tv U.S. Senate CSPAN January 4, 2011 12:00pm-5:00pm EST
that is building a if you look at some of these controversies, such as the controversy regarding the proposed burning of the koran. he was a case in which an individual with a congregation probably 10 times smaller than the amount of people in this room here came up with an idea that was rejected immediately by other evangelical in florida, the city of gainesville denied a permit to go forward with activity. it was condemned by people on the left and the wreckage also the narrative of people coming together. a couple of months later in a press congress of major leaders from all religious states, all ethnicities, all races, together and condemn some of the sentiment that has been seen in parts of the country. eight pastor roberts mentioned how striking for. when i was going up there that was one mosque. you talk about opposition to build a mosque and now there are 43 mosques in the dallas-fort worth area.
and on the issue of europe, which, there's polling data that shows on the issue, the headscarves that america's overwhelming reject restrictions on religious freedom and what individuals can and cannot wear being implemented by the government. so i do think that there are areas of serious concern which are the ones that we have focused on, but i also think it's important to understand that there is another narrative that's also building. and even an issue like ground zero. when we spoke about ground zero it wasn't that muslims are some of the exception, by to say much in the context of just like christians have the right to build church, just as hindus have the right to build a temple and jewish people have the right to building and got. muslims have the right to build their place of worship.
so are right is one that focuses on areas of mutual interests and mutual respect and what brings us together but i think there is a very powerful ally of that we are thinking as well, that have also emerged in the last couple of years. >> reem, you talk to a lot of young people and there are times when i read an young people, people of all backgrounds and they just don't get the sense that their american identity is very strong. and that may affect our -- do you get that sense from talking to various young groups? we'll talk about muslims in particular later, but just in terms of what you see out there in terms of identity, what you see out there in terms of civil rights in this particular era. >> i think for me, i can speak a lot more about the muslim community specifically because that's what i worked a lot of my work has been based in the muslim community. and you know what i appreciate
what transpired was saying, there is definitely the sense of negativism in america that has caused a lot of muslims to feel very ostracized and to feel targeted. a lot of times that targeting, they feel the target is not just coming from their peers but is also coming from the government above which makes it very, very difficult for them to feel american and to feel connected to that sense of a mechanism. one thing that really is very striking is the way that muslims are portrayed in the media. while a lot of muslim news and a lot of muslim scene in me as not necessary reflect of aftra, there's a point where it becomes consumed and they begin to see themselves through the lens of the way the media portrays them. so in the media a lot of times when we read and hear about muslims, they are divided into three classes. a passive muslims who pray and are just the good muslims. then there's the financiers of
terrorism and then the terrorists themselves. it's completely stripped of any humanism. muslims are stripped of the sense of just being americans ending human spirit that is something that is becoming more and more difficult, particularly now and what it is a focus on homegrown terrorism and this whole idea of low walls we have people like that kid in portland, oregon. and the use in baltimore who were basically trying to engage in these terrorist actions through the prodding at the fbi. and this continued rhetoric and continued conflation of islamic terrorism, and muslim, american muscle and terrace which is becoming extremely problematic and very threatening to a lot of muslim youth who are becoming more and more isolated and feeling more and more under attack. and also because it has become the discourse and understanding of a lot of americans throughout this country where muslims are
seen as the other. so there is tremendous increase in bullying and harassment in schools. one thing that is interesting when both you and i went to the macula, the mosque, madison was talking about the moscow theater just doing a lot of rest -- better it is uncensored. hearing about how aflac was going to be flying over the white house. this was in front of a planning commission. just during the uncensored comments was shocking to me, was shocking that this has become accessible. and that there is no sense of meaning to center that. which for many, many muslims including youth and including individuals like myself, it does create this sense of fear and wanting, wanting to be americans but really feeling rejected in many ways. from being american.
>> we will come back to the entrance a particular what's happening about muslims but i want to go back to fernando. today the senate voted on the dream act and it failed. so there will be no immigration reform for the time being. so could also, there's a large community in the united states that doesn't feel like they belong. >> what we are talking about is exclusion. we're talking about how do we get these excluded groups to be included in the political social life of america. this is one case where, and part of the problem is that we conflate, it would to someone talk about the dream act and getting young kids were brought here very young, who were immigrant, undocumented to have done everything that american society says you should do to be an american, they are the epitome of what it is to american.
and yet they are not american. this really to me, it is something that i lived with at university at loyola marymount university where i teach. i several of these kids, and i know several of them, at usc and cal state northridge, different places where they have been and currently successful and done everything that has been asked of them. but yet when the graduate they cannot get a job because they are undocumented. the vote was 55 in favor, 41 against. most of us would say wait a minute, that's a majority. that should pass. but in the senate rules they needed 60 votes to create closure and actually bring up for a vote. of the 55 who voted in favor of the dream act, 52 were democrats and three were republican. of the 41 who voted against it, i think all but four or five were republican. so there was a partisan aspect
to it. from the republican party, they were -- all different messages, and some of them talked about comprehensive immigration reform, but the reality here is they had a moment to talk about america's conscious, to talk about america inclusion, to talk about the best and brightest that we have out there and bring them into american society. and they failed. they failed. and i'm ashamed for what has happened and highly convoluted this issue. -- how we convoluted this issue. it will hurt thousands of kids today. this is not a theoretical issue. today there are tens of thousands of kids whose lives could have completely and totally change. american kids, okay? yes, they may not be u.s. citizens but they were raised to prevent every single american value. they are not mexican, or they
are not canadian or european or african, because they didn't go up there. they cannot go back because they have no place to go back. most of them don't even speak the language of where the origin is, or don't speak it very well. we just abandon these kids here in our midst, and i've got to tell you it is something that may be pessimistic today. i am usually optimistic. i do believe that race relations have gotten better and we track that in public opinion poll. i do believe like madison talked about these different incidences in orange county and other parts of california. we have to be vigilant against anti-muslim, anti-religious, anti-mexican issues. constantly we have to be vigilant, but overall things have gotten better. the progression of american liberalism and including whether african-american are women or latinos, it will include an has been including muslims. it will happen, but there's
always time when we saw a little bit and go back. i think sometimes when we're in an era where we stall or of conduct, did a little bit pessimistic but i pessimistic today. i pessimistic today. >> angela? >> i'm not. i'm not pessimistic. i just want to try, if you cross your hands like this, all of you, you don't have to raise your hand yet, but just look at your hands and again, you know, you don't have to buy it. italy thousands of years and billions of people. that we have observed. so they say that people who have their left him over the right thumb tend to be people of the heart. okay? the people who have the right, over their left thumb tend to be people who are more a reason.
and it's very uncomfortable for people who i want to clasp their hands the other way. it's not natural for them. so you don't need to raise your hands about this, but i would guess that about half are at the left thumb and about half are the right thumb. so i want to preface my remarks we keep in check your tendency. okay? so yes, the senate rejected the dream act. they also repeal don't ask, don't tell. what does that tell us, politically? and i don't play politics anymore. i used to, but i decided system is so broken and corrupt that i really cannot. and i have to think with all sincerity people like this young man who has the wherewithal to step right in to the most powerful political office in the world, which i played with for a
short amount of time, back in the '90s, the late '90s. it's an office that thinks it covered all of its continued use every day. it runs 24/7. and every toy for our cycle there is an emergency which is the american people, or any people frankly, that we could spin into crisis out of panic. but they handled it. it's an incredible office. okay. so don't ask, don't tell gets past. what is the political dynamic that occurs in congress? politicians are not god. they are just people have to ask for money and who have to understand what it takes to get what they want to accomplish as a politician. and so there was a trade made somewhere and we will never know where, and less wikileaks fundamental. and we will be able to understand if you step back just a minute, that was a negotiated
that went on at some level, that i will give you immigration or other did you don't ask, don't tell in exchange for immigration this time around. and somehow we will revisit this issue because it's inevitable because we know that our forces out of that will bring it up again and again and again. and nobody is ever going to be happy, people who really played understand politics. we have some of the american people who are very powerful politically, who are happy today because don't ask, don't tell was repealed. and we have others in the american body of politics are very sad today. i don't happen to agree that is as tragic because i only have in my mind many things that young people can be doing, which i'll be having several conversations at universities in the next quarter about what the other options are. which are much more productive in my opinion in reality. and it is to what our pastor said here from texas, that you
know everything is happening now. if you don't understand it, you should read about the power of now. it's not to say that history doesn't matter. you carry it. it's in your. it is present now. nor is it to say that the future doesn't matter, or we can't do something about it, because what you do now will have a certain effect on the future. but it is now. and we live in an extraordinary time when the transparency is so tremendous that even as secretary of state has to go on the airwaves and protest the terrible thing that wikileaks, the despicable things that wikileaks has done. and yet there's an analysis that says transparency may be the next big change that all of us have to accept. and one of the implications of that? i mean, if you ponder that for
just even a few minutes, it's quite extraordinary what could be happening. so for me when i look at the situation, every generation feels it lives and the worst of times and the best of times. we live in the worst of times and the best of times. i just came back from a city on the other side of the globe that has 21 million people living in it. the rule their politically is one order, one act. they built a bullet train that goes from one end of the country to the other in less than a year. that trip you take six hours by car or train or truck. the bullet train was built in less than a year. and it goes in 70 minutes from point a to point b. there's no raised when we talk about superpowers operating in the world right now. let me tell you. when you do it on that level, when the analysis is on the level of what a society can
produce. i saw a play performed entirely on the surface of the lake in november with lights and boats and people running across the surface of the water. okay. there is no understanding i think in this country about how we are positioned right now. there is just no understanding. those of you who have families and other parts of the world have some sense of our positioning. so the next political cycle is going to be very, very interesting, in my view. and the next sort of opportunity for discourse is enormously important. it's going to happen in cyberspace. it's going to happen in real face-to-face opportunity. it's going to happen through books. it's going to happen through blogs. and the trick will be whether or not you remember this or this,
and whether or not -- i mean, this is just my opinion but it doesn't count for squat are you invited me here. i'm on the stand that i make -- i am expressing an opinion. so to remember as you're going to all this information, and ideas left over right or am i right over left. do i know someone that is the other? to have a chance to process the stuff that i'm seeing and what i ultimately think and what you ultimately didn't you, i would suggest to you is not going to be prescribed anywhere. we have to start understanding what is right and what is wrong, and move with it. but we have to move within with a way that is gentle. the other way to be brutal about it, to be mean-spirited about it, to be unkind at every moment, you lose that and you could invite disaster. i have made mistakes.
even as we move into this space of trying to displace the power of society in my own small way continue to be very violent, and i try to at least be conscious of it so i don't repeat it again. so you never have the opportunity, i would say to you, to do it again. it only comes once even the exchange of a glance with another person, you only have that opportunity once. we collectively only have this opportunity now to move in the proper way. and i am looking to leadership like mpac which holds the stage, really, for the middle way. my teacher used to say to me, angela, do you know what the trick in life is? we try to walk as straight a path as we can danny ferry crooked road called life.
-- that's what i think organization that is always been my impression of the organization and the leadership. that i've met from here. >> thank you, angela. [applause] >> i just want to get a response from rashad in terms of how do we deal with these marginalized communities right now? >> addressing this question, sentiment against religion certainly has been with regard to anti-semitism, anti-islamic sentiment, the conflation of terrorism and islam is something that is dangerous. it's something that feeds the narrative of terrorists who will point to those who say that there's a link between the two and say see, they are again arguing that islamic terrorism is the same. and, therefore, there is no way of bridging this divide. and that's something that we
have been, we have tried to be very clear about. and going back to cairo when the president made very clear that when it comes to this issue of it violent extremism, they were opposed to it, but after the massacre at fort hood. after the attempted terrorist attack on december 25, 10 after the attempted terrorist attack in times square. we made this point very clear again and again. with regard to this question about other nations, as i stated earlier it's important that when you look at particular religious community to keep in mind that there's a unique set of issues. but at the end of the day the fundamental aspiration, the fundamental concerns are the same. and so to engage on the basis of those. when the president talked about this issue at a press comments on the economy, he said we have, we have to be careful when we are talking about the
community's like muslim communities whose kids are going to school with our kids who are coworkers. he said that i've got troops that are fighting alongside each other, some of whom are muslim and some of them are not. when we act somehow islam, in of itself is offensive. i think taking this point head-on, he said when it comes to these issues there's no them and us. it is just us. so from a government perspective of course i think it's important to counter this narrative of islam some have been conflated with terrorism. it's important to counter this narrative of the other. and then as communities work together such as in this conference, it's important for communities to work together in coalition. it's important, we talked a lot about in terms of solution, civic engagement, muslim communities working on issues
that are of importance to all committees. right here in los angeles, provides health care and services regardless to people regardless of their religious hate. that can transcend these barriers of religion and race and ethnicity. those arson as a partnership that would also try to establish. that would be very important at a time when you have the increase in numbers and visibility of certain communities, including muslim communities that we are able to achieve what we have achieved in the past. in america. when you look at the conference, what is the history of united states? the history and state crowd -- proud tradition and whether with african-american please, whether with jewish communities, i was communities, with hispanic american asian-american communities. and so that is a challenge that we face, and one of the reasons why i remain optimistic despite
challenges is because i see movement in the right direction of someone as i described before, but also really because of you. that's something that i think mpac is focused on. i come at this little bit of different perspectives. we have in my college years and then law school and graduate school, you know, just like in any other topic, late-night conversation about velocity, about religion, and the experience of young americans growing up in the generation of young people that is going up now, that are growing up and going to school with muslims, playing sports with muslims, being involved in all types of projects, community service projects, and other endeavors with muslims, they see islam i think in a different way perhaps than many americans saw it just 20 or 30 years ago.
that's not to say that there was a strong muslim presence that was engaged at that period. but if you look at the numbers and a shift in demographics, the number of students that are studying at universities and organized in different communities of religion working together, that we now see in islam and muslims being integrated to universities. not only do you have a future core group of muslims that have different interactions than just the ones we've seen 20 or 30 years ago, but they are leaders of the future that will also be in this country. have a very different understanding that we saw not too long ago in this country as well. so i think, you asked about solutions. i think part of it is that it is a natural movement that will occur. i think in the right direction that is occurring but that's not enough. that's not sufficient. it's not appropriate to just say let's just wait it out and things will get better. there are very real things that can be done in terms of civic
engagement, anticipation, and the elimination of this idea that somehow islam condones terrorism. to continue to work towards that issue, and for other community to acknowledge that and recognize that and dialogue to the idea would be hugely important. thank you. [applause] >> i just want to add on to andrew's comment. and i'm glad he got to go before me because i can tie them together. i haven't seen the wiki leaked memo either but i agree a deal was struck regarding the dream act of don't ask, don't tell. so my point is why one and not the other? i don't think it was you can have one but not both, pick one. i think that this engagement question that our congregation is one of those that we call an open and affirming congregation
to lesbian gay people. what i learned from passing a church without express is that those are conversations about are hard to deny within the family. look at dick cheney family. that the impact of don't ask, don't tell was not just on the military. it is an impact on the humanity of every gay, lesbian, bisexual transgender person in this culture. and those conversations are hard not to have. we avoid him but there is more opportunity because in every family, would he want to acknowledge it or not, there are persons who are lesbian, gay, transgender, bisexual summer in the family or in your family tree. and so for those who voted for don't ask, don't tell whether they acknowledge it or not, those are conversations they've had and recognizing the impact on people that they love and care about.
when you come to questions of immigration from mexico, then the conversations, i don't know anybody, there's nobody in my family that will be impacted as directly as don't ask, don't tell and what it means for the whole society. and so what you're saying about engagement is key. and so when there's no one on the other side of that conversation, and all of this insane maddening conspiracy theory and birth are theories and takeover theories are unchecked by someone, but a dialogue partner, we are in a very dangerous space. so in many peoples minds who who subscribe to this american exceptionalism ideology, moderate muslims, if they exist, doesn't matter because modern fashion modern muslim enters a muslims simply have different strategies to the same goal which is domination.
and they feel that is domination is happening whether it's in sharia laws that will take over our court system. and when you were saying one mosque when your child and 43 now, wow, that sounds like domination to me. that when a project that acceleration of the expansion of the present, and they look at themselves and their own impetus, and the fact that christianity as a whole is in a long slow decline, and its proportion with american culture. so they sensed that and they feel the decline or can you islam is a very small group, they see it on one night a week ago, the rate increase is astronomical. so they latch onto these things and they feel that the only way to solve their fears of impetus is to strike out at people that they feel threatened that
ultimately. >> bob cracks. [applause] first of all, i would say for the most part we deal with these problems by focusing on the head. i disagree with it. i think we ought to start with an. and by that what i mean is what our congregation came together, sitting down and talk about the koran, the tour and the new new testament and debating that was not going to get us anywhere at no. so we had a cooking class and we learned to eat different food in my home. you still get fat eating that. [laughter] >> than men came together that we are building houses together. what happens is when you sweat to get into working on common problems in the community can you get close to people. it's hard to take a shot at someone that you're friends with. i'm about to take in their hunting in east texas. might get shot.
so i'm going to take him. but i believe the key, i really income we're going to eat it. it's not pork. [laughter] they key has got to be building relationships, and that's not what we have done. here's the need of the day. been need of the date is not from our academic, intellectual, joe political people to sit down and talk. it's a people have the power of the masses. the clerics, to do more than just preached sermons, but to mobilize their the conversation and say hey, i don't agree with you. it logically, i don't accept mohammed as the prophet. if i did i would be a muscle. i don't disrespect them. i'm on the corolla now for the third time trying to understand it. the imam. we go back and forth. better not go there. but anyhow we have conversations. but it is based on what do we do to build a city together? we are pluralistic in every other way. the idea of talking to someone at a different faith almost as a
>> just go home. you do our cause no good. the point is in the midst of your struggle smile. even if you are hurting on the inside, smiled. sucks it up, move your feet forward. that is what i tell my kids. if you are hurting, smile. people who smile, it is hard to throw rocks. i also want to agree. i am very optimistic about muslim relations in america. and you may think i'm crazy, but i really am. let me tell you why. we are using the wrong yardstick. we are saying it is likely to catholics came. no it's not. it's not to remain not get along, but ultimately we are going to do it. is not like the irish. here is what you have to compare it to. please don't be offended to readjust having conversations.
all right. the reality. here is the reality. if you want to understand muslim relations -- relations, he blew me away. i thought the sky is right on. we like muhammed ali. we thought of the ron. that scared us a little bit. then we begin to see what was going on in the middle east. that really scared us. after september 11th, it hit us hard. don't compare how people respond to this law by catholic irish. instead you have to think in terms of pearl harbor. stay with me while i say that. here's why. what you have was the first attack on american continental's low since 1812. you have a lot of americans who are open-minded. they see that it scares them to death. they are thinking, oh, my word.
and so the result of that is there is a tremendous amount of fear. in reviewing. i was overseas. i tried to texting project could not get it to him. you have done all this work and nothing has changed. are you disappointed? i wanted to say, no, i'm excited. no internment camps. and you list all the things that happened to the japanese after pearl harbor. it was horrible. and the reality is it is not better, i agree, but it is not worse. ultimately your place is coming, and i agree with you, we can't be still or ignore it. i think the onus is on the majority. people like me to open our churches. want to get to know you and get along. and we do that please come. we are not going to shoot you. we might try to baptize you.
you can't hold that against us. after 7i have had many muslims try to convert me. there is nothing wrong with that. we change ideas. we cannot talk about god. i, frankly, no it is hard, but you are at a turning point in a healthy way. all right. readjust talking. the upset. most americans when they hear people on television, do you realize the impact of somebody who is on the camera, all of a sudden americans can handle that. this one story about our friend. a second generation american muslim indian. a very good friend of mine. love him to death. he is in and out of our home. he lives in dc. i brought him to my church one sunday. he wears cowboy boots. dark complexion.
