Fred Thompson addressed the National Right to Life conference Thursday morning live on Townhall.com.  His prepared remarks are available here.

Video:

Part One

Part Two

Part Three

As I pointed out last week, and as legal scholar John Yoo did earlier this week in the Wall Street Journal, the “Boumediene Five” have done our nation and our Constitution no great service. But beyond the rhetoric, we really need to understand the real world impact of this ruling on the war we are waging against our enemies.

In Boumediene v Bush, besides, for the first time in history conferring habeas corpus rights on alien enemies detained abroad by our military during a war, the Court struck down as inadequate what Chief Justice John Roberts called “the most generous set of procedural protections ever afforded enemy combatants.” Consider the rights that our country provided to the enemy prisoners in question before Boumediene:

The right to hear the bases of the charges against them including a summary of any classified evidence.

The ability to challenge the bases of their detention before military tribunals modeled after Geneva Convention procedures. As Robert’s pointed out, some 38 detainees have been released as result of this process.

The right, before the tribunal, to testify, introduce evidence, including exculpatory evidence, call witnesses, cross examine the government witnesses and secure release if and when appropriate.

The right to the aid of a personal representative in arranging and presenting their cases before the tribunal.

The right to have the government search for and disclose to the detainee any evidence reasonably available to it tending to show that the detainee is not an enemy combatant.

The right to appeal an adverse decision from the tribunal to the Federal DC Circuit Court along with the right to employ counsel and secure release if entitled to it.

The right to petition the DC Circuit to remand a detainee’s case for new tribunal consideration if the petitioner comes up with newly discovered evidence.

The right to require the Department of Defense (DOD) to conduct a yearly review of the status of each prisoner including the right to have the Secretary of Defense review any new evidence that may become available relating to the enemy combatant status of a detainee.

As a part of that yearly review, the opportunity for the detainee to explain why he is no longer a threat to the United States, which could lead to his release.

The DC Circuit can order release of the prisoner, and the head of the DOD Administrative Review Boards can, at the recommendation of those panels, order release upon an appropriate showing.

Again, these are the rights terrorists and battlefield combatants had before Boumediene was decided. These provisions provide more process than any that has ever been afforded prisoners of war in history. They go substantially past the rights afforded by the Geneva Convention. These are the rights that the majority decided were insufficient — and the result?

Their decision granting them the right to habeas corpus relief in federal courts.

Look, this issue isn’t going to go away, so consider these things the next time you hear someone defend the Supreme Court’s majority opinion as an attempt at “basic fairness” and to help prevent an innocent sheepherder from being improperly detained:

First, the Court left total confusion and uncertainty as to what rights these habeas petitions will vindicate. What will be the nature of the review under these new habeas rights? Will the Court review the constitutionality of the detention hearing procedures? What will be the burden of proof in these new proceedings? Will they have a factual hearing in order to try to recreate the circumstances in the field at the time of the detainee’s apprehension?

The answer is no one knows. It will all be dumped into the laps of some federal district judge and his or her law clerks. These are unprecedented circumstances and there is no way to predict what some judge might see as his or her new mandate under the constitution.

Again, it will be a federal judge — not the President or the Congress or a military tribunal — who will decide the appropriate extent to which the detainee will have access to classified military information, as just one of the more troubling examples. In other words, the branch of our government least qualified to make determinations on national security and foreign policy will now do just that. One other thing is certain. Whatever comes out of this new habeas corpus mish mash will generate a new round of appeals and our avowed enemies will work their way deeper and deeper into our court system.

Second, the majority opinion throws into question whether the tens of thousands of detainees in Iraq and the more than 1000 in Afghanistan are now entitled to habeas. Is the Court going to extend habeas protection to all foreign detainees held in foreign territory over which the United States is not sovereign, but has de facto control? We could be looking at tens of thousands of military detainee habeas cases in federal court.

