tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN February 19, 2016 2:04pm-4:05pm EST
to take out, to carry out actions like we did overnight to protect the american people and to protect our interests in the region. and so we're going to prepared to do that, even as we continue to be strongly supportive of the political process inside of libya. >> i want to ask you about a couple of storylines, at the democratic side of the campaign. first one, i think the post sort of gave -- [inaudible] were downplaying the economic recovery and said it's a big mistake, and not more forcefully play up that recovery. does the president think that is a big mistake that they are not playing it up enough? >> i think what is good both secretary clinton and senator sanders have very capable
campaign teams who are designing their campaign strategy. obviously, both of the democratic candidates have their own knowledge and experience a wide range of economic policy so they certainly are going to be able to believe that process. and we have heard of candidates articulate their view that the progress that has been made under president obama's leadership over the last seven years has been a little underappreciated. secretary clinton in particular often discusses how president obama doesn't deserve the credit, or hasn't gotten the credit that he deserves for digging us out of a terrible hole that was caused by the great recession. and one of the reasons the president is quite confident he will be enthusiastic about whoever is the democratic nominee is that both democratic candidates are vowing to build on the progress that we've made thus far and all of the
republican candidates are making the case we should go back to the policies that created the great recession. it's going to be pretty clear what choice the american people will face in the general election. [inaudible] -- right now it's not being adequately touted and promoted? >> i have it as the president is a direct question but he certainly has noted that both candidates are vowing to go on the progress we have made. look, president obama has acknowledged the loss of important work that remains to be done. that there is do more work we can do to expand economic opportunity middle-class, or what we can do to put upward pressure on wages. there's more we can do to help middle-class families balance the obligations that they have at the office with the obligations that they have little. there's more we can do to deepen our country's economic ties with
economies around the world, that will serve to strengthen the u.s. economy and make our economy stronger for the middle class. there's more important work that needs to be done, and the president certainly hasn't overlooked that, but given how important a network is, that's the reason i think the president will be an enthusiastic supporter and advocate for the presidential candidates to build on this progress. >> hillary clinton gave an interview and was asked how he always told the truth? and she said quote i always try to. and republicans are pouncing on this. not to speak for her but on behalf of the president, her former boss, employer, do you have an opinion or would you wait and on her honesty and trustworthiness of? >> i think she is a very strong case to make about the kinds of ethics and values and honesty
that she is brought to her long career of public service. so i will let her weight in on defending herself against of those charges. >> i was going to ask -- [inaudible] >> i do have a detailed readout of the call to share with you. obviously, a strategy that we have pursued inside of syria has been to offer some support to a variety of forces that have been fighting isil on the ground inside of syria. the president has made clear that we need people in syria were fighting for their own country, and there are a variety of ways we can support them including carry out airstrikes to support their efforts on the ground. there are a variety of fighters, searing arabs and turkmen fighters.
we are seeking to support those groups that are committed to fighting isil to that's our our number one gold and if there are organizations on the ground that we can count on who share that goal we will continue to support them. [inaudible] >> when well again, for any effect on the campaign i would refer you to the department of this. look, we've been quite clear that we are, you know, that we share the concern that turkey has about the political instabiliinstabili ty inside of syria at about the presence of isil just across the border from turkey. turkey is quite concerned about this as well. as our nato ally will continue to work effectively with them to counter that threat. we've been pretty clear about what our strategy is come and there certainly are some additional asks we have of the
turks but there's more work they can get along their border. we have been appreciative of the kinds of steps the turks have taken to facilitate enhancement of her efforts against isil inside of syria include access to the base at interlink and more effective closing of the parts of the border that are shut down the flow of foreign fighters and also provides a basic human kerry needs of millions of syrians who were fleeing violence. but let's do the weekend and then you guys can get started on your weekend. on monday the president will deliver remarks and take questions from national governors association here at the white house. on tuesday the president will attend a dnc roundtable here in washington, d.c. on wednesday the president will host his majesty king abdullah ii of jordan at the white house. the united states greatly values enduring and strategic partnership with jordan as well