they get him up. a said -- i did not call him by his name. i like the cowboy boots. he said, yeah, i like these to. you have to understand. all right. let's be cool. i love johnny cash. you must be some baptist mexican who worked with president bush. so he goes, no, i am an indian from california who is a muslim. everybody started laughing. they thought it was a joke. it wasn't a joke. here is what free to mount. he talks like us. he likes country music. what they are experiencing that we have not seen a lot of was second generation of american muslims that they can relate to. what you were talking about. >> what do you think? pro harbor? and. [laughter] >> i disagree. i've put my right thumb over my
left. >> that is why you are a civil rights lawyer and not a corporate lawyer. i don't think that the way we can look at -- moslems growing up in this environment, i don't think the way for me to see that this is okay is because i've was not thrown into a concentration camp. that is very hard for me to digest. working with muslims, say it is fine. as long as you are not in a concentration camp you are a-okay. that said, i am optimistic. there is so much that needs to be done within our community and across the community. i do see immigration. that is a huge concern. what we are going to see in this next term the next few years is the continuation of the politics of fear where there will be terrorism, immigration and unfortunately islam where all three will become conflated. that will not only affect the
muslim community but the latino communities and many others of color. so really for us, how can we work with one another, how can the muslim community work with the christian community and the jewish community and other ethnic communities in order to address the problem that we are still and kelly are still in america, in this very exceptional a state. constantly fueled by fear. how can we stop this fear from allowing policies that are emerging everyday allowing his policies that are being collectively and forced on certain populations, the exclusion of all the populations that are trickling down into the private sector. rehearsing the highest levels of employment discrimination ever, more so now than after september 11th. more hate crimes now. how can we really -- that is something that we need to start thinking about.
strategically, how can we undermine the feared that is constantly fed to the american population that is allowing for a continued explicit statement and the targeting of populations based upon not what i as an individual and doing or the shot, but based on islam and muslims is equated to a certain group of people overseas that, frankly, i have never, ever met. i don't think i will ever meet. so for me as somebody who is, you know, relatively young, that is something i've really want to see continuing in this country and working on the civil rights and civil liberties perspective. how can we undermine the sense of fear and using the rule of law to do that. it is absolutely fundamental. not ticking pearl harbor as the standard, but the fact that i am an american with constitutional
right, due process, equal protection, that is my standard. that is what i look at. i don't look at minorities, but what i have a right to and what i am going to aspire to. >> go ahead. >> we are going to be taking questions. please write down your question, give it to the usher, and we will take your question. go ahead. >> i need to respond because i feel this passion coming. it is a righteous passion, by the way. a man named frank emmy died last week, 93 years old, a japanese-american, i can't internee from world war two. he was what we call a no-no boys. after they in turn all of the japanese americans after the bombing of pearl harbor over a.
of time, of course, politics or political. so politics plays out. question 21 and 22 or 23 and 23, i knew it was in the '20s. so it first asks for you to forswear any allegiance to any other government that the letter states in america. the second asks it to fight for this country. so it was not popular to answer no, but those who did were labeled the no-no boys. they were ridiculed, beaten, call traders. their rationale was, how can i answer yes to these questions. my own government has just put me in camp. now they want me to go out and possibly die and my sisters, brothers, wives, uncles, are all still in camp with no due process. i do believe it is possible for
a society to become hysterical and make bad decisions. again, even this one. you know, in fact, what is very clear is that the leaders of the redress and reparations movement were among the first to support efforts to organize and give voice to a different analysis than what was coming through the mainstream media after 911. but only recognized as a man of honor much later in life. guys like him were marginalized. hardly ever spoke of the experience to his own family members throughout his life. the kind of courage that it takes to file as plaintiffs named in the lawsuit, the kind of courage that it takes to within an agency that is going down the path of a policy that
he knows is wrong to say, no, this is not right and i will not be implicit in this. the kind of courage that it takes to speak up in the workplace, to say this is not right, i am not going to be complicity is enormous. the job of the new leaders is not to give more information, not to give, necessarily, skills. leaders. i am not talking a lot people who manage an organization. i am talking leaders. you must know how to it give to other people. that is the greatest gift that you can give, fearlessness. [applauding] so what i want to just say is that in the government papers that were unearthed by the asian law caucus guys in the 80's they found the government saying things like we just can't tell the week from the champs, the bill from the cheap.
they knowingly commit united states attorney's office and the general, the animals who knew the intelligence data were telling him no evidence of espionage and the west coast, knowingly suppressed it so that 120,000 people were ripped from their homes. this was -- and they have never really been properly redressed. you get down to palos verdes estates, most of that was japanese farm land, strawberry fields. they never got their land back. you know how much the property is worth today? i just, you know, want to thank you for doing this work. there will mostly be rejected and lose as a civil-rights lawyer. it has been that way since civil rights litigation has happened. it did not happen because thurgood marshall was a brilliant lawyer. happened because they were historians, psychologists, educators, community organizers.
they all made it possible. and the stars were aligned. it happened just at that moment. had already been tried before right here in southern california. they tried to get desegregation and integration. had already happened in mississippi in the 1800's. thurgood marshall got lucky because all of the stars were aligned and people were ready to move. you have to see yourself in context. you are part of a much larger movement in the universe. we are living in the time of spiritual awakening. your base is one that calls upon your spirituality to gadget. not your brain, not your degree, not your business, not your bank account, not your influence, whenever you think that this. clear spirit, your human spirit to guide you.
you all take a piece. some are healers, summer advocate, some of political, some are mothers and fathers and grandparents. every piece has to be happening and conscious. unconsciously calling on people to recognize this and all of the work we do should be a civil rights lawyer. i should be on the bench. i should be so many things that other people tell me i should be. where do i find myself? in the nonprofit dedicated to building peace. how does that happen? it is not because i get a bigger paycheck than when i was in century city as a lawyer. we have to have the courage to follow what our intuition is telling us. everything else is not going to take us turn north. intuitional take as true north. you have to trust and have the courage to go with that.
[applauding] >> there are many questions. you will only be able to get to a few of them. hopefully we will save the rest and maybe we can have all of the answers on line on the website. what of the questions -- and it going back to what angeles talking about, the next two years is going to be a roller-coaster ride for a lot of us. one of the changes that is going to happen because of the republican lead house of representatives is that a man by the name of peter king is going to be the chair of the homeland's security committee. some people feel that he is going to have a mccarthy like set of hearings for the next two years basically bringing on muslims and telling them that they are, like terrorists, but inflation that we are talking about, because we are actively involved, they must have ties.
the question is what should muslim americans be doing about it? with talked about coalition building. we talked about positioning ourselves in terms of the kind of issues we should be raising. there is the issue of real terrorists plots. we should also be concerned. the sting operations that were raised. so who would like to discuss the issues that are coming up. definitely will have the political motivation as we get ready for the next presidential race for 2012. >> the main narrative is going to be to place, again, like angela says, it is all about politics, a game. one thing is that the republicans obviously want to capture the white house and the
senate, strengthen their position in the u.s. house. they will use power to try to position themselves and those that protect american security. it is easy to scapegoat certain groups. we have seen that before, and it will happen. how do we prepare for that? how do we make sure that it does not become effective? some of it is not to play into their hand, but a lot of it is to develop a coalition. there are a lot of allies. they see this as a challenge. the democrats themselves. there will want this to happen for a variety of different reasons. the republicans are going to try to make themselves the ones that protect america, not only america from foreign powers, but to live the way america lived 20 years ago. we all know that is impossible, but that is what they're going to try to do. there are many reasonable republicans who are not going to
want to play into that. there will be forced to play into it. as we see today, the right wing. it's interesting from a political analysis, the more the republicans are pushed to the right the less likely they are to actually capture the white house and many of the senate seats. it is a very interesting dialogue. i think that the civil rights community and the ability of civil rights lawyers to try to have the american institution play by the rules is a good strategy. sometimes it is a long-term strategy. that's a good strategy. >> anybody subpoenaed has to give counsel. they have to refuse to let their client testified. they send the letter. set think you very much. we will decline the opportunity to appear. that has to happen as a
practical matter. otherwise you are on the record under oath and they can play with you. believe me, when the senate holds hearings been know all about you. they know all about you before you come in. the questions become pointed and difficult. the other thing, organized associations all across the country. they need to have their antenna up. the other thing that should happen is that you should get equal justice society. these are groups that are very much advocates of civil rights and liberties. they will mobilize. this is a different era. >> if i heard the question correctly, i reject the premise of the question. it is not for muslims to do anything other than american muslims and muslim americans. to save what should we do
suggests that something you has done has brought circumstance about. i reject that. i know we are having fun and talking, but pearl harbor analogy was very disturbing to me. this notion that this collective guilt should be imposed on random american citizens for what some random other people did, it wasn't even the action of a particular government. >> we did not respond. it was great. congratulations. that is not what i would say. what i would say is we did not respond. >> my point is, the real point, me, all of us, all of us have to claim this as a problem for america. we have to say that this focus,
this hysteria, this mass hysteria is tearing our country apart. it is making us less safe. it is undermining our ability to harvest resources of american children who want to make a contribution. mexican american heritage, islamic heritage, religion. and again, not to pick on you, but just to say that america, they like muhammed ali 30 years later. and he changed his name from cassius clay america hated modern of the. and he denied the draft and refuse to fight in vietnam america headed muhammed ali. they thought of elijah mohammed and miramax. took a long time before muhammed ali became domesticated enough in that dimension for america to embrace him. the ultimate thing is about the
willingness for america to change its perspective on who the hell it thinks it is and whether or not we can exist in this world respecting others commendations, cultures, people, faith, and live both in the world and in our society with an acceptance that we are not everything and not everyone has to become like us in order to be acceptable human beings to really live here in this diversity, and this diversity is, in fact, our strength. this diversity is what makes america great. [applauding] >> here is a question to you from the web from maryland. white is the american muslim community seem resistance to accepting the notion that there are homegrown terrorists among
us? how can we stop radicalism? >> i have something very quick to say about peter king and these committees that he wants to set up. i think it is very ironic that he is looking into this. it -- i was looking at his own background. he is someone who supported the ira. he actually finance them. he ran guns for them. it is very interesting that now he is turning around and trying to figure out there is the reason he broke ranks with them was because the irish did not support the bourse in afghanistan and iraq. so i think it is ironic he is turning around and want to do this investigation of the muslim community. and, again, a very quick comment before i answer this question. i think the most powerful thing i have seen over the past few
years, sb1070, i thought that was incredible. i hope that if something like this comes around if rep king is successful in setting up these committees that the whole country can come together and say not on our watch, we are not necessarily muslim, but we are not going to allow the scapegoating of a certain population for your own benefit and to promote the politics of fear. i hope that we can recreate sp1070 environment at that time. as far as the question that was just asked of me, their is a resistance. i do agree that there is a resistance to accepting the notion of home run terrorism. part of it, i was looking at statistics before i came here. the studies by the center on security at nyu actually had a study where they set out of 156 prosecutions, terrorism prosecution's 97 of them involved fbi agents, informants,
and in to provocateurs. there is a concern within the muslim community that a lot of the stuff we are seeing is being either promoted, stage, or enhanced through the involvement of law enforcement. unfortunately eric holder recently came out and said that he does not have a problem and supports with the fbi is currently doing. there is a problem. clearly muslims are like any other population. there are criminals among access to there are good guys and bad guys. the problem is, what is the government doing and how is the federal, fbi and agent provocateurs, what are they doing to enhance this narrative that ties together this notion of home grown as lawn and terrorists? when you have individuals who are clearly disfranchise and on the fringes, it is very troubling for me, i am thinking specifically of portland.
this somali kid in portland was very disenfranchised. his family was going through a divorce. his father ended up calling the fed's on him. they came in. at that point a few months later he was trying to basically blow up the square. what exactly -- that is very concerning. you have somebody who is disenfranchised. why do we as a muslim community not have centers for at risk you? there are at risk red -- you. seems that when they are taken through a law enforcement route they become subjects for terrorism and become part of this terrorist narrative. there is a resistance, and i think that it is, you know, not realistic. we do have problems, but there is a tremendous amount of fear that icy and concern that i have with the level of interest of our community and the suspect nature of our community that is
being promoted and promulgated by the intelligence community as well. >> somebody from the muslim group. i have a christian and a female. what can we do to bridge the trouble gap? as a woman i feel intimidated. i may be rejected or might ideas won't be as valuable as a male. overall this is an american problem, too. >> you know, there is all the stereotypes about muslims. a very similar stereotyped. mail dominating an overbearing and don't allow women to take roles. as we all know, nothing can be further from the truth. some very specific data, there are seven latino members of congress from the state of california. five of them are women.
in the state legislature about four years ago the last time i had this data there were ten -- only 40 state senators in california. ten of those are latino, five are women. today in the l.a. school board the largest school board, second-largest school board in the nation, a budget of over $6 billion, at seven school board members, three are latinos, and all three are women. women have a role. the same thing in african american community spirit of the three members of congress from l.a., all three are women. the idea that's non-white communities, muslims, black, latino estimations dominate the positions, those cribs together actually have more women in power in california than white communities to. nothing could be further from
or 300 people. we had over 700. the impact of that was phenomenal. people just got to know one another. i think the biggest challenge there is we don't know muslims. people are different. when we get to know them, that tension comes down. i think there are people -- okay. i'm sorry. testing 123. spent i will quote bible versions or something. [laughter] i'm sorry. i would just say i don't buy it that i'm afraid of muslims. i think it hurts not just the muslim community. i think there's the broader community when we live in fear of people. we are nations with the rule of
law. and i think we can count on that to prevail. >> i agree that the senate engagement is key and is something i advocate in my own work. however, it's my sense that muslim communities tend to isolate themselves and are reluctant to let themselves be known. we need to do some internal advocacy. also more young muslims should be in the field of media journalism, politics. i guess their complaint are too many muslim doctors. [laughter] >> rashad? >> i would exports to that. maybe muhammad ali is our greatest example. the transformative impact that a young athlete can have by entering the homes of people all across the country is something, the importance of which can't be overstated.
the same thing is to i think of arts and entertainment, where i think much of the advocacy on issues oftentimes affect muslim communities goes towards washington. when in reality it's really the people across the country, the people in middle america of a lot of the questions that need to be addressed. activism in all of these hills, participation including sports, the arts as you said, i do see a strong increase in civic engagement through organizations such as imam in chicago which provides services. i can, regardless of people's religious affiliation. it's not only the muslims that are working there, side by side with communities of other faiths as well. so i do agree with that sentiment. but i also want to add a caution that i don't think it's quite fair to look from communities
and say that broadly speaking that engagement is not occurring. i think that engagement is occurring at a number of levels and is often does not recognize. on the question going back to the issue of violent extremism, muslim commutes are condemning terrorism. they are condemning violent extremism. major muslim organizations have been doing that for years and years and years. major muslim-american leaders, major scholars, you can look at people across not on this country but around the world. people with the requisite qualifications to issue rulings in this area have been largely unequivocal, that islam is opposed to terrorism. i also want to add one point going back to the previous discussion, is that how is it that we continue to have some of these cases that are occurring? went clearly that leaders have
condemned it. it's been condemned as something that is anti-islamic. it's because there is a small group of people that is using sophisticated means, including social media and new media, that is exploiting the grievances of young people and getting to them in very sophisticated ways. in addition to civic engagement and participation in all aspects of society, i think it's also important going back to the question of what could be done, the question from maryland, muslim communities also continue to engage in sophisticated means to address this question, and make it clear that there is no grievance, no policy grievance whatsoever that justifies the killing of innocent people here and i think that as muslim communities continue to do that, sophisticated ways, as they continue to engage to civic
engagement and other activities, whether arts, sports, entertainment, and all the skills you mentioned i think that will continue to be important and will be important not only in addressing some of the sentiment that we have seen, but, of course, addressing the very real problem that i think we have to acknowledge does exist, which is a problem of terrorism that must be eradicated from all communities. >> and i agree with you. but deadly as problems of extremist ideology that takes on an islamic veneer to gain popularity among muslims. and many young muslims through the internet are being exposed to this problem. the impact has taken it upon himself to do with this issue, and i believe the next panel is going to cover this issue of ideology in a much more elaborate manner. celebrity welcome everyone to come to the next panel to talk about this issue of extremist
ideology and muslims, muslim-americans and scholars, dealing with this problem. has to madison, many people call president obama's election as a movement in america for a postracial society. there's a difference between postracial and post-racist. are we in a post-racist society? should we be moving towards a postracial society? you can explain the difference. >> good question. i'm not sure i can see the difference but i would ask or say we are needed we're still in a racist society. [applause] >> that takes care of it, thank you. >> the election of president obama was historic and wonderful and grateful for america. there's a question about that, but he had a unique set of personal qualities that i've written about that allowed him to succeed in this election.
and his biracial background is not the least of them. and so i see obama as a bridge toward a less racist society. the real and ultimate challenge is when we can see each other in our difference and still be okay. probably like you say more french than algerian. so the moment that the celebrities, including obama, come into our living room they lose their differentness. that makes him acceptable and also exceptional, and the lead the group behind to suffer still the racism and discrimination that is heaped upon them. i tell you, black folks have expressed this as longtime. i offer little by culture, gone to white schools and so forth, if you say to me, you're
different. [laughter] so what we need to do is to not lose ourselves as we engage others so that they will like us, but to be who we are and really forced the question of can you accept someone who is different within a diverse culture and accept the gift of that differentness. and, finally, the problem with again so much emphasis on the muslim community and the responsibilities and how they engage, engagement is key. i don't deny that but there are simply are not enough muslims to engage all the people in the country. there simply aren't enough to have a bible study with, and those who lead muslim congregations have other responsibilities and talking to christian pastors about why we should -- there has to be something we own as a real
problem of racism, of discrimination, xenophobia, that we as a society have to solve. and one thing that was on the title that we haven't talked about, and mohammed ali's analogy, is the ethnic dimension of this. i've always teach you about the fact that many study shows that half of the muslims in america are black or african-americans. but when white america looks at any of the current athletes or with a islamic names, some of them do it for personal reasons. others are muslim. america doesn't see them in the same category as we are talking about on this panel today. they don't see them as terrorists. they see them as black folks, whatever they are. in terms of the religion. they see them as -- so there's an ethnic dimension that we totally missed today, that makes
this problem and this question much more complicated to even as coveted as it is. i just wanted not solve it, but throw it out their. >> one point i will add, part of the power of engagement is important the community, it allows some communities to tell and from historic for the arctic so they are talking out, talking about and acting out what it means to be muslim. and not always talking about what islam is an. instead they're working together with other communities and acting in a way in which they believe is inspired by their faith. that means to me, as i mentioned such as the imam clinic, and so if you know as you said it's a bit unfair to say that the primary job of communities is to constantly just play defense and condemn what a small fraction of the community is doing.
