do want. we have to put natural gas to work for us. it is good for the economy. iif we don't do it, we are going to be ead. there are plenty of reasons to do it. >> this next question will be sticky, because you are partnered with the simmer and project reaching cimarron -- the cimarron prject.
>> i am trying to coopt the and and the -- the enemy. they have to bring it in from a long way away -- from the southwest and the plains. we've got to have a transmitssion system with national standards, and it needs to be implemented now. it is the same kind of laws -- we have to get it done fast and change the laws, and i am happy to have plenty of solar panels,
because i care about my grandkids more than the other bs. >> this other company is 70% coal and 60% nuclear, so i hope you can lead them faster. >> we are getting together in new mexico. this is the first major solar investment. i am encouraged it is not going to be utilities standing in our way. it is inertia.
>> tell us about hte pickens plan. >> my issue is security, and we are importing oil, and let me take you back to obama when he accepted nomination. he said in 10 years we will not import oil from the middle east. he said if you are going to ask an energy question, what? how long will we import oil from the enemy. obama said in 10 years we will not import oil from the middle
east. state dept recommends not to visit countries. 40% of oil the import, they recommend not visit. they may not be friendly. why are we so stupid? we import 40% of that alone from people not friendly to us -- oil from people not friendly to us. we don't have to do that. the plan is gert on domestic resources. the biggest would be natural gas, which is 30% cleaner than
domestic resources. i taked to david axelrod for 45 minutes. he said, you have to u nderstand yes is an answer. he said i agree. hi said get the president to sign an executive order that we will get on domestic fuel. get off the middle east. if you look at the article on april 15, 2009, woolsey clearly
shows what is happening with money used to purchase olpec oil. rex said, we hav no evidence our petro dollars are getting in the hands of the taliban. he said none of the oil goes to the taliban. the money goes to the saudis, and then it goes to the taliban. he said, we cannot follow it that far. if we can drive up the money
going to opec, i can tell you the afghan war is the most stupid thing. 1121 people killed and $345 billion spent, and what do we have for it? i talked to a marine the other day, and i said, what were you doing there? he said, my assignment was made friends with our offense. with afghans. we are getting people killed? thait is idiotic. this has been going on a long
time. i can take you back to korea, and we really didn't have a mission. when you cannot follow an airplane, you are stupid if you let someone shoot at you, but you can't shoot them. i don't know what we were doing there. i don't know why we have 28,000 people in south korea. if north korea comes down, we lose 28,000 people puree of red >> we talke -- 28,000 people . >> everyone realizes it is
critical we reduce dependence o n foreign oil. i have another question. >> that happens with age. you think i may not get to talk to you again. >> you are so visible and such an advocate for natural gas and the transition field. colorado, wyoming and a couple other states have been hammered by gas exploration. you are in a fantastic position
to be an advocate for regulations and protocols for how we do that, so water is not contaminated. are you going to take that role of promoiting best practices. >> the last thing i want to do is confuse the issue. i give ted turner credit for opening up the world with cnn. [applause] those people didn't have any idea what went on until cnn