as our shared initiatives on a broad range of diplomatic and security challenges. during the meeting to present an king abdullah will discuss efforts to counter isil companies all the searing conflict, dressed the need for syrian and iraqi refugees in jordan and discuss how the country can continue to affect the kingdom's generosity in hosting this. the two leaders will discuss how jordan continues its political and economic reform initiatives. finally they will discuss how best to advanced prospects for a two-state solution to the israeli-palestinian conflict and other areas of neutral interest. that will be on wednesday. wednesday evening the president and first lady will invite top contemporary artists to the white house as part of its in performance at the white house series. at the event will celebrate the iconic singer-songwriter composer and musician ray charles. on thursday the president will deliver remarks at an event on precision medicine that we will be hosting at the white house. then on friday, next friday the
president will attend meetings at the white house. so with that i hope you all have a great weekend. [inaudible conversations] >> at the beginning of his remarks josh curran is mentioned the president this afternoon will be heading up to capitol cl hill heading to the screen what will he and the first lady will pay their respects to the familiefamilyof justice antonin. a live look outside of the supreme court as part of a line that has formed for viewers to come inside the great hall and view the casket of antonin scalia who passed last saturday at the age of 79. [background sounds]
>> the casket of antonin scalia here in the great hall of the supreme court was carried into the court at about 9:30 a.m. eastern by capitol police. it is watched over by four honorary pallbearers. among the many justices or clerks that serve for justice antonin scalia. there are 40 rotating every half hour. as the public viewing continues, lines outside the court and again will continue until 8:00 eastern this evening. senator mike lee of utah on your screen. many other members of congress and other justices as well have come by. want to remind you are -- are all the coverage continued on c-span and coverage to more of the funeral at 11:00 eastern gets underway at the basilica of the national shrine of the immaculate conception on the campus of catholic university. live coverage tomorrow at 11 a.m. eastern on c-span.
>> to let you know our road to the white house coverage continues this afternoon on c-span2 with a couple of events in south carolina. >> the hill reports that representative james clyburn of south carolina, the third ranking democrat in the house have endorsed hillary clinton saying today my head and my heart are in the same place.
he said in a press release a few people speculated my head was the one candidate. my heart was the other. he said my experiences with both have been pleasant and enjoyable but despite of how it might sound sometimes campaigns are and should be about the future, adding that hillary clinton will be the best candidate to achieve pay equity, a from health care and reforming the criminal justice system. read more at thehill.com. >> c-span coverage of the presidential candidates continues this week with events in south carolina and a beta. -- nevada. >> and now to debate on the military use of drones as part of the nation's counterterrorism strategy.
notre dame university law professor mary ellen o'connell planes isis. alberto coll diffidence the military's use of drones. both are former defense department officials. >> good evening ladies and gentlemen, and our behalf of the council for global affairs, i'm delighted to introduce our distinguished panel tonight. i look forward to a spirited debate on an issue that certainly doesn't have a clear answer to right and wrong. professor coll, professor o'connell, ambassador, and others were thrilled to have were thrilled to take up and coming tonight in tonight so thank you. as you are aware come in recent years drones to become an important weapon on the war on terror in conducting attacks on these targets in afghanistan, pakistan and beyond.
the increase use of drones were targeted killings has also become a focus of much discussion and controversy. raising many types of questions in a variety of quarters of at home and abroad. so this is a particularly interesting debate for me. so as a former infantry marine corps officer, both the pros and cons of this debate end of drone strikes in general hit a little closer to home and probably for the general audience. so on one hand drones are want -- they provide the capability to have new or true continuous reconnaissance coverage, didn't execute strike coverage, excuse me, strike orders based on certain criteria be met, all while removing the risk of a downed pilot scenario. by the way, inevitably which would lead to hostage rescue situations.