the communities have largely done that. overwhelmingly. but there is an importance to of course, telling the story in an affirmative way, creating that affirmative discourse and civic engagement is one of the ways of doing that. >> i just want to say something about what you're saying, madison. i'm glad you talked about the racial divide within the muslim community. what we are saying now is whenever we talk about muslim or islam, they look at the immigrant population. but, unfortunately, even one thing that has also struck me is that even when, there is an african-american, i think specifically of the case of the man in detroit, he was against frame and the lens of terrorism because they have to connect him back to islam and all rhetoric and narrative behind islam. so there is still unfortunately
even despite the racial divide, there is still that connecting narrative, that unfortunately we really need to try to work on. i'm very glad to hear the ownership that you're taking as an individual and your community to try to work on that behalf. i think it is very important that other communities also support and work, and our committee supports or works on various issues that we're all facing. >> we will take that question and also send that to the next panel, in terms of ethnic makeup of the muslim-american community, african-american component of our muslim-american community because we will have both in the next panel. they will have an introspective look at some of the issues that we've been talking about. i think this has been quite an eye-opening panel. we have discussed a number of issues. namely, the issues of change and how we all have to reposition
ourselves to have a discussion about this issue. the issue which some -- wishbone goes on top, the right or the left? the issue of demographic shifts, and some of the political issues that political leaders unfortunately will trade off our rights, not just the price but our human rights. and throws a bone once in a while to appease us to think that there is change being made. but most importantly what i think this panel represents is a cross-section of america. a cross-section of who we are. [applause] >> and that regardless of our ethnic background, regardless of our religious background, what we are committed to his justice. and if there's in justice against anyone, violence against
gays and lesbians, against jews, against christians, against muslims, against african-americans, latinos come if there's marginalization against anyone, we stand together in unison and say that is wrong and we stand together in unison in saying that the greatness of america and the greatness of where we all come from is working together for justice. thank you very much. [applause]
>> now china central television reviews the past years internatiinternational newsmaking events. including haiti earthquake of the gulf of mexico oil spill, europe's debt crisis and the floods in pakistan. last year's domestic in china include the earthquake that killed more than 2000. the economy, health care in the space program. altogether this is two hours. >> a hello and welcome to a
special edition of world insight on cctv news. we are not in the new year and a new decade. so this hour we are looking ahead to some of the major stores expected to unfold in the we are also looking back at the year that was and stores around the world that captured our hearts and minds. 2010 was certainly a big year for china, china's status on global stage also increase both quickly and economically as the other country struggled to come out of recession, china's economy continues to grow. so later in our show will be joined by our special panel who will talk about how china's position in the world has changed. and the challenge it faces in the year of 2011. first let's begin the top stories that made headlines in the year 2010 around the world.
and we start in haiti where 2010 was very much a year of misery and a people for the small caribbean nation. barely two weeks into last year haiti was hit by a devastating magnitude seven earthquake. the capital of port-au-prince was reduced to rubble. an estimated 230,000 people were killed, and three many people were affected in some way. the world responded and sending aid workers and medical staff. more than $9 billion helped haiti over the next three to our correspondent nathan has just returned from his latest assignment and haiti and he joins us now from new york. can you hear me well? >> yes. >> has already been here since the earthquake. has everything gone back to
normal? >> no, i'm afraid not. it is very disappointing. i had a 10 month gap in between my visits and on the second visit i really did seem very little progress in the. we saw rubble still line on the side of the rotate maybe not in the road. about a partially collapsed buildings and a lot of people want to buildings to stay with the arctic they say the government might take a lan or someone else. they put there as a reminder. big disturbing thing though is the camps. still a million people living on the street and is now trademark blue tents made of equipment from the u.n. and other charities. they have got latrines in some of them. they have food and sometimes water. but it is a desperate situation. considering the amount of ngos and charities on the ground since the earthquake it is a big failure. i intend there's a lot of resentment from average haitians about how their life has not
improved. >> we also remember that a month after the earthquake and haiti was hit by an epidemic of cholera and still dealing with that right now. what is it like for you to cover that story as a correspondent there? >> it was pretty awful both as a reporter and as a parent. we were with the family who a two year-old son who couldn't smile because he had cholera that he was in a badly. my son is not a lot older than that. so it was very harrowing. one of the most frustrating thing about kerry that store is cholera might come in the aftermath of the earthquake and they said it and it may have come from united nations peacekeepers. they are still investigating. if that is the case that isn't real bad. it's another symptom. there's a lot of anger again of cholera that they have a song on the street in port-au-prince saying the u.n. came bearing gifts, and it was cholera.
they are frustrated because they know it's incurable. the international committee could have helped and that's what's contributing to discredit the good thing, the only good thing about what's happening in haiti is that when people are caught with cholera in time, it's about 98, 99% curable. we have hundreds of thousands of cases and about 3000 deaths so far. >> good luck to the haitians on that. it's not just national disasters. but also haiti had a presidential election with first right in in controversy. the second round is coming up in just a few weeks for a country that has already so much political upheaval before the earthquake, what's the situation is likely to be for the second round? >> it's very difficult to say, because basically the political problems are probably some of the biggest haiti is facing. remember, it wasn't presidential election but one for parliament
and the senate as well. we saw someone it look like a three-way tie at some stage between three of the political candidates. that was the establishment, the front runner, and then the popular musician known as sweet nicky. jay winik am at a preliminary results look like he was being pushed out and the runoff is going to happen between two. there are huge amounts of writing about that. there'll be investigations. we have had confirmation of the first that they get the second round is made to happen in two weeks. that doesn't look like it's going to happen. the big problem they will be off passionate our haitians going to get the runoff. if he stays in office, there will be a lot of political problem. >> we will certainly follow the story very close to. thank you very much.
well, one of the biggest stories that still is developing here in the asia-pacific region is the rising tension on the korean peninsula. it began to boil over last month with a korean war ship sunk in the yellow seat. 46 sailors were killed in the incident which south korea blames on the dprk. but dprk denied any responsibility, and there have been competent reports about what caused the ship to sink. tensions further escalated later in 2010 when troops from the dprk and south korea's exchanged artillery fire on december 20. but dprk said it was provoked by the south korean military performing live fire exercises off the island. that incident was in a series of military confrontation between the north and the south since the end of the korean war, and
sparked international worry about the resumption of hostilities. let's head to our south korean capital, seoul. and our correspondent eugene who has been following all the development. but dprk express its wishes were swept in from and with south korea. what is south korea's response been so far about that? >> that's right, there was a joint editorial that was announced in the north korean official media, and there has been an official response from the unification ministry of south korea. the unification ministry of south korea has said that pyongyang has shown an interest in reading dialogue but failed to note that a shift the blame on south korea and that have worsened between the two koreas
last year. while hiding the humanitarian projects and patients the north conceded last year. regarding the dprk emphasis on humanitarian aid, they said it may continue to create conflict amongst the general south korean public, especially those who oppose the south korean government, policies towards wars. president lee is going to give his national speech tomorrow morning to his nation, where we expected more about his views on what he expects on the korean security, and the korean peninsula. >> are you the dprk did not respond to south korea's latest live fire drills, but south korea's as a possible reason is that dprk likes to act on the element of surprise. so what is the south korean public think about all these recent developments?
>> well so far it started in more than a month since the november 23 attack on john young island. the south korean public has been showing a very different views regarding some. definitely a hardline approach is needed while some are more conscious of the fact that such policies could have on the korean peninsula's security levels. there were a number of surveys done by a number of media channels in korea, and asserted by asia economy newspaper conducted at the last, last two weeks of december, said that six out of 10 of those, that it will be difficult for the koreans to cause -- which is 2011, a 3.2% of the respondents were in their 20s, to my surprise when 67.5 were in their 30s, and 50.9 of them were in the '50s showing that the younger generation
seemed to be having a more clear or slightly stronger view on the interrelations between the two countries, to be more uncertain than ever. 60.7% said such talks should resume. so it's quite a low number of people saying that. and actually 45.5% said that policy should be visited again. >> all right, thank you u-jean bringing us delays on the korean peninsula. next let's go to europe where fallout from the global financial crisis was the major story in many countries for the year 2010. 2010, socrates, spain, portugal and france, among other countries crippled. the government announced the measures for their debt cars at the end are also process against government measures in the united kingdom where our correspondent young census this
report. >> all europeans, the sovereign debt crisis might come to terms that they would use to define 2010. it started with greece at the end of 2000 quickly spread to the next -- the rest of economy. the u.k. has been heavily influenced. in october the british government announced plan to cut more than $128 billion in spending, the largest in europe over next four years. >> protest strike in writing. from britain to greece to france many governments past a series of strict cuts and policy including pay cuts and layoffs public sector employees. and employment soared.
moved on to ireland. the celtic tiger became the second euro zone economy to get a bailout. some analysts predicted the crisis would spread. other heavily-indebted countries like portugal and spain, risk following ireland. italy, france and the u.k. are also facing serious debt. the uncertainties continue to fuel people's concerns. just before christmas the line was long outside this lottery agency in madrid. many buyers said they were more desperate than ever to hit the jackpot. >> translator: i am waiting for this bit of luck after so much time here as an immigrant. we are trying to make better life for our children and family. we're hoping that this christmas will take away the crisis. >> reporter: financial worries
were on the minds of many europeans, i but many people speculate which will be the next country to ask for a massive bailout from its neighbors. the structure of the e.u. is bag called on -- being called on to restructure. for world insight, i'm in london. >> 2010 was a year of ups and downs for u.s. president barack obama. he achieved success with the passing of legislation to reform the country's health care system. but a sluggish economic recovery caused his popularity to plummet resulting in his democratic party losing control of the lower house of congress to the opposition republicans. obama will have to deal with a hostile lower house in the next year, but there's also one challenge all americans will these to deal with -- will need to deal with for years to come.
jessica stone has more in washington. >> reporter: residents in the nation will battle the environmental and economic impacts of one of the worst environmental disasters in u.s. history, the bp oil spill. april 20, 2010, a massive explosion rips through transocean's deepwater horizon, a state of the art oil rig leased to the british energy giant, bp. all but 11 of is 126 men and women with onboard survived, but the battle to contain the spill would cost billions of dollars leaving nearly five billion barrels of oil in the gulf of mexico. >> it's heartbreaking. i mean, they are basically taking our way of life away from us. >> reporter: within five days the u.s. coast guard approves the first plan to seal the oil well. crews spread nearly 600,000 meters of containment boom to keep the oil from washing onto
the states' stores. environmental scientists like dave andrews raised concerns about the toxicity of chemicals. >> we do have concerns both for the workers working with this material primarily because they will potentially be in contact with larger amounts. >> reporter: by early may, u.s. officials begin closing the gulf to fishing, the region's main industry. and at the height of tourism season, beaches are empty as swimmers question the safety of these waters. in may bp executives are called to washington ultimately agreeing to an initial $20 billion compensation funds be. subsequent hearings reveal companies ignored safety warnings, but no one takes responsibility. the u.s. then launches a criminal information into the -- investigation into the oil spill. several other independent investigations begin as well. the leaking well is finally plugged on september 9th. >> do you have any views as to the nature of instrumentation.
>> reporter: independent reports on the causes of the spill are scathing. >> i think there's lots of blame, lots of people to whom to distribute that blame. >> there's nothing that we've seep in this particular well that could -- seen in this particular well that could not have been managed had people been looking at it in an appropriate manner. >> reporter: environmental regulationses will get tougher in 2011 as the environmental protection agency begins to implement stricter standards for emissions on oil refineries and be on electricity providers. it's a move the republican congress is expected to try to block. they're also expected to try to block parts of the president's health care reform bill. president barack obama will appoint a new economic team to work with the divided congress to help resuscitate the flailing u.s. economy, and everyone will have to find common ground on reducing the national debt by cutting spending on social safety net programs for the elderly and the poor. all this as president barack
obama gears up for another run for the white house. for world insight, i'm jessica stone in washington. >> certainly, president barack obama will have a tough year ahead. when we come back, we will hear from our correspondents in pakistan, south america, thailand and africa. but first, there were many people who attracted worldwide attention in the year 2010. some of them were controversial while others left this world. here's a look back at last year's most prominent faces. >> 39-year-old australian julian assange became a household name after his whistle blowing web site, wikileaks, published a documents about the wars in iraq and afghanistan. he further angered the u.s. by posting diplomatic cables that were critical of other governments. assange is currently out on bail following his arrest by british police on allegations of sex
crimes in sweden. a man who dedicated his life to the olympics died in april. juanon tone owe -- juan antonio had served as the president of the olympic committee for 21 years. >> he was the most influential president after our founder. >> he is remembered for successfully pushing forward olympic commercialism. on the business front, the ceo of apple, steve jobs, was a prominent face in 2010. he led the company's market cap to $300 billion u.s. last year. apple's ipod and itunes are being used to promote the music industry, and the iphone is leading the revolution in the mobile phone work. jobs also unveiled apple's ipad last year which is more convenient to carry around than the conventional laptop. and just call her the lady in redd. anna chapman's story sounds like it came right out of a james
bond film. she was kicked out of the u.s. in july after she was found to be a russian spy be. she was awarded the kremlin's top honor upon her return to russia, and since then she's posed for men's magazines and has even stepped into russian politics. ♪ there are >> you're watching a special edition of world insight on cc tv news. now to one of the worst and most memorable natural disasters of the year 2010. the floods in pakistan. the monsoon rains began in july, and there was no letting up. and before long huge stretches of pakistan were already underwater, and nearly a fifth of the population was affected. our correspondent was there.
here is a quick look at some of his reports. >> these are not droughts, but the roofs of about 500 homes. there were 300,000 houses damaged or destroyed. hundreds of thousands of people have been shifted to safer grounds. at the moment there is about 400,000 -- this is the unfortunate and saddening scene in the refugee camp. they seem to be focused, organized and very committed to helping the victims of this flood which experts is going -- believe is going to make a huge difference. >> and daniel's joining us now from islamabad. tell us what it was like for you to see that sort of devastation firsthand. >> reporter: well, the second half of 2010 saw the most devastating flood in 80 years in pakistan which affected over 20.2 million people and which
killed over 1700 people. and when i traveled there, there was a feeling of hopelessness and dismay as the southern province of pakistan is one of the most impoverished provinces, and the people living there are living under the poverty line, and they depend on agriculture. and their lands were completely destroyed by the flood waters, and what i saw was people sitting on the roadside helpless, and the rain was still continuing. and over there feeling of hopelessness continued as the rain, after the floods came. the rain did continue for another two months so, yes, there was a very harsh picture of misery all over in pakistan. >> but it's already been months since those waters receded. i understand that pakistan is still struggling with the aftermath.
tell us about the latest situation about that. >> reporter: well, yes, it has been six months since the floods came in pakistan. and initially the international aid agencies came rushing for the help, and with the assistance and coordination of the national l disaster management authority in pakistan, aid did start flowing in. but now the winter season has started, there is snowfall being faced in the northern regions especially and the roads are being cut off. the aid being provided to these regions has also slowed down, and pneumonia is on the rise. and women and children especially are the most vulnerable to the harsh winter season that is being witnessed in pakistan at the moment, yes. >> daniel kahn in islamabad, thank you so much. let's move, now, to a story of suspense, hope and, in the
end, relief and happynd. the -- happiness. the plight of 33 miners in chile captured the world's attention last summer. they were trapped underground after an explosion, and it took more than two months to get them out. remarkably, they all survived. our correspondent was there. >> the biggest story i covered in latin america this year was the rescue of the 33 chilean miners who were trapped underground for 69 days. their story of perseverance and survival and their families' unwavering strength and hope were inspirational to witness. on august 5th the san jose copper and gold mine collapsed leaving 32 chilean men and one bolivian trapped below ground. the miners had no way of communicating with the outside world, and they had no idea if and when they would be rescued. the men remained in a shelter where they had first aid kits and toilet tries, but there was only food for two days.
on august 22nd rescuers found the men when a drill finally broke through the shelter's season. the men sent up a note that the chilean people will never forget. we are fine in the shelter, the 33 of us. from then on rescuers worked day and night to get the miners out as soon as possible. [cheers and applause] shortly after midnight on october 13th, the first miner came to the surface. the whole world watched as the miners were pulled out one by one. the mission went smoothly, and the men were out 22 hours later. [cheers and applause] today these men are international celebrities. films, books and other products are in the works. they have traveled the world doing interviews and visiting their favorite soccer team in england and in spain. but what has received little coverage is what is being done to prevent these accidents from happening. that was one of the biggest stories in this region in 2010,
but there's a lot to look out for in 2011, especially in brazil, mexico and colombia. let's not forget brazil, the eighth largest economy in the world, elected it first female president at the end of 2010. [cheers and applause] now she has officially taken office on january 1st. the new president has pledged to push for gender equality during her presidency and has promised to continue to fight poverty and continue the former president's legacy. in mexico the drug war continues to claim thousands of lives. officials announced last year 12,500 people died from drug-related violence. this makes 2010 the deadliest year since the mexican president, felipe calderon, began a crackdown against narco trafficking in 2006. thousands are fleeing cities where daily clashes between rival drug cartels leave many
wounded and dead. and we'll also be watching developments in colombia where as of november hard. winter rains have affected more than two million people. this silent tragedy has left thousands homeless. colombia's geography has changed permanently. levees have ruptured, and towns have disappeared beneath more than two meters of war. the president has declared this a national catastrophe and has begun reaching out to the world bank for credit to repair damages. for world insight, i'm michelle from bogota, colombia. >> certainly we'll be following all those stories michelle mentioned in her story and be much more from south america this year. now we're coming back over to asia and the political process that crippled the thai capital, bangkok, last spring. it resulted in a bloody confrontation. tony chung was our correspondent on that story.