Third, the Court’s decision encourages al Qaeda to continue in violation of the Geneva Conventions. The Geneva Conventions are designed to protect civilians and to reward combatants with certain protections if they abide by the Conventions. Al Qaeda specifically targets civilians and wears no uniform to distinguish themselves from the civilian population. Our policy now is to give al Qaeda combatants privileges that exceed the Conventions in terms of access to our court system without requiring al Qaeda to abide by these conventions themselves. This, of course, is an incentive for them to violate the law of war. They receive no penalty for not doing so, and by not wearing uniforms, makes any standard of proof requirement with regard to enemy combatant status more difficult for the United States. We are literally giving the enemy the means by which they can do us great harm.

Unfortunately it is not uncommon for a majority of the Supreme Court to make new law based not upon precedent but upon policy preferences of members of the Court. But this time it’s part of a much bigger picture. It is about power, and who gets to exercise it in an area that is vital to the security of this nation. This time it’s not only wrong, it’s dangerous.

It should also be noted that Senator Obama thinks that the decision in Boumediene v Bush is an excellent one. I don’t know what’s worse: that he doesn’t understand what the Court has done … or that he actually does and still thinks this was a sound ruling. Good luck to all of us.

Our Democratic friends are once again scrambling to defend Senator Obama’s latest national security gaffe.

Obama supports the recent Supreme Court majority opinion in the Boumediene decision, which extended for the first time habeas corpus rights to foreign enemy combatants held abroad. The Senator went even further than the Court and said that accused terrorists should be tried in American courts as was Omar Abdel Rahman, “the blind sheik”, who masterminded the first World Trade Center bombing.

Last week, in a call with reporters and bloggers, I pointed out Obama’s folly. The Rahman case demonstrates some of the main reasons why we should not treat enemy combatants as ordinary criminal defendants. Such proceedings potentially compromise results, sources and methods of intelligence gathering. In the course of prosecuting Rahman, the government was compelled to turn over a list of un-indicted co-conspirators to the defendant. That list included the name of Osama bin Laden. We later learned that within ten days a copy of that list reached bin Laden in Khartoum, letting him know that his connection to that case had been discovered.

My comments apparently caused the DNC to send out an A.P.B. for anything that might help their candidate out of this problem. Their “Googling” efforts revealed the fact that last year I pointed out that bin Laden would have to be given due process when he is apprehended.

Given that our Democrat friends apparently don’t understand what “due process” means for enemy combatants, they probably thought they had found a silver bullet for their candidate. For them, my statement supports Obama’s argument for terrorist trials in United States courts.

Of course, it doesn’t. Under several centuries of British and U.S. law, enemy combatants, especially those who are foreign combatants, do not have the same rights as American citizens. This does not mean that they cannot be given certain rights. In 2005, under the Detainee Treatment Act, Congress provided enemy combatants arrested and held abroad with certain procedural rights, such as the right to detention hearings where they may call and cross examine witnesses, etc. It was the due process to which all such prisoners were entitled at the time of my statement last year.

This is a far cry from a trial in a United States court, which Senator Obama would grant them.

I was privileged to spend some time with fellow conservatives, Republicans and concerned citizens in Hershey, PA., last Friday, where I addressed the state GOP. Here's what we discussed.

We are not here tonight just because we are Republicans. We are here because we know that we have the strongest, freest and most prosperous country in the history of the world, and that if we adhere to the traditional principles of the Republican Party, which are the first principles of our country, we will keep it that way.

We know that we were given a country based upon certain eternal truths–the wisdom of the scriptures and the wisdom of the ages … the fact that there is such a thing as human nature that has to be taken into account when governing … and most fundamentally, based upon the fact that people are meant to be free. Our founders derived from these principles a government that had its powers separated, checked and balanced because they knew that power tended to corrupt. In keeping with that they incorporated in our Constitution a system of Federalism to make sure that there was not too much power concentrated in the central government, which was given delineated powers and no others.

From these principles we developed a market economy, with the rule of law, a system of trade with other nations, and a strong national defense. From the prosperity, freedom and strength that came from this system we became a friend and example to all those around the world who aspired to those same things. We won wars, including the Cold War, and enhanced world stability and a friendlier environment within which others could pursue their own freedom. This of course enhanced our own security as Americans.