on the other hand, there are very real second and third order consequences from these strikes. while collateral damage first strike may be lower than the alternative, which is based on an analysis from academics as well as the cia, the potential increase in the actual strike, the overall number of strikes makes these consequences very real. because when we talk about collateral damage we should be very clear what that means, we are talking about death to civilians. each person needs to asking or herself, how many future any combatants have actually created through these actions? so clearly there is much more to account for when debating just the drone strikes. but what's much less debatable is that drones are here to stay. in fact, according to the intelligence review, the market
for military drones is expected to almost double from roughly six-point 4 billion to over 10 billion. so given this we must grapple with them, or if it's on the military, society as well as political and our legal framework. so tonight i'm truly looking forward to indent and afford the conversation on the topic. you all have biographies under chairs so please allow me to believe that introduced the panelists are so professor alberto coll is a professor of law and director of the european and latin american legal studies program at depaul university college of law. previously he served as dean at the center of naval warfare studies and principal deputy assistant secretary of defense. professor mary ellen o'connell is a professor of law at notre dame university. where she also does research at international dispute resolution. she briefly worked for the u.s. dod in germany as a professional
military educated. our moderator tonight is ambassador ivo daalder, president of the chicago council. he served as u.s. ambassador to nato. senior fellow at the brookings institute and director of european affairs at the national security council. so without further ado, ladies and gentlemen, please join me in welcoming professor coll, professor o'connell and ambassador daalder. [applause] >> thanks very much for that kind introduction and i think for setting the stage for issues that we're going to be discussing in the next hour or so, the dilemma that you have sketched out. we are not just talking about the drones that will be delivering your packages next week or that your kids are flying in our backyards. at least mine our.
we are somebody particular kind of drones, echoed that is armed and capable of inflicting harm on people who are capable of striking a military weapon. these drones were developed as part of our counterterrorism strategy. the idea of actually putting a missile on the drone came from the desire by the united states to target a single individual, osama bin laden, who was in afghanistan. this was well before 9/11. it was actually country the clinton administration, and spurred by both the agency, cia and the defense department. but encouraged very much by people inside the white house. so it was very much thought of in terms of a counterterrorism strategy. the employment of these systems in the last decade plus, at
least since 2001, has raised a whole host of issues, issues that are important for us to understand. because whether we like it or not these systems are with us. they are here today and they are likely here tomorrow and more and more people will have the capacity to decide when and how to use them. they raise fundamental issues of morality and ethics, issues of effectiveness and military strategy, and issues of the legality of the use of these weapons. particularly when it comes to killing civilians in a foreign country it but possibly also in other ways. so that's what we're going to be discussing today. in somewhat of a debate format, in the sense that the two participants here in not necessary agree on every single
point when it comes to the legality of the use of these systems. as i mentioned, unarmed vehicles, drones have been around for a while. they were used by the united states first in the military in the 1990s. they within armed for counterterrorism operations and first used in afghanistan in 2001. after using a whole variety of other theaters, besides afghanistan and pakistan, including in the middle east, and libya and yemen and other places, and it's not just the united states that has these capabilities. increasingly other countries are using and employing these weapons as well. so here's how we are going to have our discussion. i will say nothing for about 10 minutes because our two
panelists will each have five minutes of introductory remarks. we will start with professor o'connell and then move on to professor coll. professor o'connell, you have five minutes. we don't have a red light and orange light and green light, but let me tell you, we are going to try to stick to these times so we can have a full discussion. professor o'connell. >> i'm a law professor and an irish so sticking to five minutes will be challenging but we will do our best. just two years ago we were so focused on the drone. i attended a wonderful conference at loyola law school, and tom durkin is here, organize. some of you might be asking why are we still talking about drones? is an ice is the only issue on the national security agenda? i think you're right to ask that. but in my view, in the comments i want to me, i will bring these two topics together because i
link our policy of counterterrorism that soaking to focus on and use the drone as in part responsible for the rise of isis. isis came up from according to the cia nowhere but, of course, they were a round. the cia just didn't watch as it was focused on using drone killings. drones that can arise the people who are affected, not just the targets but those who have to live under the constant threat of attack. and they are open to the recruitment by groups like isis when they say the people who sent to the drones are our enemies and we're going to train you to fight them. in fact, the drone has become the single biggest recruiting tool for islamic terrorist organizations since guantánamo was used for that purpose.