>> this is the front line of the army positions, and way over here about 200 meters down the road are the red shirt battle lines. >> reporter: the fighting to terrible scars. this area is known as the red earth, and it's been the scene of some of the fiercest fighting over the last four days. there's been a lot of action. the army has pushed on in. this is one of the main roads going out into the crisis site. the red shirts may have dispersed, but the markets they leave on bangkok will last for a very long time. >> reporter: and tony joins us right now from bangkok. tony, you were in the midst of all of this when the process was at its highest and almost biggest tension. describe to us what was it like for you to cover such a huge confrontation? >> reporter: well, it's quite unbelievable, frankly. bangkok, which is a city i've known nor many years -- known
for many years, suddenly turned into a war zone. we'd seen it in the two previous years, we'd seen a confrontation at the airport with the yellow shirts, and the year following that we'd seen the red shirts out with one day of violence, but nobody expected the level and intensity of fighting we saw during april and particularly in late may. at the very spot where i'm standing now is the spot from which we were reporting live from. there were gunshots whizzing up over this balcony, there were explosions and about 200 meters from where i'm now standing, the protesters torched one of bangkok's largest shopping malls. that still lies in ruins today. but what is, perhaps, also remarkable is that the city has pretty much returned to normal. now as you walk down these streets, there are very few scars remaining, although i think some of the tensions underneath the surface are still very much in existence. >> as you mentioned, tony, the streets are clear now in wang
cock, but the -- bangkok, but the situation is far from over. so how are the red shirts regrouping right now, and what's their strategy now? >> reporter: well, we have seen the red shirts regroup, we've seen them massing in the streets on a number of occasions although only for daylong protests. they still say they're very unhappy, but i think what the government did succeed in doing in its crackdown in may was taking the top of the leadership. and what we've seen in the months since is still a lot of mass unhappiness, but not an awful lot of leadership. now, that does appear to be changing at the moment. the red shirts do have new leaders. they're old leaders who have been in jail, many of whom have been released in the last month. so we expect them to start protesting again although perhaps not with the same intensity. and i think the government's watch withing very carefully. the state of emergency was relaxed recently although the security forces say they are still very wary of future
political conflict. and i think everyone here in thailand is hoping that these political differences which have been fought out on the streets over the last couple of of years will be fought in the election which we anticipate is going to happen in 2011, later this year. >> of course we're going to follow that story, the election in thailand. all right, tony chung following the political situation in bangkok. thank you for joining us. south africa had a prominent role on the world stage in the year 2010. as it hosts the world's biggest sporting event, the football world cup. the event drew crowds from all over the world, but now that the fans are gone and the stadiums are empty, the country must deal with some tough issues. >> from johannesburg to durbin to capetown and all places in between, the football world cup united south africans, black and white, young and old.
for a country where the memories of apartheid are still fresh, this event caused south africans to put their difference cans aside -- differences aside. and they were joined by millions of football fans from around the world. the competition itself was fierce, although the host team lost out in the first round. fans followed the entire tournament that eventually saw spain take home the golden globe. but when the party finished and the fans went home, euphoria was over, and south africa quickly got back to reality. within weeks after the world cup, more than one million government workers staged mass walkouts crippling public services including education and health care. the three week strike ended without a signed deal as labor unions began losing the public support. it's a challenge for president jacob zuma who despite the success of the world cup still must find ways to lift millions of south africans out of poverty. he must also tackle issues of
unemployment, poor housing, unofficial segregation and deep inequality, all of which can cause more social unrest. the eyes of the world will once again be on south africa in 2011 when it plays host to a crucial round of u.n. climate change talks. negotiators say the caucus will make or break the entire national effort to fight and limit the effects of global warming. but with developed and developing nations divided on how to share that burden, there are doubts on whether they can strike a deal. no doubt the world cup was a success for south africa, but whether the country can achieve other successes in 2011 is far from certain. >> and now we're joined by our correspondent in johannesburg. rene, you covered the world cup. tell us, what's it like to coffer that specific event? must be exciting. and also about the challenges that face president jacob zuma's government in the year 2011. >> reporter: well, just
listening to that package i must admit we did a really great job because i got just a few goose bumps talking about south africans young and old, black and white, and be how we all got really caught up in the world cup in 2010. you know, the world cup, by all accounts from everyone around the world, was a huge success for south africa. everyone in the country put their best foot forward. it was an almost perfect world cup, and it really was to many in many respects. i certainly put it right up there with the coverage of the relief of nelson mandela, the coverage of the inauguration of the new president in 1994 after democracy for the first time in south africa, and also the coverage of the truth in reconciliation in the late 1990s. so a big moment in south africa's history. but there are many south africans, especially the poorest of the poor, who will say to you even though they loved watching the soccer and they got really caught up in the moment of you fore cra and the excitement, it
really didn't change their lives. many of them were expecting to make just a few bucks out of the whole exercise, but they will say to you that the world cup came, we loved it, and it went, and it really didn't change our lives. and those are the major challenges facing jacob zuma and his government going ahead into this new year. poverty, unemployment, major issues and, of course, crime. >> uh-huh. and, of course, another story, there is going to be a lot of pressure on climate change negotiators to come up with a new legally-binding pact on climate change when they meet in durban. so from what you're hearing, how big a challenge is that going to be, and how is south africa preparing for it as the host country? >> well, one does get the impression that a lot of people has been put on south africa. the coken hagen talks, most people agree very little was accomplished. then they went to cancun. most people there would say it
was a bit more positive, but many of the major issues were simply just shifted forward to the south african talks at the end of 2011. deforestation, for example, the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, all major issues that will have to be addressed here in south africa. so one hopes that at this time, at the end of this year people will have gotten their act together and something concrete can actually come out of these talks. that, i think, is the major issue, the major challenge facing the south african organizers of this event. >> renee, thank you very much. our correspondent from johannesburg. when we come back, we will look at china's challenging and achievements over the last year and speak with our special panel about china's place on the global stage in the year ahead. but first here are some other highlights from china in the year 2010. >> china overtook japan as the world's second largest economy in 2010.
its nominal gdp in the second quarter reached $1.33 trillion u.s. and 1.42 trillion in the third quarter. a top honor china can claim, however, is having the world's longest high-speed rail network which currently covers more than 7,000 kilometers. china also has the world's fastest train which can reach speeds of 350 kilometers an hour. more than 240 countries and organizations took part in the shanghai world expo. it was the biggest ever in the expo's 150-year history. more than 73 million people visited the pavilions over a six month period. it surpassed the expo attendance record set by the japanese city of saca in 1970, and china has also taken the position as the world's number one auto market. vehicle sales increased by 17 million cars and light trucks. the figure more than doubles the number of vehicles purchased in
the u.s. which is still struggling to recover from recession. of osaka in 1970, and china has ♪ >> you're watching a special edition of world insight on cc tv news. we are now turning our attention to china, and 2010 was a big year for the world's most populace nation. china showed more than ever why the east is gaining power and be influence on the global stage. it dusted off the past of the global recession -- impact of the global recession and became the world's second largest economy. as its emerging influence is expected to quicken, the power shift from developed nations to emerging economies as some believe. but domestically china faced more problems than it would have
liked. soaring inflation, for example, and a widening gap between rich and poor just to name a few. my colleague has this look at some of the issues that defined china in 2010. >> reporter: the year 2010 saw china leading the global power shift from developed nations to emerging economies. at november's g20 summit in seoul, 6% of voting righted were transferred to underrepresented emerging economies. the agreement put china only behind the u.s. and japan in voting power on the international monetary fund. the decision came after the g20 replaced the g8 at the world's dominant economic coordinator. beijing invited south africa to join the bloc of emerging missions known as brick. with the new membership of south africa, brick would now represent over half of the world's population and is expected to serve as the main vehicle in countering the
western establishment. but for chinese back home, their quality of life has not been growing like their country's global status. in fact, it is seriously compromised by one single factor: inflation. china's consumer price index hit a 28-month high of 5.1% in november. the soaring prices of food and other daily necessities upset many of the country's median and low-income rez -- residents. >> translator: i'm very unhappy with rising commodity prices. things are getting much more expensive. >> reporter: we might think that increased prices mean bigger profit margin for vendor ors in the market and those farmers back on the countryside, but the fact is they are not beneficiaries of this round of price hikes either. that's because the costs of transport, labor and means of production are also getting more expensive. skyrocketing real estate prices also frustrated the public.
latest figures show less than 15% of chinese families can now afford to buy a home. economists say the massive inflow of hot money from overseas contributed to the soaring prices. the weakened u.s. dollar and expectations of the yuan's appreciation lured speculative capital inflows to china. at the end of 2010, china's leaders have assured it people on many occasions they can rein in inflation. they said the central government will have more forceful measures in the new year to make homes more affordable and stabilize prices of daily necessities. in the new year, many hope china will continue to serve as a leader of emerging economies and help them gain more say in the key global governing bodies, and here at home it is hoped that the country's leaders will bring more tangible returns to the public such as better wages, more job opportunities and bringing inflation under control. for world insight, i'm in beijing. >> china faces its own challenges for the future if it
wants to continue growing at such a fast pace. to talk about china's past and future and the shift in power as some say from west to east we're joined by the unesco peace and also derek caesar, research fellow with the heritage foundation in washington, d.c., and a professor of foreign studies at university. let's begin by talking about mr. caesar, is it possible for china to rein in the inflation given the fact there is a growth momentum in this country, there needs to be some loose policy to maintain growth rate and, also, the pay rise in china? >> well, if you're going to ask a question about maintaining growth, then it's obviously going to be harder to have inflation. the current inflation results from the stimulus that china put in place when the financial
crisis hit where there was a massive expansion in the money supply. and it first hit property, and now it's hitting other necessities. if china wants to maintain 9% growth, it's going to have higher inflation. the better economic policy would be to limit monetary stimulus and bring inflation down as well as growth. >> uh-huh. and professor from beijing, what do you think? many say it's about food prices, but others say it's about the growing trend of china. >> well, obviously, it's not just the food items. this is a general situation. i think the central spank of china should be, you know, praised and congratulated for raising the interest rates in interbank loans and for tightening the money supply. but, however, this is not a game that i think even for laymen, and i'm not an economist by training, you are increasing the interest of the loans, but you are not increasing the rates for savings. in other words, you are making it harder for people to borrow money from banks, but you still have to increase the rate for savings so that people will put more money into the banks so you
can get the cash back into the banks. without that, you know, fewer people are going to have incentive to put the money, say, out of the stock market or property speculation and back into the banks. so in a word i believe the central bank still needs to do more especially to increase the rates for savings. >> yeah, talk about a policy, certainly china has too many plates to juggle about at the moment. inflation, maintaining economic growth which is also very important for the country's political stability and, also, change the economic structure of the country, transforming that. how can china juggle with all of these economic managements all at the same time, professor, once again? >> i think in a five-year plan may be very explicit. we're going to have this so-called inclusive growth. that means we probably are going to see a slower, i mean, lower gdp growth rates. in the meanwhile, china's government will shift its
attention more to the shortening, you know, the income gap and also to pay more attention to social welfare, especially to some of the social community building in rural areas. like you said, this is going to be an enormous challenge, especially for a country with such a large population, and especially -- like you mentioned -- we have to keep this economy growing. >> well, china is busy dealing with its own economic management. the world should do the same. but, professor, we see a world quite divided right now. europe on austerity, emerging economies working on inflation, the united states thinking about another round of economic stimulus. so is the world very divided right now? is there any hope for the economy? >> well, i think there's a lot of hope for the economy, and i think that one has to understand that the chinese economy is not at all like the economy of japan or the united states. china is still an undeveloped
country. china is still a country with hundreds of millions of very poor people. so i think the priority of the authorities in china will have to continue to be economic growth for at least the next 15 or 20 years. i'm a little worried, frankly, by this kind of belt tightening and by this monetary contraction that we're seeing in china, and some of the central bank policies that are designed to limit inflation but have been, in fact, limiting growth. the fact of the matter is if there is sufficient growth, if there is a reasonable rise in income, a little bit of price rise is not a serious problem. >> what about the world situation? professor nalapat, the world situation, is the world divided also? >> well, i think the world is going to face a situation, for example, europe. now, europe has been very, very high-cost to the producer and also high quality. when you see a country like china that is now low-cost but getting better in terms of quality, then europe is going to
have a severe problem. so, yes, i do see the world getting divided, and the problem is going to be in the united states. are you going to buy from your traditional friends in europe even though it's more expensive, or are you going to buy from china that may be cheaper, but china is not as close to you as europe is? is. >> right. >> so these are the questions the united states is going to ask. >> mr. scissors, i'll pose to you the same question. >> >> well, my answer is the u.s. already buys from china and has been for some time. you know, obviously, there's some tension over that. the united states runs its biggest bilateral trade deficit with china by far, but we've made a decision that up to this point, anyway, the u.s. is quite willing to adjust to china's rise. if you look at china's foreign exchange reserves, you can trace almost all of them back to the bilateral deficit that the united states runs.
to this point the u.s. has been willing to buy from china and to accommodate china's rise. obviously, weakness in the american economy could change that view, but that's more our problem than china's problem. >> all right. and what about the role of the emerging economies? the three of you have been mentioning that earlier in our talk. do you think, professor, there's going to be more coordination and hope about the economic situation as well as the political situation with the rise of the emerging economies as they say? >> are well, i would say i hope so. when you look at, you know, brazil, russia, india, especially between india and china. our premier just visit india a couple weeks ago, and we signed a big deal with i could yang companies. -- indian companies. obviously, they're going to play a big role in the economy. and for cooperation in other areas i remain hopeful. but we know there are many issues out there for very close negotiation and cooperation, coordination. so in the future we have to look ahead. we remain optimistic but in the
end we have to sit down and work on all these issues. >> all right. mr. nalapat, there seems to be two decisions we have to consider here. some from the west are trying to say one emerging economy is going to be more hopeful than the others. for example, they say india is going to maintain a better economic growth rate than china for the year 2011. how do you see the coordination possibilities among the emerging economies at all? >> well, india has got a very vibrant private sector and an extremely sluggish government sector. in china government is the instrument of growth. the private sector is expanding at a rate that is three or four times that of, in terms of efficiency of the government sector. so the whole question in india is, will the private sector be given more freedom vis-a-vis is government, or will the
government try and restrict the private sector not only from the point of view of creating obstacles, but also from the point of view of creating more opportunities for individuals in the government to make money. so i think this is going to be a serious problem for india. >> uh-huh. what about the coordination among the emerging economies, politically, economically. briefly, please, professor. >> i'd like to say the reality is that even today 90% of good research comes from the developed economy, from the united states and the european union. china and india are still very, very backward in terms of research, in cutting-edge technology and in new innovation. and until china and india can become better in this, i don't see much of a chance of our economies developing at that speed. >> emerging economies need to work on their technologies and also innovation, but politically china, for example, they've already been pushed to the center of the stage so quick possibly that the country has to adjust very quickly as well. has china been adjusting in the
year 2010? is it adjusting well, professor tao? >> it depends on which area. i think politically, yes, we are being pushed into the front and center. for example, climate change. on some of these responsibility we are supposed to shore up during the financial crisis, and i think during the financial crisis china has done an excellent job, and this has been widely acknowledged. in terms of regional cooperation china is more than many other countries around the world putting together. and in terms of cooperation between china and india, again, china should be praised. so i think, again, in general if you asked me to give a score of 1 to 5, i'd give china somewhere between 4 and 5. >> would you give that score as well, mr. scissors, as we are seeing some conflict when it comes to the territory between china and her neighbor countries in asia and also the korean
peninsula has been challenged in the year 2010. china as a mediator, certainly, has a better role to play. what do you think, mr. scissors? >> i think there's, obviously, a split between economics and politics. if you look at the economics side, i agree that china has done well trying to meet the new expectations that it has as the second largest economy. the political side, chi chi that doesn't do as well -- china doesn't do as well from a conflict prevention perspective. i think north korea illustrates that. but it's going to take a while. a country that is pushed onto the world's stage doesn't automatically become comfort cial just as all of us here. the first time we're in front of a camera, we don't do as well as we might. i think on the economic side we can praise china, on the political side there are some problems, and we can hope china does better as it becomes more accustomed to it new role in the world. >> i have to say, mr. scissors, you're doing very well on our show. [laughter] let's go to another question
regarding the relations between china and the united states. some say the latest situation in asia seemed to suggest whether china's mature in finding its own position in asia and also seemed to suggest the u.s.' analysis about its role in asia right now. how do do you see u.s./china relations in this region and whether the two countries request work together, be visionary enough to work together? mr. scissorses once again. >> well, you know, i come at this from the economic perspective. and from the economic perspective, the adjustment for the united states is china is the first global economy other than ours. the united states is used to having the only really global economy. now i china's a global economy. that means its interests range more widely than the united states is used to dealing with, and that's an adjustment the u.s. is going to have to make. on the chinese side, china is not really used to being a stakeholder at the level that it's at. in the climate change discussions, china keeps acting
as if it's a developing country, but they're the largest emitter of greenhouse gases. so the u.s. needs to adjust to china's reach. those are going to take a few years. if there are problems in 2010, 2011, we shouldn't be surprisedded. it's a big adjustment. >> professor, your response very briefly. >> are i almost agree with what professor scissors said. i think he's absolutely right in terms of the economic front. on the political front, again, i think china has been trying very hard to do what it is supposed to do internationally, especially during the northeast area. however, like we said, you know, china's been still fumbling its own way on this big international stage, and i think china is still learning. that's all i will say. >> all right. thank you very much. we have nalapat from medical university in india, derek scissors from the heritage foundation in washington, d.c., and professor tao in beijing. thank you. with that, we are coming to the
end of this specific edition of world insight on cc tv news. we'd like to hear from you about anything you've seen on our program. send us an e-mail at world insight at cc tv.com, and that is it for our special edition. for all our team, thank you for watching and join us again in the seven days for more insight on world insight. good-bye. ♪ ♪ >> welcome to china diary, 2010. our special wrap-up of the year. like all the years ahead of it,
2010 has been an eventful one for the people's republic. we will review some of the major stories over the past 12 months. some are happy, some are sad, but all are historic. ♪ >> as china has become an important force in the world, it has become economically and politically confident. and that holds the key to the future of this nation. but the confidence should start from bottom up. that's why the chinese leadership started to get online, to listen, to talk, to get the pulse of the nation. >> chinese people have a lot on their minds. housing, inflation, employment, health care, food safety and much more. these issues are a concern of
the country's top leaders and just before the people's congress met in march, the premier went online to find out what the people think. >> translator: i may not answer the questions completely nor solve the problems of everybody, but it gives me a chance to get help from the people. >> reporter: the web site of china's largest news agency set up the chat in this room. >> translator: the premier started by telling chatters he brought with them a whole heart, but it also seemed to be unrehearsed was he didn't -- because he didn't even bring a piece of paper. the answers were all in his mind. he pick bed questions that best represent public concerns. >> reporter: in a little over two hours, internet users around the country submitted 400,000 questions. most were complaints and suggestions. submissions were also made by text message, and the live
webcast got 13 million hits. a recent survey indicates nearly a third of china's population use the internet making it the largest e online community in the world. many of them go online to voice their views. >> translator: when the central or local governments form late a bill or plan, they're more and more willing to listen to what others have to say. the government solicits public opinions first. they then discuss and analyze these suggestions to make changes to the draft. there have been many such examples. >> reporter: the premier's online exchange is seen by many as an example to lower-level officials. about a quarter of officials at county level and above often serve online, and almost a half use the internet occasionally. >> translator: online communication between the governments and internet users is providing a convenient
channel for decision makers to hear people's voices. on the other hand, it shows people's growing sense of participation in national and regional development. the decision makers can, therefore, use people's will and wisdom to formulate policies in a more scientific way to reduce cost and increase efficiency. >> reporter: over the years the web site has organized many chats by different ministries on 409 topics -- hot topics. a transcriber at the online chat, from her fingertips the words went to cyberspace be. >> translator: the premier promised he would come back next year. he joked, we linked our pinkies to sale the deal. >> reporter: and that commitment means the dialogue is far from over. more and more chinese officials are using the internet to explain policies to an
increasingly vocal and demanding public and is part of efforts by the broader government to be more responsive and accessible. and this greater transparency and sewer action means better -- interaction means better inclusiveness. cc tv, beijing. >> and joining us for this program is vice chairman of china institute of innovation and development strategy, mr. wu. the interbe net has changed the way people -- internet has changed the way people communicate and how the government works, and many chinese leaders acknowledge they get online to listen to people's green grievances, but how much do you think it affects decision? >> the way the chinese leadership has governed the chinese people, you know, internet is changing the world not only the way of the government, but also the people, the way people get information.
people communicate with one another. so certainly the way the chinese government is getting information from people is much more direct. i think in two ways. from people the government is going to get the information much more easily. on the other side, the people also is getting information from government much more easily. certainly, it's going to change the way of the government. >> reporter: many are wondering which tasks china will pursue in the coming decade. will we be economically better off? will we have deeper political reform? what are your thoughts? >> two things are very important. first, rule of law. china has a long history of feudal regime, more than 2,000 years. feudal regime means rule of man, not rule of law.
since opening up to outside world and reform, we adopt so many laws, so many, i mean, regulations, so we want the rule of law. and that means democracy. democracy is china's goal. we'd like to make china prosperous, democratic, civilized and harmonious country. so democracy is part of china's goal. democracy, i think, is in the case of china above all we need more democracy within the chinese -- [inaudible] i think chem accuracy will make more headway. >> okay, thank you. thank you, mr. wu. >> thank you. ♪
♪ >> this is where 150 men were dug out alive in march. they were among the 153 coal miners who were trapped some 200 meters underground. the remaining 38 did not make it. the mining industry is still a deadly business, that's why the rescue astonished the world and moved so many. and from here the entire industry has started to review its regulations to get things
right. ♪ >> reporter: this is the rescue that captured the heart of a nation. >> reporter: surviving eight days and eight nights drinking filthy water, 115 miners persevered through the darkest moments of their lives and held on until rescuers finally arrived. >> reporter: among the first group of workers were found on april the 5th. eight months later we meet him again in his home village. he tells us, it was the thought of his family that helped him get through the grueling ordeal.