But today many of the principles that made our country great are under assault. Some of our fellow Republicans say that things are different now and we must change with the times. We recognize that appropriate change is necessary, just as the conservative thinker Edmund Burke did when he supported the American Revolution.

However we must ask those who would modify our principles, “When did freedom and liberty become outdated?” Then, “What part of our Constitutional framework needs to be abandoned?”

We need to recognize that in a constantly changing world there are still some unchanging truths. It is when our party has abandoned our principles that we have gotten into trouble. Not when we’ve adhered to them.

The Democratic Party of today would abandon many of these principles and what they would not abandon they would distort. They have their own principles. They believe:

In highlighting and dwelling on America’s imperfections.

In isolationism.

In policies that will give the world the impression that we are weak and divided.

In declaring defeat even when we are winning.

In stopping or reneging on free trade agreements with other countries, and making the word of the United States less reliable.

In turning over the education of our children to the NEA.

In continuing to expand our entitlement program spending even as these programs are headed bankruptcy.

Today’s Democratic Party would persuade the American people that the government is the solution to all of their problems and that every economic downturn is because of a conspiracy against them.

They would change the definition of marriage and appoint liberal judges to set our social policy. In fact, they have thrown our court system into turmoil in order to ensure that President Bush will not be able to appoint any more judges in hopes that next year a new Democratic president can give us a new batch of judges approved by MoveOn.org.

They would bring about the biggest tax increase in American history.

And to lead this effort they apparently have nominated a man who keeps repeating, “Yes we can.” Well, America now knows what he means by that and our response is, “No we won’t!” Our vision is an entirely different one.

There are two things that have been firmly established on the American political scene over the last several years. First these liberal Democratic policies have been rejected by the American people.

I had the opportunity to help make that happen. In the 90’s, we passed welfare reform, balanced the budget and began rebuilding our military. Since 2000 we’ve cut taxes for all Americans who pay taxes and seen unprecedented economic growth. We have put two good justices on the Supreme Court. We passed the Defense of Marriage Act. These things could not have been done if the American people believed in what the Democrats are now trying to sell. I might also add that under President Bush’s leadership we did the things necessary to prevent another attack on this country.

The second thing that is clear is that the American people see the need for strong, experienced leadership in dealing with matters of foreign policy and international threats. Look at the world today.

The President of Iran again this week announced the impending destruction of the United States and Israel, as Iran becomes a nuclear state.

North Korea has already developed a nuclear capability.

The Taliban in Pakistan continues with their plans to drive allied forces out of Afghanistan.

Russia is belligerent and China is engaged in a rapid military buildup.

This is no time for on-the-job training in the White House for someone who thinks that polite conversation with state sponsors of terrorism is the key to our safety. But despite all of this the Democratic Party is nominating for President the most liberal, and one of the most inexperienced members of the United States Senate–a man who has never strayed from the official Democratic position on any issue or reached out across the aisle in any effort to compromise on issues important to our country.

Under his leadership the Democrats would take us down the road to greater reliance upon an expanded, and in many cases inept, government to a larger national debt and weaker national defense. We are not going to let that happen.

John McCain’s entire career, his entire life, has prepared him to lead this country in the troubled times we live in today. His story is one of sacrifice, courage, and placing the interests of his country above his own. There are scores of issues that will be discussed and debated during this campaign. And we won’t always agree among ourselves. We must ask ourselves what are the things most vital to the welfare of our country. I believe, among them must be the issues of national security, the taxation of American citizens, the appointment of judges who will follow the law and the Constitution and not make it up as they go along, government reform and life itself. And on these issues John McCain has and will stand strong. Whether it’s saying no to the continued expansion of entitlement programs we can’t pay for, correcting our mistakes in Iraq to ensure success or pork barrel spending of either party, while others wavered, he stood strong–sometimes almost alone.