now it may be the actual success of places itself. reliance on drones has distracted the u.s. from pursuing other more effective counterterrorism measures. drones have distracted the cia from the job of intelligence gathering and drones are associated with destabilizing the government we need in place to oppose groups like isis. the focus on drones squanders precious resources that could be used to accomplish far more good especially in establishing conditions for greater global security. drone used models violence. in defiance of the rule of law as an acceptable means to a accomplish positive goals. in a world awash with conflict, the u.s.'s failure to develop alternatives to the unlawful use of drones has helped give rise to groups like isis. let me very briefly lay out the
law i'm talking about that we have defied in using drones, and then spent a very brief moment with more evidence on the negative consequences of that defiance of law. as ivo said, the drones were talking about tonight are military weapons only. they fired a hellfire missile. they're designed, the ones we use, the reaper which is the main draw in our arsenal now, fires only one weapon, a hellfire missile. it was designed by lockheed to kill thanks. this is not a police weapon. if you're going to use a weapon like that, outside the united states, you have debate rules of the united nations charter. these are the rules for the resort to military force that are binding on the conflict the united states which is a full party to the united nations and to these treaties and other rules of international law.
the charter says that all use of military force is prohibited, with two narrow exceptions that are in the charter itself. the security council can authorize force, which it did most recently in libya in 2011, or a state may use force in self-defense to an armed attack. if an armed attack occurs, that's what the charter says, and for such time as him until such time as the security council enters and helps to defend the country. so when the united states went to war in afghanistan after 9/11 on october 7, 2001, we did so on the basis of article 51 self-defense under the u.n. charter. that's what our letter to the security council sent. but it doesn't end there. not only do you have to have an armed attack as we did with the 9/11 attack, but your use of force in self-defense must be --
must be to the principal. it has to be a last result. there can be an alternative short of military force that will achieve the defensive purpose. second, the force has to do some good. it has to accomplish the necessity of that military defensive purpose. and third, it has to be proportional. you can't kill more people, to more destruction, create the conditions for ongoing revenge in your strategy to carry out defense than was originally inflicted upon you. so this is a very narrow right to use force as self-defense. and it's against them if you're using a palm against the territory of afford sovereign state, regardless of who is a better, you have to only attack the country that is responsible for the initial trigger an attack.
the problem with using the drone in places like pakistan, yemen, somalia, those countries never attacked the united states. and what is happening and what's been the result of you is using the drone, military forced unlawful and all those countries which i contend has been the case? yemen is in far worse condition today then the first ever use of the drones are which was in december of 2002. our drone used, are constantly force against that small, fragile country helped trigger the civil war that is destabilizing the country and making a new home for isis there. i can go on and on about the other examples. what we actually did in the case of osama bin laden, we didn't get in with the tune. we use basically police tactics. we use intelligence gathering and we sent a team, a commando team apparently according to
john brennan with orders to arrest entity assisted arrest, we could -- we did use a trumpet that is a model case of how to go about countering terrorism, not military force. we've been hearing from more and more of our experts in this field that drove jews has this unlawful drug use in all these countries has at the end of the day, as of today, been counterproductive. general dan bolger just spoke at notre dame in the fall, and he said america's war on terror has been lost. the basic reason, we have been using military force which is not effective against terrorism and dictatorial governments. just last summer lieutenant general michael flynn, former head of the u.s. defense intelligence agency, said drone attacks have been a failed strategy.
on november 18, 2015, 4 former drone operators all air force veterans publicly criticized president obama's targeted killing program for inflicting heavy civilian casualties and developing an institutional culture house to the death of children and other innocents. well, when your children are being killed unlawfully in this way through drones, the families are going to send their surviving children off to an organization like isis to get revenge. but there is a better way, one that is lawful, ethical and effective. spent great. thanks very much. as a law professor at an irish person you can still stay within the time limit. appreciate that. can't a cuban law professor do the same? >> i want to thank the chicago
council for sponsoring this event come for all the hard work. and also my good colleague mary ellen. i have had the pleasure of knowing her for over 20 years. i respect her profoundly for her scholarship, and all these things would not prevent me from disagreeing with her quite vigorously. which shows that, of course, one can disagree with people very, very strongly and still admire them profoundly as i do. here's the problem, okay? we have individuals in certain parts of the world who are engaged in planning and carrying out attacks against the united states, okay? and to operate not in china, not in russia, not in iran, not in great britain or mexico when we might be able to extradite them