>> reporter: he may look like many other guys in rural china -- a loving father and a down to earth person -- but by talking to him we learned that the trauma endured in march has actually taken a heavy toll. he says every now and then he has nightmares of being trapped in a cave. even in the daytime he's often depressed, tortured by near death illusions. and worse yet, the acute injuries to his body might be gone, but chronic pains remain with him. >> reporter: 500 kilometers away, the mine responsible for the worst nightmare of his life remains largely sealed off. a ventilation system is the only item under construction. we're told that after the incident nine people, including
the project manager and the chief engineer, were arrested for negligence of duty. now looking back perhaps p the biggest legacy, if you will, after the massive rescue operation was the fact that it forced the central government to put in place stricter safety regulations. for example, an accountability system has been set up that says if you're the owner of a mine, you have to go down the shaft with your miners, or you will be severely punished. the coal mining corporation owner of the facility said it has ordered all staff members to study the new regulations over the past eight months, and now the only recourse is to wait for approval from state authorities to reopen the site. >> translator: we fired those who were responsible for the incident in march and ordered everybody in the company to study new mining safety rules. we also tried to identify potential safely loopholes. -- safety loopholes. we did a lot of soul searching in the past few months. >> reporter: many believe a
soul searching process couldn't be more timely. in spite of safety record improvements in recent years, china's coal mines still rank among the most dangerous in the world. most of the victims are farmers turned miners like this one. he has been without a job for eight months now, and he doesn't know if he'll ever work again because his constant leg pains doesn't allow him to perform manual labor any longer, and he doesn't have many other skills. just 29 years of age, he's not sure what the rest of his life holds in store, but there's one thing he's sure of. that is, he will never set foot in another coal mine. cc tv from shack she province. >> and on that topic we're joined by my colleague. this time 150 men were saved. what is behind the rescue of the operation? >> well, first of all, we're all very impressed by the perseverance of the miners. we know down under for eight days and eight nights, they went
through hell. first of all, to survive they strapped themselves to the walls of the shaft so they wouldn't drown when sleeping. to stop their starvation, they ate tree bark, dust and eventually coal. so they held on until the minute the rescuers arrived. in a sense i think the minders saved themselves and, of course, on the other hand, the rescue operation was well organized. the satellite van was parked not far from here through which the chinese premier could talk directly to authorities, and we had a lot of geologists and engineers around to advise the team to make sure the rescue operation was conducted scientifically. and finally, of course, we have the state of the art drilling equipment and also 100 ambulances lined up over here. so overall this is a very impressive and well-coordinated rescue. >> you visited many of the rescue operations and, also, natural disaster scenes. what do you think of the relief
effort and the response system here in china? >> well, often times some people frown upon the fact that china is still largely a top-down were made by the inferior executing orders from the interior. but it is precisely this system that has proven effective in the disaster relief system. it was not only the case here, it was also the case in the earthquake in march, it was the case in the mud slide in august, and it was also the case in numerous flooding across southern chinese provinces this summer. and also in all these disasters we have observed an increasing openness from the chinese government to media. we as journalists almost had complete access to all the disaster sites and the affected areas, interviewing all the officials as well as the victims. so i think it would be fair to say that in the past two years until now, china's emergency response system has come a long way. >> okay. thank you.
not just mine accidents, china has seen more than its fair shares of natural disasters. an earthquake in april changed the lives of tibetens there forever. >> this april we were hit by two strong earthquakes. thousands were killed and even more left homeless. after eight months i come back to this place to find out what the current situation of their lives are. this man is running this small grocery store to earn a living after the earthquake. her 9-year-old daughter is on winter vacation and helps her mother take care of business. >> translator: it's cold here, she mumbles. i want a real home. >> reporter: she doesn't want to recall the earthquake, and she never mentioned her husband.
she just says her priority is to raise her three daughters alone. many this weather -- in this weather coal is expensive and so is cow dung. she burns everything she can in order to make the room warmer. temperatures here can reach -20 degrees celsius. she worries that the kids cannot bear the cold. this winter is tough living on this ravaged land, but there is support to get through. they believe the government can rebuild their homes, and they believe their god can keep them safe from other disasters.
>> the lights change dramatically after the earthquake. ♪ many lost their relatives and their houses. they say the only thing they have now is hope. >> translator: i realize that the government is helping us recover from the disasterment i hope next year we can move into new houses that meet the new
♪ ♪ ♪ >> you're watching china diary. if this cannot stand for changing china, than nothing can. standing in the largest city in china, a center of finance and idea. if the 2008 beijing olympics was the country's party, the shanghai world expo come this may is a full drama. packed houses and a massive impact, and one message above all, china will concentrate on
innovation. >> this was the hottest destination this summer in china. countries from around the world presented cultural identities in great design. most have a chance to visit all of these places, but the world came to shanghai. one of the most visited pavilions in science is the china and received more than 50,000 visitors a day. it began hundreds of miles away where her work at the school of architecture is in the university of science and technology. for his team, the design must stand the test of time. >> translator: visitors say it's like an official hat, a barn, a hot pot, but they all say it's chinese. the pavilion is designed to be a permanent structure eel valeted to --
elevated to make room for more space and integrate with the environment. >> architecture marvels point to a future lifestyle. the future application generate electricity, buildings they use is 30% less energy through wind caps, wind powers, and hi bred cars. these cause us to go green and clean. in the future, these will shape cities. >> one of the lasting legacies is the low carbon displays through the pavilions. this shows what we can do when living in cities and creating places people want to live. >> harmonious and sustainable living is at the core of the events. for many people, the legacy is the true decades of works of these investments.
in new tracks for both railway systems, a new airport was opened and old neighborhoods renovated. it is seen as a growing city, a city that has transformed itself. >> translator: people say the expo has pushed forward shanghai's modernization by 10 years. the infrastructure upgrade and improved city environment is going to benefit everybody who visits the city. >> the expo changed lives as well. 73-year-old used to split his time between two stay cities, but now passes this on to his students where cities are better and people lead better lives. some were saved, and others will be dismantled ahead. the impacts will remain and the idea of harmony and originality is the most treasured asset. the physical and spiritual
legacy that the expo leaves behind encourages people to carry on and create brighter future in post-expo era. cctv. >> on that topic, we are joined by dr. -- what legacy has it left behind, and how much has it changed shanghai in china? >> one could always look at creativity, technology as improving specific things, and all of that was wonderful, but even beyond that, if we look at the grand overview of expo, we have two emerging themes that come together. the first is focused on cities, on bringing the world's best technology to cities, and the second is the emergence of china, so for the first, the whole world's creativities come together to give to china on
chinese soil the best way of thinking about cities, about new knowledges, and the second is that these countries have recognized that china is emerging in the world as a great power, and one of the great responsible powers because expo shows indeed the peace and prosperity of the 21st century is dependent to a large degree on china and their continuing emergence as a great and responsible country. now, this brings burden as well as benefit to china because china now has great responsibility to do its share in the world in many different fields, and expo 2010 shanghai was the beginning of china's contribution to the world as well as the world's contribution to china. that's the great legacy.
with new policies that set the cores for the western region for years to come. >> mountain plains and a simple life are the pillar of this culture. ♪ now, the sprawling city is embracing progress and moving forward into a brand new era. something new happens here with great changes. they have evolved to become a pearl in western china with an oppressive past and bright future. much of this change is driven by policies of the region that were grafted as a central work conference in may were they were nominated as the newest development. the city has been a prosperous trading hub. the east welcomes the west, and
few took this seriously, but now it's a key part of china's 12th five year plan. local people are making their plans by reaping the benefit of the transformation. restaurant owner told me about his plan. >> translator: it boosts so many opportunities here, many of of whom visit this restaurant every day, and i'm planning to open up two more. >> he witnessed the serge in recent years. seldom tourists visit in winter, but this year has been different. no one is more aware of this growth than the tourist bureau expressing his satisfaction of the work he's in charge of. >> translator: the situation in tourists resulted and boosted tenacity with tourist group and it in connection in connection
increased. >> tourism is not the only field stepping forward. vice president of the administer business witnessed an upserge in the city's commerce in 2010. glt the volume in connection withed 25-fold over the past 25 years, the results exceeded everybody's expectation. >> he added that they are calling for boosting their profile while businesses stand to benefit from trade investment policies. despite the city's rapid macover, there are shortcomings that still need to be addressed. >> the big problem is the transportation problem is not really good for this kind of country, but the people don't know how to have the policies. >> this action must be taken in the short term to ensure the
growth from the economic infancy. this will boost trade in business with neighboring countries as well as the national economy. this city means the new frontier, and now it is reeling with old economic developments. if people could take advantage of the government support, there's no telling how far they can go, and how spean did a new chapter would be added to chinese history. ♪ >> you may wonder what is behind china's fast economic growth, 10% annually, well, it's annualized here with the most vibrant work force in the world. the chinese workers, hundreds of millions of them are willing to give their all and provide better pay and stronger
protection as being oppressed by the country and a challenge for the country. >> a fatal suicide, 12 people working here jump to their death in just a few months. the company complaims they are not a thresh shop, but many worry about the comfort that led to the society. what is life like here? we talked to ron ray, a 24-year-old manufacturer worker who used to work there. she told us the job was to assemble a tiny part of the mobile phone, 5200 a day, every day. >> translator: i can with stand the working pressure. i'm young and optimistic about life, but it really depends on personality. some people aren't like that. the work may be tougher for them. >> the suicides of this company
are concerned about the working conditions, their life, and their dreams. china's workers power the growth. the work force have manufacturing hubs fear the low cost china products, but things are changing. the new generation of manufacturing workers are different. this living standards are improving, and long hours and low paying jobs. after the state, the company offers 30% salary increase to its workers, the biggest ever. the company's also offering psychological aid to those who need it. one great brother is still working there earning 3,000 a month after the wage increase. he moved to this company, an lock tronnics maker less than
100 kilometers. she earns modern 2,000 a month and recently got a raise which means 150 in income. she shares a rented room with her relatives who also work on different assembly lines in this manufacturing hub of china. she says her life is happy, and she has hope. she spends her spare time learning graphic design to get a better, more sophisticated job in the future. her plan is to save enough money and go back to the hometown village to build her own house and start her own business someday. >> >> translator: my goal is to save 100,000, i have a quarter of that, but i hope i can make it in the future. >> it has never been more evident than in 2010, the era of low cost labor is coming to an
end. increase labor costs in china is pushed back to the manufacturing district, the change in china's work force is expected to be a capitalist transformation in the years to come. >> earlier in november, abc news flew all the way to china to cover the country and its economy, and now we are joined by abc correspondent david all the way from new york. good evening, david. >> thank you for having me. >> your network broadcast a special on china, what changes has it made on the american people? >> well, as you know, i traveled to china with diane sawyer, and what our audience will remember is how similar we are. when we talked to so many
chinese families, particularly the parents who work in the factories, those parents want a better future for their children. many leave their children bind to be raised by their grandparents as the parents work so lard in the factories for their wages, and send that money back home so the child has a better future and education further down the road, and i think what the american audience learned from that is that that's a very similar dream to what we call here in this country the american dream. >> both economies face challenges. let's talk about employment. the chinese worry about their jobs just as americans do, but they work longer hours and in worse conditions and make much less. what do you make of this? >> i think that that was something that was very telling, that the factory workers make lower wages than factory workers make here in the united states. that's a huge concern here.
workers are wondering if they can compete to get their own factory jobs back if there's people overseas making less. it's more competitive to higher workers if they can pay them less in china. that's the fear or argument made here, but you make a very important point, and wop the things we learned is that the chinese are concerned about their jobs like americans are. we are dealing with unemployment that's near 10% and has been for quite some time now. i was in the streets in beijing in the final days of the trip there, and i won't forget is woman i talked to out of a job interview and said she survived the first interview and had a second one and we wished her well. that's what we come upon our country in america interviewing families about their job search. they are hoping for the same kind of well-wishes looking for work in this country too. again, instead of stark differences, we were able to find similarities between
workers in china and here in america who just want a good paying job and a good future for their family. >> obviously, there's no economies that are closely linked to the chinese and americans. on one side the americans spend on the low cost chinese products, but on the other hand, some of the american jobs get shipped to china, so what is the feelings of the americans about the chinese economy? >> i think that's the great paradox, and it's so important that you point that out. i think a lot of americans recognize when they head to the stores and malls here in america, they can buy a lot of goods that are a lot cheaper here because they are made in china. the lower wages for workers, costs less to produce the products, and they are able to buy them for a cheaper price here in america. on the other hand, as you pointed out earlier, that sets up a competition for jobs in the factories because the jobs are over in china leaving this country for china that sets up an imbalance in the mieppedz of
american workers who say, great, we have cheaper goods, but we'd rather have the jobs back in this country. it's a little bit of push and pull. our country is very concerned about job, and so that's the number one issue you hear when you ask about americans' relationship with china. how do we continue to have a great relationship and keep those jobs right here in america. >> thank you indeed, david. thank you from new york. >> thank you for inviting us to china. >> china diary, top ten memories of the year. policies and new defense deadlines pinpointing china as a main rival in the region. >> translator: china's rapidity arrowed the fisher and jells sigh for their neighbor,menting to pan the democratic party that lacks experience in dealing with the relations with china and engages in political gambling on this issue. moreover, the u.s. is the
biggest downside influence. >> just a few minutes walk from the home village, fishermen are busy preparing for the next season. he is still hanted by his or deal by the collision and unable to head back out to sea. the fishermen's troubles are one of many challenges facing china's diplomacy. it's coming from all surrounding waters from the south china sea to the yellow sea and complications rising from a strong u.s. will to maintain presence in asia. they have cast the last frontier of the cold war into conflict. they exert pressure, yet china insisted on dialogue to help diffuse tensions. >> translator: china always played a constructive role in
promoting peace on the korean peninsula. negotiations are the only way to achieve that goal. >> the fact that northeast asia still enjoys peace gives relief, but they cannot keep with the u.s. on the policy has made washington uneasy. >> there's some that say china has become ireland relations with the united states, but certainly we do not agree with that. yes, china has become more confident with our economic goals, but china remains a developing country. >> a fishing boat costs a little over 4,000 u.s. dollars, roughly 1/11th of the gdp in the u.s.. it's a lifeline for the fishermen and their families. the hope is for calm seas and a good harvest.
cctv. >> we're now joined by chinese ambassador. mr. ambassador, china is blamed for assertiveness. there's a dispute with japan over the island, the nobel peace prize, and also the south china sea dispute. is it that the rest of the world is more critical or china has become more assertive. >> i think that's true. actually china's diplomacy is serving as a domestic agent and also serving as world peace and stability, but it is true that some countries are showing muscles, and they conduct in large scale maneuvers, and everybody is doing that. literally around the world, i don't think the world has become more critical toward china, but it is true that to some people
in the west are psychologically out of balance because of the quick development of china and because the fact that china did not -- there is pressure, and china has been independent and foreign state should do, could do, and must do. >> and there are some expectations from the rest of the world that china can play a leadership in the international affairs, but we know china's diplomacy is always servicing its own domestic agenda. do you think china's foreign policy will be more proactive and aggressive in the future? >> china plays competitive and responsible role according to its ability, and i don't think that china will address its foreign policy, you know, in order to be more aggressive. i think china will be more very cautious and will do everything
♪ >> the household recommendation industry system is unique around the world. it basically suffering the people living in cities from those in the countryside. with the economy, it has to overhaul that system, and that reform happened in september. now people are asking who am i and what i can be, and they want the reform to go even further and faster. he comes to the local hospital twice a week for dialysis. this is almost the only way she can survive. each treatment cost at least 300 and a large fee is far more than her and her husband's income.
>> i feel better most days both physically and meantly. >> but how can someone in her position feel better with a debt? after working in the city for five years, her and her husband were grounded urban residents a month ago. it gives them medical insurance to cover most of the cost and treatment. the urban has solved a big problem for us. otherwise my family would never afford such a huge expense. i'm quite relieved right now at least financially. the couple are not the only ones benefits from medical insurance. so far hundreds of migrant workers have been brought into our medical insurance system. >> in the last four months, more than a million people have
become residents. most of them are my grant workers and college students from the countryside. they'll have equal opportunities in finding jobs, social security, and education. their dream of being urban residents has come true, but the policy is not welcoming to everyone. they have been working on his plot of farmland for decades. he's a speck tick. >> >> translator: i don't want to give up my farmland. i think this is more reliable. >> nowadays farm es get more subsidies and once their product is used commercially they get more compensation. the question is whether they can afford to live in the city and whether being unemployed there would be more difficult. >> translator: whatever policies made, especially a policy concerning the benefit of millions of people, it would definitely lead to some debate while keep improving the policy while it's being implemented.
the farmers need time to understand how they benefit from the policy in the long run. >> the ultimate goal of reform in this city is to put 10 million farmers into urban residents by the year 2020, and the reform aid is profoundly affecting a society where the urban and rural residents are set by the power of the system for decades. the designers of the policy decide that the wonderful future, but it's obviously too early to tell whether the result is a good or bad one. cctv. ♪ ♪
china, another step closer to realizing chinese dreams of flying to the moon. for the first time, china's probe is sent some 380,000 kilometers away from earth. >> translator: the successful launch of the satellite marked the beginning of our work. china is completely under the tracking control. >> a chinese call in the massive product, she is one of the chief engineers from the tracking and control systems. she's been working in space exploration since graduating from the university. she says working in the space takes patience, hard work, and team spirit. scientists started assembling in 2008. the equipment and payloads have various objectives. >> translator: the most
intense moment was the satellite's readjustment at 50 meters, even the slightest alteration could result in damage by the moon. what was danger when the satellite was on the the other side of the moon. they had to rely on their system. we had reset the program. >> on november 8, they unvailed a photo of the moon. it was the chosen landing spot for the mission. now her and her colleagues are testing china's first launching this year. she explains the graphics on the big screen represent the actual 3-d movements.
2011 will also see the launch of the spacecraft that docks automatically in orbit to test docking operations. it will be another leap forward for the technology. the key is to test the docking. like all the previous space missions, it will be another challenge for us. >> this will help china set up a lunar base, but the country's big dream is to go beyond the moon to mars and to venus. >> it is in control and command center has already directed china's three-man spacecraft, and now china's second space problem, and that success is paving the way for an unmanned landing for the next mission and eventually landing a man on the moon. cctv.
western beijing for 2,000 a month. the couple rents nearly half their total monthly income, and inflation makes it difficult to make ends meet. >> translator: my wife and i earn just over 5,000 in total. there is almost nothing left after rent and other living expenses. if rent continues to rise, we'll consider moving to a cheaper place. we've been married for two years, but we don't think we can afford to raise a baby or buy a home. >> many ordinary chinese are feeling the pinch of inflation. in november, consumer price index, a major gauge of inflation, hit its highest in over two years. in december, the economic work conference, china's top level policymaking conference made inflation a task for next year.
an important move to achieve this is to shift the monetary policy stance from relatively loose to fluent. they will estimate 9% in growth this year, but inflation poses a serious threat. >> if inflation becomes very high, become, inflation become deteriorated, we have a new space, we have no time, no way to maintain the growth to promote the change of growth. >> the government has taken a combination of both initiative and monetary policy measures. this year, the people's bank of china, the central bank, reserved six times while hiking benchmark interest rates twice to help market liquidity. more money tightening will
happen in 2011, but at the same time, more needs to be done to increase people's incomes. inflation makes it more important to reduce the income gap. >> the longer very important on the one case is income distribution is encouraged. we produce not only economic problems, but also social problems, so i think in the next 5-10 years, our departments will take it very, very seriously to address the problem of income discouraged by reforming the fiscal structure, by reforming the taxation structure, by improving the education, health care, social system, and many other measures. >> this should be good news because they will be direct
beneficiaries of government support. inflation is a big challenge and improving the quality of that growth and allowing people to truly benefit from the country's economic miracle. they suggest the economy will sustain robust growth over the next one or two decades, and this will help them adjust with other issues. cctv, beijing. >> on that topic, we are joined by chief economist from ubf securities. it seems that the chinese economy has been doing pretty well this year, but the concern over inflation has been growing. how much a threat it is? >> well, indeed. this year growth is better than most of what was expected. at the same time, food prices increased and money supply over
recent months increased more rapidly, and there's concerns about quantitative eating outside of china as well. i think at this moment no more city's in inflation increased quite a bit and it is rising. even though it is still controllable next year, it seems the risk is quite high. >> the chinese government has done a lot to boost consumption, but still people don't have enough money in their pocket or enough feeling safe about the future to spend, so what is lacking in our economic policies? >> i think the keyword going forward is actually a change of economic growth model. up deed, the -- indeed the government identified as a key objective in the next five year plan to increase household income is the most important thing to fulfill the domestic consumption. that means more employment so that graduates from college can find jobs, so that migrants from
the other side find better jobs so they have more income to spend. secondly, people need to feel safer about their future and pensions and insurance and health care and housing prices need to be more stable. i think the government's have a lot to do on that front. we have seen some programs, but i think more has to be done in the next few years. >> let's see what happens. thank you indeed. >> thank you. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪
♪ ♪ >> we are about to enter the second decade of the 2 1st century. it will be key for this country. china's future is here and the record has frown. on that, we keep watch. cc trk v, 2010. thanks for watching. happy new year. >> c-span2, one of public affair's offerings and weekends booktv, 48 hours of the latest nonfiction authors and books. connect with us and get e-mails from c-span.org.
