I WILL JUST GIVE YOU TWO ILLUSTRATIONS OF MY THINKING, MY FRUSTRATION OR UNDERSTANDING OF THE CHALLENGE. LET'S PUT IT THAT WAY. SENATOR FEINSTEIN AND I JOINED IN LEGISLATION SEVERAL YEARS AGO TO TALK ABOUT CONFIDENTIALITY OF SOURCES FOR NEWS ENTITIES. AND WHETHER OR NOT A PERSON COULD BE REPORTEDLY COMPELLED TO DISCLOSE THOSE SOURCES. THE EFFORT DREW SOME OF THE BEST AND BRIGHTEST IN THE NEWS BUSINESS TO COME TESTIFY BEFORE THE COMMITTEE. THE EFFORT FAILED AND FALTERED OVER WHAT IS A PUBLICATION, WHO IS A PUBLISHER, WHO IS IN THE BUSINESS OF DISPENSING NEWS? DOES IT INVOLVE MONEY? DOESN'T HAVE TO PASS BETWEEN THEM FOR THIS TO BE AN OFFICIAL PUBLICATION, OR CAN I DO PUT UP ON MY BLOG WHAT I WISH AND RESIST ANY EFFORTS TO DISCOVER MY SOURCES? THAT WAS ONE OF THE SERIOUS ISSUES THAT WE FACED. I ALSO TAKE A LOOK AT WHERE THIS IS GOING IN TERMS OF THE FUTURE AND OUR ENTITIES THAT WE RELY ON FOR NEWS SO OFTEN. I'M GOING TO LEAVE IT AT THAT BECAUSE I THINK YOU HAVE ADDRESSED THE GENERAL AND DON'T WANT TO GET INTO MORE SPECIFICS, NOR SHOULD YOU. BUT WHEN PEOPLE PLEDGE THAT THEY ARE ORIGINALISTS, YOU BETTER HAVE YOUR MIND OPEN TO THE REALITY THAT THIS WORLD IS CHANGING AND CHANGED AND MANY OF THOSE PRINCIPLES ARE SOUND TODAY, BUT THE CHALLENGES OF INTERPRETING THEM WITH THE REALITY OF TODAY'S TECHNOLOGY IS A CHALLENGE AND A VERY DIFFICULT ONE. I'M GOING TO TRY TO SET AN EXAMPLE HERE. WE HAVE 20 MINUTES AND I'M GOING TO TRY TO YIELD BACK SOME PART OF IT. I SEE SENATOR CORNING IS HERE. I WANTED TO DO IT WHILE HE WAS PHYSICALLY PRESENT SO THAT WHEN HE GETS HIS TURN HE CAN ADDRESS IT. YESTERDAY, SENATOR GRAHAM SAID YOU HAD GONE TOO FAR IN CALLING THE GOVERNMENT "A WAR CRIMINAL AND PURSUING CHARGES AGAINST A TERRORIST." LATER, SENATOR CORNYN ASKED "YOU REFER TO THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE AND PRESIDENT AS WAR CRIMINALS, WHY WOULD YOU DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT?" AS I NOTED YESTERDAY, THESE CHARGES DON'T HOLD UP. CNN FACT-CHECKS SAID "BOTH GRAHAM AND CORNYN LEFT OUT IMPORTANT CONTEXT. NEITHER MENTIONED HER ALLEGATION OF WAR CRIMES WAS ABOUT TORTURE. ALSO, JACKSON DID NOT EXPLICITLY USE THE WORD WERE CRIMINAL. THE NEW YORK TIMES NOTED THE ALLEGATION IS A DISTORTION AND LACKS CONTEXT." THEY WENT ON TO SAY JUDGE JACKSON DID NOT SPECIFICALLY CALL THE FORMER PRESIDENT, DEFENSE SECRETARY WAR CRIMINALS. SHE WAS ONE OF SEVERAL LAWYERS IN 2005 SIGNING FOUR BOILERPLATE HABEAS CORPUS PETITIONS ON BEHALF OF DETAINEES AT GUANTANAMO THAT CLAIMED THE U.S. GOVERNMENT HAD TORTURED THEM IN SUCH ACTS THAT CONSTITUTE WAR CRIMES. THE PRETENSIONS EACH NAMED MR. BUSH AND MR. RUMSFELD ALONG WITH TWO SENIOR MILITARY OFFICERS WHO OVERSAW THE GUANTANAMO DETENTION OPERATION IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES AS RESPONDENTS. THE WASHINGTON POST NOTED "ONE THING TO NOTE IS THAT BUSH AND RUMSFELD ARE NAMED IN PETITIONS BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO BE. DECLARED PROCEDURAL HURDLES. INDEED, THOSE PETITIONS LATER NAMED BARACK OBAMA AFTER THE ADMINISTRATION CHANGE. OTHERS AS THEY ARE NAMED IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES NOT BECAUSE OF ACTIONS THEY PERSONALLY TOOK AS INDIVIDUALS." THE LARGER POINT IS THAT JACKSON WAS ACTING AS THE DETAINEES LAWYER IN HER ROLE AS DEFENDING LAWYER. ONE OF THE UNDERPINNINGS OF THE JUSTICE SYSTEM THAT EVEN THE MOST VILE CRIMINALS HAVE A RIGHT TO A VIGOROUS DEFENSE. WOULD YOU LIKE TO COMMENT ON THAT STATEMENT THAT I JUST MADE? 