lincoln did suspend habeas corpus. in some cases subject to the military court-martial. my notion was what if a different process used for political reasons, nevertheless got us into the war as a way of trying to get them out of the way. >> how much political pressure was abraham lincoln under in early 1865? >> lincoln was the most talented politician i believe whoever inhabited the -- not the oval office. there was a one, but the presidential office at the time. he had to balance these competing factions of his own party. he had to run the civil war while trying to maintain his own presidency. all through the presidency there were other members of his own party, they were better men than he was. better morally and in other ways, and they also hold the job instead so that as late as march 1865 lincoln's political foes were still trying to figure out if there was some way to reduce his power, to take charge, some a take charge of the administration because they view to lincoln as a man who shouldn't be wielding the power that he was. >> one other thing i want to get out b

we can talk about lincoln suspending habeas corpus. we can talk about what woodrow wilson did in world war i toward german americans. of course roosevelt, infamously with the internment camps. we can take it all the way through george w. bush and gitmo and then barack obama, you know, beating his chest and wearing sack cloth and ashes through 2008 and then as he's sworn in goes, okay, where are all those guys? i need them. there's a very dark side to this warfare, and presidents aren't really good at -- >> and the saddest thing is that the excuse always is that necessity compels somehow the violation of civil liberties. even lincoln would argue, i have to get those troops to washington. if i didn't get them to washington, the union wouldn't have stayed. fdr is told somehow the japanese-americans are going to be coming in from california to detroit to take over the country. but as thurgood marshall, the supreme court justice, once said, those are precisely the moments when civil liberties matter most and when you have to be careful. and

i will also disagree that habeas corpus is the highest form of protection for our rights. it is more like the last resort. it's the one thing that under no circumstances can we take away from you. the highest protection of individual rights is our constitution and our article 3 courts that provide full due process and full rights to everybody facing criminal charges. so i hope we will fix that at some point but overall this is a good bill. it does one of our very important tasks here in congress, to provide for the common defense, and i urge support of the measure. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. is recognized. mr. frank: mr. speaker, i just would explain, i intend to reserve most of the time for myself but i have shared with the ranking member of the armed services committee, who has done a very good job and had some commitments, and i'm yielding to some people as a proxy for him. i will begin by yielding one minute to mr. loebsack. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman f

lincoln said when he suspended habeas corpus, he did so when congress was out of session. when -- as soon as congress returned, he sought permission. all power to jefferson who had the audacity to embed a doctrine of natural rights. all of my political sentiments, all of my political sentiment derived from the declaration. there is no sense in which woodrow wilson, although he did expand executive powers in peacetime, there is no sense in which he is in lincoln's position. >> thank you. >> thank you for your excellent lecture. towards the end of your lecture, you mentioned that in the 20th century, secular and political faiths have killed more people than religious faiths. i can only assume you were talking about soviet russia and nazi germany. were these regimes possible because of the uniformity? if that is the case, how did the myriad number of protestant denominations in the united states provide a unique defense against tyranny? >> i would not say -- i was not referring to just the soviet union and nazi germany. communist china killed far more of those two tyrannies c

just like you could say lincoln buying off congressmen with patronage jobs, suspending habeas corpus, doing a lot of awful things to end slavery and win the war was also actions that would make us uncomfortable in the finest dining rooms in georgetown and on the upper east side. >> this is going to be a big christmas season for dorks because we had -- >> jon, may i say, every christmas season is a big christmas season for you. >> because, to be quite seriously, actually, you have two very big movies that are making a similar point. which is the movie about "zero dark thirty," and "lincoln," give me one jefferson quote, if you will, that what is practical most control what is pure theory, and that is the art of politics. it would be lovely if there could be philosophical consistency and absolute philosophical purity. guess what? history is not about philosophical purity. it's about deals. it's about tradeoffs. it's about not always following the strict line of the law. and we can argue about it all we want, but national survival has sometimes required extraordinary measures. >> so is t

cases is be lied by the history of habeas itself. a beautiful book published last year by the university of virginia historian, holiday portrays this, the history of habeas corpus, pre revolutionary england from 15 note to to the end of the nineteenth century and what was amazing about habeas was how flexible and adaptable was and the only thing that weakened habeas was parliamentary intervention. the more parliament started to exercise control the more the parliament thought it could control habeas and it couldn't be a tool for judges to check the executive. maybe there's a norman of argument to make that is better to have excess of legislative control of the courts in that regard. where habeas is concerned, i get nervous about the idea that courts cannot operate on their own. one thing that is remarkable, before 9/11 national security was assessed to vietnam and what the supreme court, some called stunned silence on vietnam, the supreme court never took a single case on any of the core constitutional questions about hostilities in