>> we spoke with a capitol hill reporter today about the republican national committee chairmanship. it's about 10 minutes. >> i know is joining us to keep track of this r and c race. thank you for being with us. somebody who tracked this for "politico" yesterday. one of the words on your website yesterday was subdued. what would you take away from it? on the phone: absolutely.
there were not the fire works that we expected in a lot of ways. michael stehle is sort of seen as a dead man walking in terms of winning a second term. majority of the members on the national committee actually make that decision have said or indicated that they are not voting for him, and so the four competitors running against him for chairman. rnc, didn't want to bayonnet a dead corpse. former missouri chairwoman took a pretty hard line on the problems of the republic national committee including the debt they have and she said it was time for some tough love, but then she backed off after michael stehle pretty vigorously defended his record, and then the other members seemed like they were trying to win over some of the michael stehle
supporters who would leave him especially on a second ballot at that vote for rnc chairman next week. no one was too hard on him because they wanted to win over some of his supporters. >> host: again, the constituency is relatively small, 168 members of the rnc, some in attend dance yesterday at the debate at the national press club. a lot of attention on this and he talked about his name growing up in germany and a dutch family, and also anne wagner, the cochair who is being supported by former vice president kick cheney, but doesn't have a lot of support for her committee and also michigan's chair of the republican party. on the phone: right, so ultimately like you mentioned, he doesn't have a lot of support, and former michigan chair gop was comfortable on
stage, but he also is second in the count right now. my colleagues did a canvas of as many of the 168 members as they could get, and pravous has the most commitments, so he's the front runner, but it's a wide open race, and it's going to go to a multiple ballot affair. >> host: about the budget situation for the republican national committee facing a $20 billion short fall in the next year saying that is priority one for the next chair of the rnc almost referring to dialing for dollars to upset that $20 million deficit that the rnc faces. here's more from yesterday's debate. >> well, i mean, i don't care to revisit the past, but i think in the future we do need to have fully funded tv effort across
the board wherever that may be. in the states, at the inc, and it comes down to money and resources. you've all herd the estimates, and i think everyone here agrees that the number one challenge of the rnc moving forward is raising about $400 million over the next two years which basically means that the next chairman is going to be sitting in that office for five or six hours a day running through major donor lists, setting up meetings, setting up the national finance network, a national finance team in order to fully fund these programs. we cannot go into 2012 having to make decisions between which gop effort we fund and which one we don't. >> host: frank who is one of the five candidates, james is following the story for "politico". did he close the deal yesterday or become the center of attacks
from the other can dates, most notely anne wagner who is close bind him in committed rnc supporters? on the phone: somewhere in the middle. he behaved as the front runner and didn't take on stehle who was an old ally. he was the general counsel at the inc and sought to stay above the fray and presented him really beyond michael. he is death prone, and there's a series of scandals, and rnc got more attention than they wanted and some of the major donors have abandoned the committee and gave it todd republican committee this past cycle because they saw the rnc as quite dysfunctional under stehle, so predispositioning himself focusing on fund
raising, who will not have a huge national profile or do a lot of tv and who is going to focus on raising money, bringing back those major donors and putting the party's fiscal house in order, and that was the same theme echoed by everyone else. there's an interesting portion of the debate going through issues. you talk about sarah palin, but there's remarkable similar thought on the party. they presented themselves as more or less the same. they were all trying to say they are the most competent to handle the financial issues facing the republican national committee. >> host: one of the clear after effects of the citizen's united case was outside money. we found out with grues roots and cross roads which were separate from the national committee with the same grow of electing republicans, but as we see more of this, does this
dilute the value and role of the rnc outside of holding the party convention in 2012? on the phone: absolutely. it's a much less powerful group and same with the democratic national committee although it's different because president obama is in the white house, but the outside groups really have taken a lot of that power away, and donors who want to have a big impact and targeted impact on specific races are in some ways for savvier to give money to the third party groups because they know it will go to this way or not go to overhead, and one the criticisms to michael stehle is he sent mop to the islands and territories instead of spending it in american states. a place like guam has republican national committee members that do vote in this election, so the rnc is much less powerful than it used to be because of that money, and one of the interesting questions yesterday was maria who had been a long
time gop operative but worked in the bush white house and said a big mistake of the last decade was passing feingold with a big impact, but know post citizens united doesn't have that impact on the 50 1c3's and 4. michael steele defending his record for two years in the rnc. >> i'm a glass half full kind of guy. i don't see the crisis as some see it. i don't see it as something where the alarm bells go off and you start remaking, but you get down to the heavy burdensome work of rebuilding, and we did, and in 2009, new jersey, virginia happened. beginning of 2010, massachusetts and hawaii happened. we began to see in ourselves the
opportunity to win, and as we get through this next cycle, that reality confronts us larger than anything else. we fired pelosi, the democrats wanted to hire her back. that will take that mantle up in this time as well. my opportunity for all of us now is to go forward, continue to build on the successes that we've had, and i ask for your support in doing so as the chairman of the republican national committee. >> host: this headline from "politico". james, just recap where do we go from here in terms of the winner of the rnc that takes place later this month? on the phone: yeah, most members think republicans won the house and all the gains they made in spite of him, but michael thinks the gains were made because of him. steele will not be reelected to a second term, and the race will be decided on january 14, next
week, with no dramatic plugs. it seemings the race will be between wisconsin and wagner, and it will go to multiple ballots. the meeting is in a suburb of washington, d.c. in prince george's county which is where michael is is from and came out politically, and whoever replaces steele is going to take a lower profile going forward. they will focus on raising money and dealing with the $20 million debt. ultimately for a lot of those 168 people who are actually going to have a vote next week, they are looking at who can raise the most money and be the most focused on helping state parties and paying attention to the republican national committeemen. >> host: a political reporter his story available online at
politico.com. on the phone: thank you steve. >> now, a look the executive power and its limits with former independent counsel kim star and attorney jon yuo. from a legal conference in dallas, this is just under two hours. >> well, i would like to at this time kick off with our first panel executive power, does the president have to obey and follow the law? my panel members are, and i will
go from my right and your left, i guess. we have it's kathleen sullivan, chair and partner of e quinn. next we have walter who is our moderator is seated in the center, and he is a chair and partner, and we have professor john yuo from berkley. we call it something else now i guess. >> berkley law. >> now, rather than -- i know that somewhere in your materials you have the resumés of thawl of these individuals. it is truly an all-star panel and a true privilege for me to be able to introduce them, but i could take the entire time that our panel has to tell you about everything that all of these individuals have done, so rather
than do that, i'll tell you a little about what we are as a group, and what the panel is as a group. of our group, we have five law professors. we have three that have been deans of law schools. we have four that have been appellate clerks. three that have been supreme court clerks. we have of oral arguments in front of the combined u.s. supreme court, 70 oral arguments in front of the u.s. supreme court, amazing, and hundreds of markets before the immediate court of the country. we have two solicitor generals, two members that have been head of oc and counsel for the president, we have one circuit judge. we have independent counsel, and we have members of the panels that worked with presidents
starting with president reagan through clinton, bush one, bush two. we don't have anyone on the obama administration at this point, but we probably couldn't talk about what we with going to talk about if they were serving, but we can talk about it. we have authors. all of them have written a great many pieces, but probably two of particular relevance are -- we have john who has written most recently on crisis in command, and we have david cole who wrote on the torture memos and saying that john coauthored that with him. i'm not sure that he did, but he was a silent partner, and probably last but not least, we have an actual president on our -- we have president judge ken star. with that all in mind, we will get started on the topic. i will let you know that we'll leave time at the end for questions and answers, and if
you notice in the room, we've got a mic to the left and right so when walter indicates it's time for the q&a's line up, and we'll answer your questions. without further adieu, walter, i turn it over to you. [applause] >> good afternoon. in addressing a group of distinguished fellow state judges and those who appear before them as advocates, it may seem strange. we're talking about institutional interpretation not by judges, but by the president and those in his executive branch who become so familiar in our legal culture with thinking that in interpreting the constitution it's the province of judges, that it often comes as a surprise to confront the
degree to which the president is a constitutional interpreter and decision maker. this mite not have been -- this might not have been the case if the constitutional convention had not made a dramatic change in the nature of the presidency in the final 11 days of that remarkable event that took place in philadelphia between may 17th lasting throughout the summer until september 25th 1787. the institution makes the final draft as the convention took its one recess of the summer. it's next to a final draft of august 6 provided that the president of just to be a manager for congress. the president was to be chosen by congress and is removable by
public, there was a direct election of the president but people but at the pack with a couple. this was the next best thing. who's the one permits selection by the people. so that keep them to no longer serve as the virtual pleasure of congress to make her bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors, gave the president a role in negotiating treaties into nominating judges and nominating ambassadors, all for eternity. what happened to cause this dramatic change? what happened was they think over the course of the summer, the national triumph in the national government was given extraordinary authority over all the western land over what john marshall was to call all the external commerce and not in
concert bowl commerce. it was an awesome amount of power to confer upon a national government continental scope, going way beyond anything anyone had imagined except perhaps none has been sitting alone in the study, the winning of 1780, going beyond what anybody could imagine would be proposed by this dimension. having been given the power, they realized it needed executive leadership. and that's why the president was created not so much as a manager as had been pursuing in the early days of the convention when roger simon that congress can decide from timeti make up e executives and for how long they should conserve. there's no need to specify that in the const duchenne. from that view of whatever congress once, when you're scum at the years, six months, it was
not far off at the beginning of the division. ibm they wanted a strong and independent branch of government it had its own constitutional officer. not an employee, not a staffer. and that is where presidents take the position that they could make it more complicated to make the determination about acts of congress. so just to introduce the scope of the discussion, obviously every house to enter the constitution. the president have to decide to what extent he could engage in warrantless starvation. a president in the absence of a code of military uniform justice would have to make some decisions about how to discipline the troops and with the constitutional requirements. the bar harbor question are those where congress has set in
what the limits of the president's authority are. and we can assert those are unconstitutional. basically every president as far as i know come at least every modern president has taken the position that they can decline someone. and that has been unremarkable in the supreme court in 1926 and marist versus the 98 finance unremarkable remarkable they taste or she postmaster without consent of the senate as required by contest. the president declined to defend that law and the supreme court. counsel for the senate came forward to do so. a supreme court that it unremarkable that the president had not done so. recently there's been a debate about the degree to which the president should show deference to congress, even though it ultimately has to make his own
decision. and whether particularly in fighting the war on terror, and the president declined to comply with acts of congress that were in fact constitutional or maybe unconstitutional. will hear a debate on that as time goes by. so that's the nature of issues. so when is the president authorized to tell the supreme court that it are two straight .. to congress, like for example "don't ask, don't tell," that the president is complying with come of the city police to be unconstitutional. what can you tell the court about your position? but it is the duty to defend? the big media by the decision-maker and we will therefore fitting racer with a president -- [laughter] >> thank you almost here. so good to see so many friends from bench and bar.
let me begin with the text. i'll come to the oath of office. article ii section three enumerates in brief compost the powers of the president. and one of those critical powers is he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed. the oath of office set forth in article ii section one -- and here's the oath. i do solemnly swear or a friend that i will faithfully execute the office of the president of the united states and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect and defend the cause is duchenne of the united states. taking those two together as well as the fundamental bedrock concept that ours is a system of law and not a person or the will of the people as manifested in the come about cardozo called the authentic forms of justice, which express themselves of law,
not in philosophy, not an ideology, but what is in fact the law. wilson, president woodrow wilson, as an academic at princeton is the first occupant in the university of the jurisprudence note that the president is accountable to darwin, not to newton. government is modified based environment and necessitated by past, shape to its functions by the sheer pressures of life. so when the question is posed, mr. president, albeit a lot of the intuitive answer those who lifted the value of the rules of, yes of course. maybe there are exceptions. because i sort of remember reading about abraham lincoln and the lincoln presidency. perhaps another occasion there was debate about lincoln's fidelity to constitutional norms. but the lincoln presidency to a
certain extent, the presidency of all those presidents call to serve during what turned out to be a time of war, raises, in my mind, the most critical clarity mentioned, which is intentional, willful, disobedience by the president to éclair norn. i know what the law is and am simply not going to obey it. and it seems to me that a way of looking about that and you probably have a debate with respect to that more currently, but just think of lincoln, perhaps think of wilson, think of others who have perhaps quote taken a lot into their own hands. i think a way of thinking about it is to draw from sort of analogous pools of the. the fourth amendment sets forth a very powerful form of protection, privacy, human dignity interests.
and yet we know from the caseloads are exigent circumstances to getting a warrant, having probable cause, certain exigent circumstance for us. the president is senate inc. seen in the lincoln presidency a professor yoo and others can speak when i'll actually about the lack of love is really the corporate law, dat that management will take actions that may in fact be viewed as ultra vires under strict interpretation of their powers, perhaps intrude into the arena of the terse than seek ratification. that certainly was a jeffersonian idea and when the he was lincoln's idea as well. another value that is a more modern value is about trying from the bucket of securities law, disclosure, transparent d., elimination, the brandeis in type value. this is the great disinfect it.
it seems to me that a way of thinking about it in the worst situation, willful disobedience of the cognizable, identifiable norma's democratic accountability and perhaps exigent circumstances coupled with ratification and closure transparency help us to understand that into the back on a lincoln presidency and not come to the notion that he really was a tape tatar assignments to. but the second point is where there is -- and this is sort of insidious person. whether there is an undermining, perhaps even knowledgeable intention of undermining under existing cost to small and legal norms. i went without a clear undisputed hold on the docks violation. i think historians might well identify president wilson's
conduct during world war i, especially with fact to civil liberties is very controversially obvious and infamously as president result between the japanese-americans during world war ii. and that brings me to -- i recognize came in not so upheld that after-the-fact, but decisions that is largely if not completely been discredited, which brings me to a third and final points come which is in the midst of all this, what should be the role of those of us who have been close which to share and their predecessors and successors in the justice department. but i would like to lift up for conversation and reflect and is the fact that at best the justice department will really be the conscience of the presidency. the justice department will be filled with real players who will be holding up yellow cautionary signs. they will be flashing red lights. we saw this staff finds.
and we sought in connection with the internment of the japanese american community. because one of the great heroes of that losing battle was francis biddle, the attorney general. and in his memoirs, but is confirmed by others, he thought very valiantly, but remaining within the administration, he did not resign, saying this really cannot be, this should not be in a free society. the predicate, the ground simply are not there for this. seems to me that is one arena to serve those who love argues, that the role of the attorney general himself or herself or those who are called upon to serve in the justice department is extremely high in terms of the values of the conscience for the presidency in fidelity to the rule of law. a quick word story, now i'm controversially.
but when congress, time and again came forward with a device called the legislative veto that we a single house or even a single company can overrule a legislative veto, this was by the way they appropriate government reform and trust by the shooter administration on the government entertained i president roosevelt. the government is going. how to get control of the current bureaucracy et cetera? one arena or one advice was legislative veto. then cannaday, ronald reagan had in the platform as the republican platform and actually referred to in on a couple speeches for the device. but once he took office and the guys that the office of legal counsel, ted olson, ties with the attorney general of the united states, william frank smith, obviously a privilege to serve, the president of the
united states just do not in maricopa and repented of his position. much of the chagrined to write to the domestic policy and the white house about this is a very important device. why does the president change his view? because the justice department told us it was unconstitutional. and that to me is one of the great vaults of the justice department to play in ensuring as best they can presidential fidelity to god. >> you've got people on this panel, kathleen, who celebrate the president's fidelity to his oath to uphold the constitution and his decision to subordinate the obligation, take care that the law be enforced to the superior obligation of constitutional over statutory law. i think from time to time you've expressed some concern that those in the executive branch
have gone too far in asserting the president's authority to do this. how can you defend such an ill considered vehicle? [laughter] >> well, i haven't worked in the justice department. anything to work in the executive branch has no doubt has here to the experience of my very deceived fellow panel members towards the members towards seeing the need for presidential action and maybe with respect to one take when you're in the moment of crisis. but what i would like to do is we focus us perhaps to the theme of this conference, which is the role of the court. the role i would like to make is in a time like this, when we've witnessed over the last decade to the terrible events of 9/11. when you ask the question, does the president need to take emergency steps? does the president need to act without prior clear authorization with a lower treaty to protect the homeland?
