Topic: Terrorists
Senator: Hatch
Date: SEPTEMBER 14, 2005
Contents
HATCH: I think you have acquitted yourself as well as anybody I've seen in the 10 nominations for the Supreme Court that I have been part of.
HATCH: And I'm going to correct the record a little bit. It isn't the Ginsburg rule, although that's been referred to by almost all of us, including me.
It's the Thurgood Marshall rule, the Rehnquist rule, the Kennedy/Souter/Thomas/Ginsburg/Breyer rule -- just to name a few, because in every case, as I stated in my original remarks, the individual nominee has to draw a line as to what they can discuss and what they can't.
And you've drawn, I think, a fair line here throughout these proceedings, and I commend you for it. And there's just no excuse for being pushed to try and answer questions about cases that are likely to come before the court or presently are before the court. And I think the American people are starting to really fully realize that now as a result of this hearing.
Now, Judge Roberts, as you know, the war on terror is a unique challenge in American history. As a consequence, many novel issues regarding presidential authority to prosecute the war on terror will doubtless come before the Supreme Court.
I think we ought to recognize the need to be careful in our questioning so you're not placed in the position of precommitting yourself to any particular viewpoints on executive power that would compromise your ability to render a fair judgment as cases come before the court. But let me as ask a general question on terrorism.
It is a question that many in Congress and the administration and in the public have had to struggle with, particularly in the aftermath of the events of September 11th, 2001.
The question is this: What is the best way for our society to protect ourselves against terrorists not affiliated with a nation state, wear no uniforms, and really secrete themselves in ways that have never been done before?
On the one hand, there are very specific international rules embodied in the Geneva Conventions that specify how enemies in traditional warfare are to be treated.
On the other hand we have the traditional criminal law protections contained in Title XVIII of the United States Code that define the rights accorded to criminal such as the famous Miranda warning and the right to obtain counsel.
HATCH: What everyone is struggling with is how do we apply these two traditional methods against nontraditional enemies who clearly are nontraditional? Let us make no mistake, their goal is to destroy our society and way of life. And they will use weapons of mass destruction if they can. I don't think anybody doe doubts that.
Let me just ask you this general question: Will you give us assurance that you will keep an open mind as the administration and Congress adopt and implement new policies and legal procedures that govern the apprehension, interrogation and detention of suspected terrorists?
ROBERTS: Yes, Senator, I will. I certainly am not qualified to comment on the best approaches in the war on terror or the most effective approaches. That is the responsibility, obviously, of the other branches.
The responsibility of the judicial branch is to decide particular cases that are presented to them in this area according to the rule of law. And that is what I have tried to do and that is what I will continue to do. Either on the court of appeals or on other courts.
HATCH: Well, thank you.
Contents
Prev
Next
Last