lincoln said when he suspended habeas corpus, he did so when congress was out of session. when -- as soon as congress returned, he sought permission. all power to jefferson who had the audacity to embed a doctrine of natural rights. all of my political sentiments, all of my political sentiment derived from the declaration. there is no sense in which woodrow wilson, although he did expand executive powers in peacetime, there is no sense in which he is in lincoln's position. >> thank you. >> thank you for your excellent lecture. towards the end of your lecture, you mentioned that in the 20th century, secular and political faiths have killed more people than religious faiths. i can only assume you were talking about soviet russia and nazi germany. were these regimes possible because of the uniformity? if that is the case, how did the myriad number of protestant denominations in the united states provide a unique defense against tyranny? >> i would not say -- i was not referring to just the soviet union and nazi germany. communist china killed far more of those two tyrannies c

so, to the government said habeas corpus doesn't extend to guantanamo bay so for that purpose of this part of the usa and a follow on cases in in the lower court so all of the returns are in. >> the next question is 1i know you never get. what is your view of the nomination process that comes from fort lewis and how might it be improved to make it less frustrating were demeaning to? >> it wasn't always the way it has been for the nominations. it would include our chief justice, justice alito, justice so why -- sotomayor and justice kagan. people decided to go along party lines. contrast that with the way that it was when i was nominated in 1993 in the justice breyer the following year. my biggest supporter of the senate judiciary committee was senator orrin hatch and he confirmed that and he wrote an autobiography in which he takes great pride with president clinton having called him before he nominated me, before he nominee did justice breyer and said i'm thinking of the nominating ruth bader ginsburg and there would be okay with it. but it was that a bipartisan spirit read over thre

the writ of habeas corpus is under attack in our own government. what i am talking about is a system of government guided by the moral principles of peace and tolerance. the founders were convinced that a free society cannot exist without a moral people. just writing rules will not work if the people choose to ignore them. today the rule of law written in the constitution has little meaning for most americans. especially those who work in washington, d.c. benjamin franklin claimed, only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. john adams wrote, our constitution was made for a moral and religious people. it is wholly inadequate for the government of any other. immoral people must reject all violence -- a moral people must reject all violence. a society that boos the golden rule is not a good society. the solution falls on each and every individual with the guidance of family, friends, and community. the number one responsibility for each of us is to change ourselves. we hope others will follow. this is of greater importance than working on changing

lincoln said when he suspended habeas corpus, he did so when congress was out of session. when -- as soon as congress permission. saought all power to jefferson who had the audacity to invent -- embed a doctrine of natural rights. all of my political sentiments, all of my political sentiment derived from the declaration. there is no sense in which woodrow wilson, although he did expand executive powers in peacetime, there is no sense in which he is in lincoln's position. >> thank you. >> thank you for your excellent lecture. towards the end of your lecture comet you mentioned that in the 20th century, secular and political faiths have killed more people than religious faiths. i can only assume you were talking about soviet russia and nazi germany. were these regimes possible because of the uniformity? if that is the case, how did the myriad number of protestant denominations in the united states provide a unique defense against tyranny? >> i would not say -- i was not referring to just the soviet union and nazi germany. communist china killed a former -- far more of those

corpus, luck up journalists critical of the war and rejected the military's court marshall. my notion was what if the impeachment process be used for political reasons, nevertheless dredge up things done in the war as a way to get him out of the way. >> now, from a historically accurate point of view, how much political pressure was abraham lincoln under in early 1865? >> you know, lincoln was thee most talented politician, i believe, who ever inhabited -- well, not the oval office, but the presidential office at the time. he had to balance competing factions of his own party. he had to run the civil war while trying to maintain his own presidency. all throughout the presidency, there were other members of the party who put it simply, better men than he, better morally and other ways, and ought to hold the job instead. as late as march 1865, lincoln's political foes are still trying to figure out a way to reduce his power, somehow take charge of the administration because they viewed lincoln as a man who just shouldn't be wielding the power he was. >> another thing i want to

alawacky would have been entitled to his miranda rights, habeas corpus, a trial by jury, as if he were treated as an american citizen. i don't think many people would quite understand that distinction of geography. mr. graham: it makes no sense, senator mccain, and he would be entitled to a habeas hearing if he were caught here in the united states but he would be held under the law of war because the allegation against him is not that he committed a crime, that he's collaborating with the enemy. yes, you could have a scenario under the senator from kentucky's view of things that we could kill somebody, an american citizen overseas helping the enemy kill our troops troops but if they made it here at home or joined with al qaeda here at home, all of a sudden we have to give them a lawyer and read them their rights and we can't hold them under law of war detention to find out what they know about an impending attack. that makes absolutely no sense. the supreme court has rejected that kind of thinking. i hope that day never comes but i don't know when the war is over, he's right about tha