does the president has to act with zeal and dispatch and faux predecessors from from jefferson to lincoln to roosevelt as a source of authority? or should the courts have been in stuff the president from doing so. i would argue that they have done in portugal and restraining executive in this period. on the other body that bad except in is of course the congress. i want to talk a little bit about what the framers intended the role of congress to be, but congress can't play that well today by dissolve the more important the judiciary, independent judiciary or the role for saint on the executive branch. to go back to the executive branch, we don't have an emergency powers in the constitution. unlike the constitution of other most democracies, there is no exception. there is no exigent circumstanced laws and our
constitution. therefore, the president asks extraconstitutional he or national security crisis, he is doing so on his own initiative without a particular comp duchenne award for that. of course the fourth amendment does not exigent circumstance caused either. but not notably as the president to a nobel constitutional warranty warrantee, doing so in most cases it's also extravagant claims of secrecy in his power to do so, the invocation of state secret privilege. how do this kind of the reason is behind why you invoke the circumstances cause? now, the president will not be self-restraint. it's not a matter of one party or the other party. presidents of both parties and both sides threader histories asperity definitions have changed, presidents always want to maximize the power the government to protect the interest of the country. and this is why you see members the clinton illustration and the obama administration writing
memos supporting powerful executive authority, just as much as members of the reagan and bush and debbie bush administration. the president, if you go back to francis biddle, francisville counseled against the japanese determined fully las animas a member of said about roosevelt, about fdr, i don't think the constitutional difficulty greatly troubled him. i don't think the constitutional difficulty has ever traveled a wartime government. i think that's exactly right. and truman was quite on repented later about the field of seizure. you all remember that the court struck down the steel mills to avert a stoppage during the war in korea, do you declare word and production is still necessary to remissions going to the troops in battle. well, supreme court struck down that, saying it lacked
legislative authority and they did so at that time an approval ratings were having a 22%. and they've been perceived the court seen it to a president who isn't that powerful. when the courts my thinking lincoln for unilaterally spending the writ of habeas corpus during the civil war, it didn't do so until after the war has ended. so the court may stand up to the president only in a time when he is perceived as weak. but truman was apparently unrepentant about the steel seizure as stoppage was averted, no consequences resulted to hibernation. the story is told that he went to a dinner party soon after the disc session. it sets up a conversation was a little status, but at the end of the evening after libations have flowed, apparently truman said to black, welfare, york law is no good, but your bourbon is. last night
[laughter] i bring this to bear to suggest that if roosevelt felt unconstrained and truman was on repented, it will really be the case of the president thinks this action and excessive legislative authority, even when struck down by the supreme court was the right decision at the time. then you might say what about the congress? well, i'd like to suggest that the framers notwithstanding walter's account at the outset of the dramatic shift towards greater presidential power at the end is true. they went from a kind of pure agent manager vision into a vision of executive leadership and a fully separated set of branches are coequal status. but the single most important residual with respect to powers without legislation must constrain discretion that congress must constrain the president, that the president notwithstanding that he has the power to take care of the laws be faithfully executed, but that
is a parent agency. it is to execute about the theft of a prior antecedent for us not as the congress retreat is engaged in by congress. i'll just mention some of the features -- the framers i think that that congress be a great constraint on the president's power. and the concern was maximal with respect to military and foreign affairs. we often think today the president has to have more military and foreign affairs because that's what the stature needs and hope you have a multi-power at the military and foreign affairs? that the framers very much believe that congress would play a role in constraining the president. it's from the pre-constitutional history. the declaration of rights by parliament in 1689 wanted to end the royal prerogative to maintain standing armies. it was to the raising or keeping a standing army within the keeping of time of peace is not allowed to must it be with the consent of parliament.
it's against a lot to do with the consent of parliament. and if you think -- i don't know if your family read the declaration of independence that every july for, but it's a tradition i try to enforce with limited success. [laughter] one of the most stirring lines in the litany of grievances against the cane and said he has kept among us in times of peace standing armies without consent of our legislators. he has affected to graduates of majority of the simple power. and pre-constitutional practice i think reflected these principles, that the legislature must constrain the executives, even with respect to military and foreign affairs. the continental congress actively defeated washington are before, actively debated the terms of the 1779 peace, actively debated the terms the treaty was seen. nobody thought the congress was incapacitated just because it was a multimember body are being actively engaged in reviewing
and ratifying or criticizing the president decision. all rights, see my secrets, that sounds good. congress will constrain the president. what the framers didn't imagine and have no expectation of this would have the party system we have today. and the party system i think has radically undercut the capacity of congress to constrain the president. because the fidelity to one's party will trump the fidelity to one's branch. congress will act more as to fighting coalitions of partisan blog, whose loyalty will vent to their president or whose electoral concern in relation to an opposing president will constrain their actions. and congress i think because of the unanticipated with separation of powers, not separation of parties has undercut the ability of congress to constrain the president. i think the behavior of congress since the wake of 9/11 has illustrated the point. congress is not that included any respect, with respect to
exercise that discretion on the war on terror. it was debated if you can call it that, the initial u.s.a. patriot act in a matter of days, an act making substantial changes in the power of surveillance and other powers over domestic conducts of the war in terror. it eventually ratified after the supreme court struck it down, president george w. bush's improvisations of military perturbing nose. the military strip it down to saying congress had violated the writ of habeas corpus class, extension of the red cause and effect extending the rights of habeas corpus were was applicable in not providing a substitute for it. congress has with respect to tribunals, the u.s.a. patriot act in the reauthorization has not been fully done one thing to try to embody the framers vision that the executive should be subordinate to legislation, the legislation should be superior to discretion.
beverly takes us to the courts. i think one of the most remarkable stories of the last decade in constitutional law has been a systematic way in which the cards republican up point t. is on the deciding vote. it's not a matter of a partisan thing. the court has institution has constrain the president in a remarkable series of decision. the decision of the improvisations in the detention system at guantánamo either exceeded due process as the court said in a humvee case for the military tribunals were not authorized by the geneva conventions or any other law. they're a number of justice in these cases about the authorization for use of military force to which authorize the war in afghanistan did not extend to the homeland. there's a great line in the seizure case, where one of the
concurring opinion says just because the president is the commander-in-chief because of the military, does that make him commander-in-chief of the economy. similarly may say the commander-in-chief is the military company is not commander-in-chief while domestic law enforcement systems by which we gather information. so with respect to all of these issues, to do detention in tribunals, the supreme court is systematically in a series of narrowly decided positions said no to assertions of executive power and even said no to assertions of congressional power to operate his executive powers that the court says is he on the rights of the court in the constitution. now that is a remarkable story. it's remarkable because their many countries which the courts could not stand up to the executives at all because they are thought of as rubber stamp for the executive power. it's a remarkable story of judicial independence and the remarkable story that there is obedience for these decrees.
you know couldn't agree justice stevens who retired your one-sided a conference i was privileged to be at best when went to other judgments of my most about our courts? it's the ability to have our decrees obey. and it is not taken for granted in many systems. so the remarkable story is the court stepped in to play a role that impact the congress was intended to play, but probably cannot enter the modern system of divided partisan government because the congress along with, especially with frequent elections will always defer to the president is never good politics to an election to do anything which seems to endanger national security. of i don't mean to overstate the case. there've been limits to the ability of the courts to constrain what i think has been in excess of executive deal here. in particular, courts have been powerless to stop expansion of invisible domestic surveillance practices. in large part because of the
assertion of the kind of executive state secret privilege. this is one in which the court does not come very far to reach the approach that the president referred to earlier and transparency. you might be the corporate executives are free to engage in business judgment and do lots of things they shouldn't be called ultra beers, but the disclosure rules for publicly traded for us a lot of information out in public about the bases on which the executive discretionary decisions have been made. what is rising from the system if we do think the executive ought to have office managerial freedom to set exposure and transparent tea in the course does not force that issue. that's one place i would say they haven't gone far enough. but in a nutshell, i'm eager to hear later from my fellow panelists and i know professor yoo has advanced which is quite a buzz with the framers. i would say much more original us on this point than john yoo.
and with that point i'll turn it back. >> as a segue, kathleen takes a position which i think to some extent is compatible with john's position than i would call otherwise. presidents have always made these claims. so i'd like to put john and then david the question of whether there was an extravagance of executive power during the presidency of george w. bush, that was not: since the with what came before and represented a more radical ship. i think everyone agrees that a president has the authority to disobey some laws passed by congress. it has otherwise with respect to some kinds of laws, they would be unconstitutional laws in place forever. if congress that the president may not fire cabins for it by
the postmaster without the consent of the senate and the president complies with that, they'll never be tested. there's no way case ever gets to court. so it's only by the case of the lame-duck congress could say all of obama's cabinet member shall now serve for the next 10 years terms. i think in a subsequent president should consider that unconstitutional as they do the 10 year term if you treat it as a minimum for the fbi or. that's only by disobeying the president to get a judicial test. i think we too often cite cases that are linked to the suspension of is provided for by the constitution shall not be suspended unless the cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it. the issue was it doesn't say who shall suspend it. >> that same article i.
it is still silent on the question. but what is clear about reagan's assertion of power is the data publicly. there is no secret violation of federal law. and he was ready and willing for congress to revise it and acknowledge the power of congress. indeed congress cut back on the procedures for suspending habeas corpus that thinking unhesitatingly complied with the congressional limitations on the power. so i think it's important to distinguish, as they turn us over to john and mentor david trained inherent power in the sense i think the president has a lot of, which is the power to act with the only claim to be ultra- varied. there's no law on the subject at all. presidents can engage in lots of things. and a very different than enough inherent power, which is the authority to resist an act of congress when congress has decided that it pleases limitation.
and so, by some accounts, including mine, the refusal to comply with the foreign intelligence at. for example, an act of congress restrict teen torture, were a violation done in secret without justification. we've got people who are fully able to debate that. >> thank you very much, walter. i'd like to thank judge callahan for inviting me to appear. she didn't tell you, but the last time she asked me to appear in a panel, i couldn't make it because i was detained at the airport. this is even before tsa had all the machines. so i'm glad to be able to make it. i hope you'll bear with me. i have a little trepidation speaking before an audience full of appellate judges and lawyers. unlike my colleagues, i don't actually appear in court. i hope never to appear in court.
satisfy my wife i would be speaking in front of 300 some judges and appellate lawyers. i set my god, you'd have to pay me to step up before judges and i realize that's about the guys do, too. so i thank you very much for the invitation to speak, but they want to make clear that an appellate arguer. i'm not very good at it. i'm just going to try to be very direct if that's allowed. [laughter] the first point i'd just like to make as i've learned many years of my life never to disagree with kathleen sullivan. the kathleen ms. rae. she is a better original us than i am and i'm happy to say that before she comes up and admiring the living constitution. and in that respect what i think is how to do what the president is the framers established a
principle is about executive power and without the circumstances in the constitution would interact. tocqueville said it first. he said the constitution created as america grows in the world can come to have an empire, which he thought was a good thing. powers accrue to because that's the bridge of the constitution in a way that was designed to meet the circumstances. so the one thing is until why can't we let them create the agency it means to let out its function. the framers did reject that idea, the reason they created a presidency which is innovation at the time as there would always be an existence which would at quickly and swiftly to interesting circumstances. the legislature can't anticipate the future.
so you need to have some branch of the government that can respond to immediate circumstances. in the example they give in the federalist papers as wars. number 78 playbook was that the one best example of where you need one person in office at the time something happens to act immediately is when it's called the management of water. and i was an example that they gave. you could act independently of congress. this isn't supposed to be the way things work overtime. obviously the framers that the congress would be the dominant branch and most of the time the president would be caring of congress' direct is except for emergencies and were. and i think that's why we have the presidency in the first place. another point that there's more directly in in the point of the panel, the presidency is also an independent in courted branch. and because of that, the courts and congress have no way to tell
the president how to interpret the constitution any more than the president have the right to tell the other branches how to interpret the constitution. if you go back to marbury versus madison -- i do want to make anyone pull out their copy and look at it. i will tell you walter intends or flipping through constitutions while each other speaking, some little intimidated. i don't think i have my copy to pull out like other people think and secret codecs for cuts to bind them to have something no one else does. last month [laughter] in marbury v. madison and from the says that the power to judicial review, not because it's a superb range or a final decider. it's because they have to interpret the constitution in the course of deciding cases between parties. it's a natural part of same plaintiff wins or defendant wins. that same logic to the other two
branches have to interpret the constitution when they do their job. when congress passes a law, lovely thing about the constitutionality of the law first and.net unconstitutional laws. when a president enforces the law, he or she has to figure out what that means and he shouldn't or she shouldn't enforce unconstitutional laws either. the constitutional does say is walter and kennedy pointed out they're in charge says that if the constitution and statutes only to do two different things? what does a president do? just like the supreme court of marbury, the president has to follow a person not followed the entrance to show law. second point i'd like to make goes to walters worrying about the history. this is not some wild idea that the bush administration came up with an eye in particular came up with. i bought some unusual ideas and this is not one of them. presidents from the very
beginning have logic at the point is thomas jefferson. it was a crime under the alien and sedition act to criticize the government. john adams loved this obviously. thomas jefferson came to office. he released from jail everyone would unprosecuted under law and ordered the u.s. attorneys to draft the country to drop a prosecution under the law. he said the courts have upheld the law, ceasing its constitutional and are entitled to do so in the cases that come before them. i think the law is unconstitutional and i'm allowed to pursue that view when i perform a constitutional functions. i think a president has every right to refuse to carry out unconstitutional criminal legislature when he decides or she decides to prosecute or not. >> which is energized and ask what you think fundamental difference between the government declining to enforce the law, which forces
constraints on others and violating a something jefferson did not do, violating federal criminal statute that means that the president is going to a crime. are those quite different situations? >> a test is to be dissatisfied in the latter case. >> i think it's a great question. the question is brought by lincoln. lincoln, mike jefferson is passive and refuse to unconstitutional laws. lincoln at the beginning and end of several lawyers took actions were here early to things that didn't violate supreme court presidents of the day. it's not just other things to do it the beginning of the word like raising troops that congressional authorization, taking money from treasury, watching when the south comes suspending habeas corpus. remember, link and refuse to release a confederate spy in direct contribution but chief
justice and united states at the beginning of the war. pick about what the emancipation proclamation was. the president of the united states freed all the slaves in the south. that's part of his commander-in-chief power. you know, were others. remember what the government supreme court precedents on the constitutionality of slavery was in 1863. dred scott is still the law of land in 1863. chief justice tommy is the author of judge scott in east of the chief justice in 1863. in 1862 in 1863, lincoln asked quite inconsistently with supreme court precedent and done solely under executive authority. so i think that's -- people have argued think of as a dictator. i think it was only acting under chief. good example is the more correct to point. fdr in the years leading up to world war ii. congress passed a series of neutrality act.
among the outcome in picking presidents on purpose. i'm only picking presidents most people think our great presidents. i'm not trying to convince you, but there is the time between success and the authors and broad powers. the neutrality act before world war ii made it illegal for the united states to assist any of the parties in the fighting. and these are famous cases to the justice department people, the president roosevelt started sending airplanes, destroyers to britain, right? and he was asked, are you directly violating the neutrality act? he would say things like, those destroyers are sold. we don't need them anymore. we call them overaged. the surplus picks them up in the navy doesn't need them anymore. and then he ordered the military -- the navy to start escorting convoys across the atlantic and attacking german submarines. all of that in violation of the
neutrality act. i would say not these cases, i'm glad the roosevelt, lincoln, jefferson did what they did. i think they did in the best interest of the country. they thought they had to because of circumstance. it was better for the country that they did what they did. i wish they'd done it earlier in all the circumstances. one last point, which is the bush administration and the policies of the last 10 years. kathleen raised issues first onto the court. again, i never disagree with kathleen sullivan. i fully agree -- i think action and the only person who's worked for congress per. i worked as an aide to senator hatch about 15 years ago now. anything congress does have ample constitutional authority to set the president from doing anything he really wants to do because it has the power of the purse. i quite agree with you that which you have seen it congress just doesn't want to do it. in the congress we want to change some administration
policy wasn't that hard to do it. it's really a question of political will, not constitutional power. i think with all these policies that the bush administration pursued that mentioned surveillance, military commissions, to me this was exactly what the presidency was created. we had a 9/11 that was unforeseen and unlike anywhere we've been in before. the president immediately reacts in response because he's the person in office at the time. he is trying to figure out how to adapt our system to this new kind of war, where we are not fighting a nation state. we are fighting a stateless terror starkness nation. congress can come in and turn around and stop anyone of those policies that they want to and they don't. as kathleen pointed out actually, congress actually tried to eventually support the president's authority and the courts stepped in and strip the policy down. so the last thing i'll say is i
don't think what we've seen is out of line with historical example being or two other presidents during wartime. i think of the bush administration, bush tried to work with congress, but the constitution gives him the authority to act first, to act with initiative and the system does give congress a shot at the issues immediately after the fact. if you see a situation where people think the bush administration went to the war are now the obama administration is going to fire, the congress and the courts have ample authority to stop them if they want. i think actually the consequences for the country have been better when those branches that work with the government to make sure we have the most aggressive policies we can within the constitution to fight the threats we have before now. thank you very much. >> david cole has challenged executive power in cases that he has argued before the court's. it is likely to have a less
sanguine view of the deference, the extreme deference to the loss into congress exhibited by recent administrations. david. >> well, i can't say that i've disagreed never to disagree with john yoo. [laughter] i want to start by thanking judge callahan for the print collective introduction of the piano. because 90% of all those accomplishments and not collective introduction were judge generals didn't president starr. the other 10% of the other and said the panel. i don't know why i'm here. [laughter] so i thought that was brilliant and i'll always be indebted to her for that. i will agree with john in this respect but i think everybody in
the panel would agree that the presidents have often, particularly in moments of crisis overreached, have taken matters into their own hand, have exercised authority that might well have been -- my fellow been questionable. but the difference isn't in how they do it. and walters sort of opening his interruption of john raitt to that point, which is the difference between doing something -- the difference between doing something publicly and doing something secretly. and the difference between declining to enforce the laws and team in direct violation of that law yourself. and i think what you see when you look at those last 10 years is that the notion that there is a tie between, as john put it,
the office and broad visions of executive power has some counterexamples. one of them is president bush. another site named his immediate predecessor of the similar broad scope of his own executive power and not as president nixon's who has many people here will remember this famous interview with david frost after leaving office thought, why did you think you have the power to engage and walk was times during the vietnam war? president nixon sent well, my view that the president does that, that means it's not illegal. of course president nixon learned the hard way the theory of constitutional separation of powers. the president bush and in large measure with the assistance of john resurrect that framework
with one caveat. so it's not that the president does it means it's not illegal. if the vice president does it -- [laughter] because the president does it and says it's pursuant to his commander-in-chief authority, it's not illegal. and in that respect, i think the bush administration's assertions of executive power to disregard are really quite -- quite unprecedented. they asserted not just inherent power to take initiative in emergency situations as president lincoln did you go to congress and say look, here's what i'm doing. i had to do it because you weren't in office anywhere confessions and the troops are coming up from baltimore. i had to take action so i
suspended habeas corpus. if you think was wrong to do, tonya was throwing. that's not what they did. instead and see. , they wrote opinions which said that the president can blatantly violate laws that are directly restrict dissatisfaction. and they did so in two contexts in particular. the prohibition on torture and the memo that john wrote and jay bybee signed off on. they concluded that torture is something that i don't think anyone else ever thought torture was limited to put them inside, even if what is being done is clearly falls within the terms of the torture statute, federal torture statute, that statute cannot be applied to the president appeared via? because the president as commander-in-chief cannot be checked by either branch of government when it comes to engaging the enemy.
and so, either side to engage in witty to torture the enemy. that's his prerogative and no one can stop him. and john in prior debates have said the president decided to crush the of a suspect child, died the perfectly within his constitutional authority. he told the office of professional responsibility that if the president ordered the extermination of a village, that would be within his accepted authority. so that's the kind of assertion power you saw. i think it will filter to live up to what judge dean general president starr suggested was the responsibility of lawyers in the justice department which is to say no. the same argument was made with the statute on the book.