or we might be able to ask those governments to detain them. they operate in areas where we don't have a peaceful option of detaining them or incapacitating them. and so as a society, we have an obligation to respond to those attacks by attacking them. and that discovered by the united nations charter rule on self-defense in article 51. mary ellen talks about the self-defense against an armed attack. and, indeed, when we used drone strikes against those individuals we are responding to an armed attack. we are not respond against an armed attack by yemen or by the yemeni government, but we are responding against an armed attack on an individual operating in yemen. she did not tell you, of course, that under international law
yemen, pakistan and somalia have a legal international obligation to prevent individuals in their territory from carrying out attacks against the territory or the nationals of a state with which they are at peace. just as the united states has a similar obligation. we are obligated to prevent any individuals from carrying out attacks from u.s. territories against any nation or state with which we are at peace. now, these governments, pakistan, somalia, yemen, are either unable or in some cases unwilling because of very deep domestic political division to prevent these individuals from operating. so my question is, what are we supposed to do? do we simply cross our hand and allow them to operate with integrity and site well, they are not operating in a summit of armed conflict, a zone of armed
conflict might be syria, iraq or syria but, of course, do we allow them to operate with impunity? is that what natural law, what morality, what the law but allows? i suggest to you that when the language in the united nations charter was written in 1945, we did not have this problem. we did not have the capacity of individuals and terrorist organizations operating in these lawless areas, striking against the united states against other countries. so we have to respond. now, i agree that we have to respond using necessity, using proportionality. we may agree that sometimes perhaps we have used too many drone strikes and we might agree that maybe we have to be more selective, be more careful.
but to van drone strikes as unlawful i think makes a travesty of what international law is. international law is not a recipe for suicide. former sec of state said this at the height of the cuban missile crisis. and so last resource yes, many are a last resort because peaceful alternatives do not exist. extradition does not work. detention and arrest do not work. i find it interesting that mary ellen calls the obama, osama bin laden operation a police operation. it was not a police operation. and it was not come it was the use of u.s. military force. it was an attack, it was a combat operation against an individual who had engaged in an armed attack against the united
states. obviously, had osama bin laden surrendered, we were under a legal obligation to arrest him and bringing back to the united states. we would have done so if he did not surrender, we were there to kill him, okay? and it was a combat operation. proportionality, obviously drone strikes are designed to be proportional. sometimes they do cause collateral damage. sometimes innocent people get killed. and we could again look at how we could make some of these operations much more discriminate. we do go out of our way to make these operations very discriminatory, and we try to avoid collateral damage. we make every effort not to the individuals were present in mosques, in hospitals, and places where there's a very high likelihood of high collateral damage. we still wind up killing innocent people but i suggest to
you that if we were to use so-called police tactics, as mary ellen suggested, if we were to send you a special operations to arrest these individuals we would still have massive collateral damage. we would still wind up killing lots of innocent people because the militants against which we which wrecked the so-called police tactics would have armed supporters around them, and they would use shelters and the civilian population to force us to cause these civilian casualties. i remember very clearly of course in somalia we actually sent u.s. forces there to arrest the somali warlord. we all know what happened to eventually he mobilized his militant sympathizers are they surrounded a group of u.s. special operation forces. there was a firefight and the result was hundreds of innocent people killed.
so we have to look very closely at the question what options does the united states have in some of these cases? >> great. thanks both of you for i think pretty clear definitive statements. i'll throw out a few questions in order to get the disagreement going. i will not discourage any of you -- >> i think it's going great. >> that's right. but let's probe that disagreement a little bit. mary ellen let me start with you because i was intrigued by the idea that it was the unlawful use of force that was a big recruitment tool for isis. which seems to imply that the lawful use of force against isis would not be a big recruitment tool. and yet we know that, of course,
since september, actually since june of 2014 the united states has engaged in military action in a lawful way against isis because it was invited by the iraqi government to defend iraq against an attack from a foreign, at least came from syria, not a foreign country i don't think there's any dispute that the united states was acting on behalf of the iraqi government with the support of the iraqi government. and at the behest of the iraqi government engaged in the lawful use of force. i would submit, however, it is like a that isis you using that as a recruitment tool, because the bombs falling from aircraft as opposed to a missile from a hellfire drone might not be distinguishable, particularly to the person who is being killed.