It is clear that as the ever-moving political pendulum has swung against Republicans this year, we have probably nominated the only Republican candidate we can get elected. Obviously, I have (not) always been of that opinion. We must take advantage of this fact and stay united as Republicans for the benefit of our country. I know that folks in Pennsylvania appreciate this more than most. Any realistic scenario for victory recognizes the necessity of our carrying the State of Pennsylvania. We must be dedicated to the proposition that America’s greatest days are still ahead of her and that they cannot be achieved by turning the keys to this country over to the most left-wing elements of the Democratic Party.

Not too long ago I was asked by a group of 11 year olds why I was so interested in government and politics. I thought about it for a minute and then I said that, while I was interested in politics from an early age, as I got older I became more interested in what politics were supposed to do, like protect our freedoms. I told them that over the years as I read world history it dawned on me just how unique our country was. How a small group of intellectuals and a much larger group of average people, servants, tradesmen, some folks who had had run-ins with the law but all of whom shared a desire for liberty, came here, carved out a place in the wilderness and decided they could govern themselves. How they came up with a Constitution that was the envy of the world and still is. How they elected a President who could have been a king, but instead served his terms, got on his horse and rode out of town never to return.

How 70 years later at a place called Gettysburg another great President wondered aloud whether a government of free people could endure when the going got rough. He had faith that it could. And it did.

Every generation of Americans since, in order to protect this unique place, has shared this faith and made its share of sacrifices and done the things necessary to make sure that our country did endure strong and free. And now it’s our turn.

Thank you for all that you have done in this effort and I look forward to our working together in this election year to add another illustrious chapter to the history of our party and our nation.

Nowadays everyone feels entitled to their Andy Warhol-esque “15 minutes of fame.” Fairly normal people will bust a gut to get a few seconds on television. Physical harm is likely for anyone standing between a camera and blow-hard politicians desirous of hawking legislation they and everyone else know will never be enacted. The rich and vacuous, seeking to make a difference, weigh in against the world’s problems to great fanfare amidst black ties and eco-talk press conferences.

And all of them seem to be making lots and lots of money.

Now, consider the plight of the poor jurist in all this, especially appellate judges. Often a lot smarter and making a fraction of the money than the lawyers who appear before them, they labor in obscurity with only their clerks and a handful of others in the legal community appreciating their brilliance and understanding how truly important they are.

Picture them as they retire to their chambers to study some obscure point of law that nobody cares about but the litigious ingrates in the case before them. His Honor has little opportunity for grand gestures or heroic initiatives.

The judge’s job is simply to apply to the circumstances of the cases that are brought to their court the laws that have been written by lesser mortals. The job requires restraint, modesty, and reverence for the established rules of society. The judge is obliged to uphold the status quo until the people decide to change it. Where is the glory in that, for Pete’s sake?

Then, like manna from Heaven, “The Case” comes before his court – the case that can change his ignominious plight. With a few of his like-minded colleagues, he can, in effect, reshape the legal landscape, become a leader of a great cause, get the publicity equivalent to the cover of Rolling Stone, and be hailed be the mainstream press. It dawns on him that he and his buddies on the court can do things that those politicians could never achieve – things that the unenlightened, unwashed herd, otherwise known as “the people” would probably never choose to do.

Now that’s real power! That’s delivering “change we deserve.” All he and a few of his colleagues have to do is discover in their constitution a right previously unknown that has been hiding there in plain sight for about 150 years.

Ladies and gentleman, I give you the California supreme court majority and their recent opinion in the same-sex marriage complaints filed by multiple San Francisco gay couples.

On a more serious note, this decision follows “judicial lawmaking” on the subject by courts in Massachusetts, New Jersey, Vermont, and Iowa (though many other state courts have heeded their limitations), and causes supporters of the rule of law and the will of the people to rally in response. Those in California say that they will fight for a constitutional amendment. This response highlights the invidious effects of this kind of judicial activism, which reverses the way things are supposed to work in our legal system. These courts, with the stroke of a pen, are now, in effect, amending their constitutions and placing the burden of changing it back (usually a very difficult task), on the people.