foreign intelligence that makes it a crime to engage in wiretapping without a warrant, expressly contemplates a limited exception for wartime, 15 days then you have to come to congress and get authority. and the president took the position i can engage and wireless tapping because it's engaging the enemy. similar argument was made publicly at least to the court, to the supreme court when it came to review enemy combatants. the government argued in the first case, visible, that would raise serious constitutional questions at the court were to interpret a beast i choose to understand guantánamo because then you'd have congress and the court checking the president with respect to engaging the enemy in wartime. and they can't check the president when it comes to
engaging the enemy in wartime. all nine justices of the supreme court to that position. in the hamid case, they took the position that the court could not assess the factual validity of the government claimed that the person was an enemy combatant justice o'connor said we can and indeed we must under the constitution. so i think we saw under the prior administration assertions of executive authority that really go far beyond the kinds of examples that we've seen from history. and i think the lesson of history, you know, unlike the lesson of history with respect to lincoln or fdr, the last of the history will be the these were grave mistakes, that these were failures of vision and that this is precisely why it's critical to have a system of
separation of powers and checks and balances that does not permit one man to engage in uncheckable executive power. >> john, i'll let you respond. >> thanks. sorry for interrupting. david brings about me. i try to restrain myself. just three quick points. first, i actually don't think that the president has the power to act outside the constitution. they think commander-in-chief authority figure of power only triggered during wartime. and i think the problem mix in hand as he tried to claim very broad authorities to combat a threat that was the difference between nixon with president bush. i think it's undeniable that were attacked on 9/11 by foreign enemy and president bush and
president nixon came up with some kind of crisis to expand presidential powers to pursue domestic opponents. i don't think obama is doing the same thing as the critics on the right might think. i think we are fighting wars in two places in the war against terrorism and he's also using his constitutional authority is to do things more so than the bush administration did in using predator drones to try to assassinate members at the enemy. the second thing is i think that it cannot be the case that congress has the full authority shall the president to do whatever it wants. could congress for example pass a law that made it a crime for the president to order his generous in the field what to do and what not to do? is that there has to be some constitutional power that congress is not allowed to take away. even in cases like youngstown
reflect.talk about directly in point. can congress passed laws ordering the troops? actually the example he gave his one that triggered the impeachment crisis of andrew johnson because congress basically said the president could not direct his generals in the field in the occupied out on how to conduct reconstruction. and i actually think the system worked. if congress did like if they try to impeach him. the emotion of the office by one vote. it's things like fisa and the torture statute, hiding the point that those laws were not written with this kind of war in mind. and as the president could've gone to congress and got new laws written. there's a cost in this kind of forward because you have to reveal a lot of information in public that could destroy the very pantages that you had in this kind of covert conflict. and so what the president tried to do is update those laws for this fall and then try to tell congress what they were doing in secret sessions.
obviously that didn't work very well. that was an effort to try to adapt to the kind of secret where we have. the last thing is i think all presidents are fully happy to be judged on the consequences. and you know, it's easy to say now one might think well, history will judge bush badly for the judge obama badly. it's going to take 20 or 25 years to tell. they think presidents have to act in the circumstances. i don't think that bush overreact to do the kind of challenge we had, but i don't think the cost duchenne is going to give you that answer or the while looking at you that answer. you want to make it on whether it was worth it will have to wait and see. my particular view was that it was. i think the administration stop terrorist attacks from occurring in the country. the obama administration continued with that success. i think that's perfectly fine if you want to judged on those grounds. >> let me see if i can have the
explicative baytown this is supposed to work. in your opening remarks, you said that congress ultimately has the authority to control the president. if you take a matter like foreign intelligence surveillance, presidents going back to the 1950s, probably the 1940s on assumed they have inherent authority to order electronic surveillance to gather foreign intelligence when it was not to be used for criminal law enforcement purposes was not the object. the u.s. supreme court, as we know from the 60s to beginning of the 70s rejected the proposition and said that you were not exempted from the fourth amendment because you are laboring of foreign intelligence surveillance. congress then passed the foreign intelligence surveillance law. appropriate of which was to authorize foreign intelligence
surveillance to allow foreign intelligence surveillance. but when you put that machinery in the hands of the executive branch, congress thought, it's critically important to make sure that it's not misused. when a special court for three judges who will meet an intensely secure facility from which there is never been a leak, who will be asked to authorize and to memorialize the basis on which a foreign intelligence surveillance attack is conducted. that's why you don't end up tapping al gore or john kerry. they may be that they approve 100% of the applications after the attorney general and the fbi agreed to put the board. but that's because i was a great were staying. you have to go before three of article iii judges to make the submission, which is kept apart in secret from the record. the congress has done and said if this doesn't work, take 72
hours. it's not practical to do it sooner. i think the president has made it two weeks instead of 72 hours could've been told he didn't have the constitution to comply with that in a time of great emergency. ultimately, you have to comply when it's not really practical to do so. presidents have to comply. and yet what happened is the president didn't complied and didn't tell anybody what to comply with. so you secretly engage in a wiretap, violating the procedures set up by congress. and it's only because of a leak at any of us know that. so what i don't understand how this knowledge of congressional control is supposed to work when a president secretly declines to comply with the law. this really goes back to how is congress -- congress exercised its oversight. spin at first i think the president has constitutional authority for butterfield intelligence and surveillance.
this question is now with this kind of war where enemies are infiltrating into the country, how far does the power go? win is to become law enforcement, which i think is the fisa system. on the other hand, 9/11 attacks caused a huge problem for the system. walter ackerley described exactly how the system works. the problem is though you need to be ready to have a target in mind. under the fisa statute is written in in the law enforcement mold. you have to have a reasonable reason to think somebody is already a likely terrorist or enemy before you can get one of these secret wiretaps. but unfortunately not the problem. we don't have a list of the members of al qaeda the way we have a list of suspected people who work in the soviet embassy. if you are the two all the e-mails that went from afghanistan to the united states in september 12, you could not defend her fisa because you didn't have specific identity. this is what the president did.
i think it's quite -- he had to make a choice. he could've said were going to stick with the fisa system and our ability to get intelligence is going to be very limited. or we're going to do things i try to intercept all the e-mails coming from afghanistan to the united states the next day without a specific target. now walter is right. the administration of do them in secret. if you announce to the world when you do the two allow us to wiretap e-mail streams from afghanistan into the united states by pakistan frontier into the united states, what they would've stopped using the e-mail system within 24 hours. so what the administration did, i think i'll try to figure out a way to have oversight in cooperation but in secret. ..
>> i think -- if members of congress didn't like it before or after the leaks, they could have cut off hundred funding foe program. the nsa would have stopped it the next day. they never did. as far as i can tell, congress has authorized a program and continued to fund it in the same robust nature under bush. i think the system did work though. >> i think we've moved -- i'd like to briefly comment. in this sort of endless war, the indeterminable si of the war where we are grappling for a
legal and constitutional scrappling. there's a wide sense of agreement. there needs to be some form of consultation. this needs to be some engagement in order to achieve that. the idea of balance and government. we do not want an overweaning executive or empirical article branch. madison warned about the article one branch, or legislative branch, and we need to build in structures and protecting the presidency but the veto power and so forth. i think that the program may have been over the last ten years. one of a perception that i think endures to those of us who are not privy to all that john and those involved in litigation are aware of. that's the appearance of executive unilateralism.
that has been, i think, the principal complaint late at the feet of the administration. and one might say, where was congress? kathleen has very well articulated the case there may simply be institutional limitations by the nature and political party and so forth. i would say two cheers though for congress because as a young pup on capitol hill, working however only part time on capitol hill during the days of vietnam, i heard jay william fulbright, i heard the president's own party stand up against vietnam. i saw eugene mccarthy make the decision or announce the decision to in fact challenge a president of his own party. really all about the war. so is is it obviously will come down to a position and a situation of leadership and the sense of, you know, how important is this issue and how
much do we disagree? one the unfold stories, i think of the last ten years is that the congress did not disagree openly enough to prevent what is now seen as executive unilateralism. >> any comments? kathleen? >> sure. i agree completely with ken starr and john's earlier comment that it's a matter of political will, not constitutional constraint. what congress might do. and perhaps the events of the most recent election and the patterns of imdumb si and i would like to disagree with my friend john on the scope of that clause. i think, you know, in trying to route the argument in the original constitution, rather than the living constitution, we
don't want to overread the commander in chief clause. it's often misstated the president shall have the power of commander and chief. all it says is the president shall be the commander and chief. he's commander and chief is an agent of the congress. he wanted to make sure somebody was in charge. i don't think we should overread the commander in chief clause. this would be my second chance to the conception of the battlefield that encompasses not just determining and time, an indefinite war into the future. but determining and space, no geographical and spatial boundaries. if you want to have a perception of the commander in chief, if it's laws of war, that's one
thing. there's a treaties and convention that restrain. but if you use the commander in chief to justify surveillance in the homeland because that affects the battlefield, then i think we lose all distinction between the realm of war on one hand and the realm of law enforcement on the other. i think one the reasons why the court was able to stand up to the claims of executive power in the series of cases was that the claiming of the need for urgency seemed over stated. the great line in exparting, which is the 1866 decision that said it was not permissible to have a military tribunal for yellow dog who was suspected of acts of criminallalty during the civil war. the reason why is the civil courts were open. there was no need for marshal law in ohio. therefore, you could have i --
have allowed the law enforcement to perceive. i think there's the assumption the court may have had here. i can't tell us you needed to improvise modes of retention and military commissions that weren't authorized by law. when the time has ticked on, one, year, two years, three years, four years, seven years. seven years after the event of 9/11 you can no longer say these were necessary responses. the civil courts were open. so i just wanted to push back a little bit on the overreading of the commander in chief clause and it's extension to the homeland as long as the civilian courts are open and law enforcement and civilian courts can take care of a lot of responses we've seen with most recent attempted of terrorists activity that have been tried in civilian courts. just one last point, the most articulate spokes people, i think in questioning the military tribunal system were
not civil libertarian lawyers, it was the men and women of the j.a.g. corps and the laws and procedures of military justice and the ucmj tells them to a sense it's important to follow the procedures within the military and dividing line between that system and others. i think it's no accident that justice stephen who wrote in the war on terror cases and provided the vote was the only living member of the court who had served and served in the navy and world war ii. i think came from the tradition of military suspect from rule of law that drove those decisions. i don't think the commander in chief clause can do all of the work that john has attributed to it, especially not if we extent the motion to the battlefield of the homeland. >> david, on the question of commander in chief clause, there's a tremendous article by david bering and marty
leaderman, who were recently there on the commander in chief clause, looking at the history of the commander in chief clause and concluded that the history quite contrary to what john suggests has shown that congress has in great detail regulated and restricted the way in the president conducts war. they say where you can fight, where you can't fight, where you can bomb, where you can't bomb, what tactics you can use, what tactics you can't. torture, they say you can't. they've been saying things for our entire history. but i wanted to talk about -- just tell one story about the problems with secrecy and the -- this kind of checking funk of whether the check comes from the courts as kathleen has talked about or from congress which is rare but times happen or from
the public which also happens. that check is -- can be deviously undermined. here's an example. in this post dates john leaving the office. this is the office of legal council, i think that should be held responsible. but it's not john, it's his successors in the office. when the memo that john wrote authorizing water boarding and the like became public, as soon as it became public it was unacceptable. they had rescind it. they rescinded it immediately and started working on something to substitute for it. they substitute something for this in 2004, a public memo. but at the same time, they wrote a secret memo that said you can continue to do all -- cia, you can continue to do all of the things that we told you you could do in the rescinded memo that john wrote. then it came out that they had interpreted the prohibition of
degrading treatment not to apply at all when we interrogate foreign suspects abroad. because it's hard -- whether water boarding is torture. maybe you can make an argument. you can not make an argument that keeping someone awake or making him stand in painful less positions or slapping him in the face and stomach and slamming him against the wall. you can't argue that's not cruel. what did they say? again in secret, just doesn't apply to foreigners. it's a human rights provision in a treaty that we helped draft and we signed and we said it doesn't apply to foreigners. in secret. when that became public, this is the one counterexample to kathleen's story about congress, congress did check. john mccain led the charge and almost unanimously congress said, that prohibition applies to every human being.
wherever they are held, wherever they are. it's a human rights treaty, it's not a citizens protection act. and so what did the office of legal counsel do? they ran another memo, now we have to apply the cruel and inhuman treatment, but congress said we do. none of these provisions are cruel, inhuman, and degrading. not even in combination. if you keep someone up for 11 hours, slam them, water board them 183 times, that's not cruel. at the end of that opinion, they said, you know, we can't guarantee you that a court would agree with us on this. don't worry, it won't go to court. then a year later, the supreme court in the hamdon case said the geneva convention applies, and con article iii is a higher
standard. they had previously said we don't have to worry about that. because it doesn't apply. now the supreme court says it applies. they write another memo in 2007 in secret saying we have looked at it. none of these tactics are even inhuman, or inhumane, or in violation of the way that our countries are obligated to treat our own people. in other words, they were saying in secret it would be perfectly legal for another country engaged in the war with us to take our servicemen and subject them to all of those tactics. perfectly legal. when matt lauer asked president bush that question on the "today" or "tomorrow" show, president bush didn't answer. of course, it would be unacceptable if it was done to our people. it should be unacceptable done to any human being. the public law was getting more
and more restrictive and making it clearer and clearer that human beings cannot be subjected to the this kind of treatment? they wrote memo after memo saying you can cannot to do exactly what you are doing. -- continue to do exactly what you are doing. >> all i can point out, i don't see a failure in the checks and balance between congress and the president. congress was fully aware of the methods, and continued to be, they may not be aware of the legal justifications that the executive branch might have, but congress has the ability to make it's own judgments about what's happening in the war in terrorism is constitutional or not. they can enforce it on funding and the creation of military intelligence agencies. they have to be fully briefed before the cia can conduct any kind of covert action. second thing is congress did restrict the military's ability to conduct interrogations.
it's quite right. they did not pass a law applying the same provisions to the cia. all right. i think congress is playing an interesting political game where they want to take some responsibility and want to leave the intelligence agencies and the war on terrorism a free hand. i think the reason they are doing that, if you look at the opinion polls, it shows 65 to 75% apply of aggressive integration methods of al qaeda leaders. i think that's what congress is doing what it is doing. they don't get into the nitty-gritty. they can pass a code. they'd rather have the executive branch go first and take the responsibility. if things turn out badly or the public -- there's a lot of bad publicity, then they blame the president for it. >> you know what troubles me, i direct this both to congress and the president is when something is done in secret but it is said
subsequently that eight members of congress were fully briefed. and those eight members of congress were right or wrong, no we weren't. they are lying. we weren't told. yes, you were. whatever the truth of that is either way, it shows to me an utter failure when you have a public law where we've taken the position on something like that and in a democracy we are supposed to be based upon the consent of the governor, not the consent of eight members of congress. that seems to me to be fundamentally undercut. i'm not as sanguine as others are that congress or eight members were told. when if that's a public view, we ought to say we're going to amend the torture or foreign intelligence surveillance act. if we can't be specific, we're authorizing the president to engage in unspecified methods of
retrieval for the duration of whatever. let's publicly say that's what we are doing. let me throw another log on the fire. because particularly turning the corner to appellate judges, and those who appear before. we have been talking about when we stay out of court. by saying we are just not going to comply with the law. what you don't know won't hurt you, judges, go about your business, do your slip and fall cases. we'll let you know when we need you. to talk about those instances where the president is a constitutional actor before the courts. and how does the president's role in those of his law officers as attorney general, solicitor general, how does that role differ from private counsel or others? and when may the president assert his own view? let me put a particular example as a log on the fire. one which never finally came to
fruition, but i think it was the single hardest question that i faced in the office of legal council. this is not office of 1995. congress passed sometime after midnight, the floor amendment to the energy defense authorization act that provided that every member of the military who was hiv positive would have to be discharged within 60 days from military service. the bill passed in that form. congress adjourned. the president was going to sign the emergency defense appropriation act, that was a given as far as the lawyers were concerned. this act was a problem. not only did groups that, hiv support groups with discharging
members, there was surprising unanimity of opposition by the military. it thought it was affirmatively harmful. and so the white house wanted the justice department, was hoping the justice department would simply say it's unconstitutional. you don't have to comply with it. and the president could then sign the bill knowing this provision would not be a problem. and after a great struggle, i had to go to the white house and say we did not believe we could say it was unconstitutional in the sense that we believe that the court would agree with us that it was unconstitutional, if it went to court. and that's the standard that we had set in an earlier memorandum we had done for the white house counsel that the president would disregard the law if he believed it was unconstitutional and in good faith believed the court
would agree with him. that was necessary condition. and acting on the belief it was unconstitutional, and he would not comply could lead to a judicial review of the matter as it did in u.s. versus meyers, refusing to submit it to the senate first. we thought we could not say given the deference that the supreme court had given, we thought that congress would -- the court would very likely oppose it. they had upheld male-only service registration in deference to military. we thought that the court -- we couldn't say the court was likely to strike it down. therefore, we believed the president had to comply with it. but the question then came, what would we do when a lawsuit was brought by a member who was discharged? how would we argue that it was constitutional? given the belief of the
president and his senior military officers that it was harmful. normally, the simple rule of american constitutionalism is the government may not make an imposition on your liberty unless that imposition advances some governmental purpose. it can't impose needless constraints. and the purpose being advanced here was a more efficient military. the military disagreed with that. that's what congress thought. but chairman of the joint chiefs and secretary admiral perry, secretary of defense believed we were going to lose critical people that were asymptomatic, and the plaintiff that had chosen the middle eastern photographer, and the critical skills were going to be lost to the military. more generally, we felt we already had systems in place were all kinds of symptoms of
illnesses. a regular protocol. he said we sent these kids all over the world. they have gotten into trouble on leave. this is leaving your wounded behind. we do not leave our wounded behind. he was deeply emotional about it. so a law that the president knows actually harms military preparedness. can hardly be defended as the necessary imposition on liberty. so what we announce was that the president would in fact comply with it. i'm not sure that was the right decision. we could comply which meant and the first discharge would be processed. then we announced that the justice department, while normally representing secretary of defense in court would tell the court we believed it's unconstitutional. we would not make a half heart the defense. and we would inform congress that they might wish to secure
the representation of counsel who would argue that it was constitutional. we were going to say the president believes it's unconstitutional. in his brief, it doesn't advance a legitimate government role. what the court would have been done would have been fascinating. whatever authority he has in his role or power or whatever has commander in chief says that he thinks it's harmful. who would you court defer to? it was going to be a wonderful test of deference. and our view was that the court doesn't owe the deference in an area within his responsibility. we didn't ever go to the mat on it because having made the announcement, congress repealed the statute, rather than retaining counsel to do it. so that the -- there are other
examples, ken the solicitor general had instances where he declined to defend acts of congress. one of which we later successfully defended. >> right. >> and it comes up more recently in the context of "don't ask, don't tell" which this president said he opposes. but nonetheless, he's complying with. federal benefits are not being extented to same-sex spouses in states where the marriages are lawful recognized because of d.o.m.a., and the president is complying with "don't ask, don't tell." so he's made the decision to comply. so far he has been vigorously defending. what should the president do now that he's been more forthright about his position and keep in mind whatever your answer to that question, what would solicitor general palin do if
the health comes before -- when they are in power and having to decide, you know, whether to defend. one the suggestions that i would make, in some ways it works better if the system and president gives his honest belief. the president honestly beliefs that discharged 13,000 able-bodied men and women from the military is more harmful to national defense than keeping them. he therefore believes that "don't ask, don't tell" is unconstitutional. why shouldn't be tell the court that? and why shouldn't the court -- this could be your first argument, john. >> actually i think kathleen will be -- >> i will. >> yes, i would have president obama solicitor general argue his honest view that it's unconstitutional but have the court also hear from someone appointed as amicus curiae.
charles, or whoever might want to step forward or senate counsel and house counsel. >> they have statutory counsel. >> in those situations, there's a mechanism from someone. >> i mean that's the issue. i do think -- let me throw one other log on the fire. governor schwarzenegger and attorney general brown did not appeal the decision in california striking down the proposition that once again said opposite-sex marriage only in california. they didn't appeal. i -- i think they were obligated to appeal. though they could have told the court as i would suggest they believed it to be unconstitutional. but the appellate court should decide and not a single district judge. if they are so strong if their belief it's not unconstitutional, there shouldn't have been debate.
they should apply to various rights of everyone. if you are going to defend it in the district court, lodge an appeal and let amicus counsel come in and defend it. i would have had the attorney general file a brief there's a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, but we are appealing a decision in which we support in order to put it before you. i open that in the consideration of what you ought to do when the president's view is contrary to the statute that his administration state or federal is defending. for -- floor is open. >> seems to me the principal value or overarching consideration is can we keep the process open for the separation of powers to work? and so, you know, if -- if you have a system in place where if the president notifying -- and there is such a system if a statute is declared unconstitutional, and the