in certain ways and you are assessing the parties arguments and determining within your proper role whether what the appellate courts have said provides the law of decision for the case. but what is important, as you ve mentioned, is the clarity by which courts of appeals and the supreme court need to operate so that the lower courts can actually follow the precedent. i m very conscious of that, as you said, as someone who has had to follow precedent and i would think carefully about that and use my communication skills to insure that the precedents are clear so that lower courts can follow them. thank you. i would like to discuss quickly
0 whether or not they still present a threat to the united states or the world at large and i think it s six months, maybe a year. but that goes on at least on an annual basis, and if there is a determination that this person still represents a threat to the united states, they are continued to be confined. that s the way the system works. are you okay with that? as a policy matter, senator, i m not speaking to my views. my understanding is the periodic review system is an executive branch determination of whether or not they are going to continue to hold people. does that make sense to you as a way to deal with these detainees? senator, i m not in a position to speak to the policy or discretion of the executive branch regarding how they are going to handle detainees. the reason i mention is because in one of the briefs you argued the executive branch doesn t have that option. if you had had your way, the executive branch could not do periodic reviews about the danger the detai