Nationally, as a result of this case, there will undoubtedly be renewed calls for a federal constitutional amendment outlawing same-sex marriage. Conservatives should resist the temptation to support such a remedy. States must solve this problem for themselves. They cannot and should not be saved from themselves or absolved of the responsibility that they have, a responsibility protected against federal intrusion by the Tenth Amendment.

In the first place, playing the game of judicial activists, and leaping to the federal-constitutional-amendment remedy every time judges misread the constitution and change the law, is a fool’s errand. Passing two-thirds of both houses of Congress and three-quarters of the state legislatures has proven to be an impossible hurdle for the marriage amendment and many other proposed constitutional amendments, even when Republicans controlled Congress.

More fundamentally, the issue presented is not whether conservatives will get their way on the issue of same-sex marriage. The issue is, in our system of government, determining the appropriate place for this issue to be decided. For over 200 years marriage and related issues have been the province of state, not federal law. That is where it should remain. States, acting within their appropriate and constitutionally vested realm, should be free to have laws that even you and I disagree with as long as they do not violate established constitutional principles.

For years, legal critics clamored for federal tort reform, which for most of them meant the overriding of state law. After years of unsuccessful efforts by reformers, states finally started accepting their responsibility. State after state passed tort-reform legislation, and maintained their rights to fashion their reform measures as they saw fit with the happy byproduct of lower insurance rates and an influx of new businesses. Those states which do not act, or act unwisely, face a competitive disadvantage with other states …as they should. This is called – say it all together – federalism. It is an important part of our constitutional framework, based upon our founders’ abhorrence of too much centralized power.

So, more power to the people of California in their uphill battle for an amendment to their state constitution. But the real, long-term solution in the future for supporters of the rule of law is ensuring the selection and election of good judges, judges who know their role in a constitutional republic, in the first place, and holding them – and the politicians who appoint and confirm them – accountable.

Spending some time on the campaign trail has confirmed a couple of thoughts I’ve had before I entered the Republican primary race.

First, conservatism is alive and well in America; don’t let anyone tell you differently. And by conservatism, I don’t mean the warmed-over “raise your hand if you believe …” kind of conservatism we see blooming every election cycle. No, I’m speaking of the conservatism grounded in principles based upon enduring truths: an understanding of the importance of human nature in the affairs of individuals and nations. Respect for the lessons of history, the importance of faith and tradition. The understanding that while man is prone to err, he is capable of great things when not subjugated by a too-powerful government. These are the principles that inspired our Founding Fathers, and resulted in a Constitution that delineated the powers of the central government, established checks and balances among the branches of government and further diffused governmental power by a system of Federalism.

Second, change – whether it “real change,” “bold change” or the “change we can believe in” variety others are selling – isn’t itself an innovative policy or a particularly strong leadership stance. In fact, from Burke to Buckley, there has been an acknowledgement that change in the political arena is inevitable and necessary, and we in the U.S. tend to experience it in regular, 2, 4 and 6 year intervals, so 2008 is hardly our first rodeo. The challenge for conservatives is calibrating whether the change being proposed is consistent with our principles and our philosophy, and whether that change is appropriate.

Our nation has some serious issues to work through for today … and for the next generation. Now isn’t the time for conservatives to be looking for a tailored message or a politically expedient route to victory if the end result is going to be the inevitable slide toward the liberalization and secularization of America, and the growth of government and loss of freedom that inevitably ensues. For us conservatives it must be about principles and policies that are grounded in freedom, free markets and the rule of law. That’s what I’ve been talking and writing about for the past few years, and that’s what I want to talk write about here on Townhall and in the new Townhall Magazine.

I joined Townhall and am writing exclusive commentaries for Townhall Magazine because I see them elevating the discourse on issues based on these principles -- smaller government, individual liberty, standing for common values that have become all too uncommon, a strong national defense and, most of all, an optimism and belief in America.

I’m glad to be back here in familiar territory, and we’ll be talking to you soon.

UPDATE:  Appearance on Fox & Friends Friday morning to discuss Bush's speech, Obama's overreaction and Townhall Magazine.