so what is it about the unlawful use that is a recruitment tool as opposed to the use of forced? >> there's a very clear understanding among people who have been victimized by drones whether they're living in a combat zone, whether they're living in a place that has fomented an attack on the united states that they or their neighbors or their country is responsible for. there's clear understanding between that and people who believe they have done nothing to this country, and yet are being victimized. the evidence is overwhelming. political scientist collecting data, journalist collecting data have shown time and again that people living in rural pakistan who did i believe, and they are correct, that they've done anything to the united states, they are the ones who are sanctified going to be victimized we will look for a way that we can respond to events, our government will not
stand up for us. it's under the thumb of the united states and we are going to do something that we are not going to just try to live our lives and put up with this kind of business. so that's a recruitment tool, and that's, because international law, ivo, we doesn't track, it's older than u.s. law. it has built up incrementally and it really does follow a great deal of common sense. the rules, as alberto already suggested, on the use of force in the u.n. charter, these rules that alberto seems to feel we can adjust as our own u.s. policy permits, but these are rules of dating from or emerging from just war doctrine. they are very deeply ingrained in people's natural moral understanding of what is right and wrong. and people around the world have
a very instinctive and strong moral sense i think they should be free of this kind of violent attack, kind of destructive attack. and when they are on notice, the people of syria, for example, when opposition members to the government decide to take up arms and fight, he pulled throughout syria knew they were now in danger. but the people of pakistan where we have been attacking and have made some of their neighbors have made common cause with the afghan taliban, they don't see that as an attack on the united states and do not understand why they are being victimized. so that's where the recruiting, ma and i can make the same comment it even stronger terms of the human. yemen had a problem with certain the lawless terrorist groups come in there and taking
advantage of the relatively weak government, much stronger than the situation in yemen now. and in those days the united states was working with the yemen government during the clinton administration after the attack on a u.s. naval ship, uss cole in 2000 it and the fbi another response really to alberta, was been very effective in rounding up a small group of individuals who had carried out the attack. they were prosecuted. they were in jail. we took our eye off yemen and didn't give them that kind of support that week and small government needed. when we decided to invade iraq in 2003, and yes, bribes were paid. it was easy for these al-qaeda members to get out. and then at that point the u.s. was using drones regularly in yemen come and bite them in pakistan, and they were able to use these al-qaeda members in afghanistan come in yemen, were
able to use that fact to say to you want to see muslims, innocent women and children, being attacked? because when a drone strike attack, it's not like a bullet in the head. and assassination of that kind. these early strikes especially were inevitably taking 20, 30 people every time. not just the intended target but people who have nothing to do with anything that individual might have done in the past or the future. so in yemen it's a clear straight line between drone attacks which began in 2002 in november and the growth of al-qaeda in yemen. so those attacks were unlawful. people knew it, and it helped recruit to the point where isis doesn't need point to drones anymore. the fact they have been successful against u.s. backed forces from iraq and the u.s.
backed opposition and syria, it's that very success against the military might of the united states and its proxies in the area that has helped. so we are now in a very bad situation created by the failure to take the wisdom and guidance of international law, restraining the use of force with its embedded morality. follow that, maybe it takes more patience and more time, alberto, but at the end of the day the way that the british controlled their terrorism problem of the i.r.a., the way that the germans controlled their terrorism problem, and when we were having great success against al-qaeda after the 93 world trade center tower attacks come after the 98 in to see attacks, that after the 2000 uss cole we had under control. we dug our eye off the ball. we didn't do the good police
work. we didn't pay attention to detail it is in 21 and then we exacerbated that mistake through using military force declaring there's a global war on terror. that's why when we are now. you could ask but i said enough so i will say that for later. >> because we do get into a very different argument about the global war on terror versus the one instrument, and i want to stick to instrument, the centrality of the instrument in this discussion to alberto, you make the observation that we are living in a slightly different world. a world that is different than the one in 1945 when we drew up the charter in san francisco. in which we are concerned about nations going against war against nation. now we are talking to individuals who are getting, going to war against nations or
other individuals in other nations. that is the dilemma we face from international legal perspective but also from a practical seek prospective. i think you made the case. how far do we want to push this? me take the case of the united states deciding it is okay to kill american citizens in other countries. as indeed the united states did in the case of yemen, in the case of our. by the way, scott cheney was here a few months ago has written a terrific book on that dilemma. -- anwar awlaki. what is the legal justification that says it's not just a foreign individual but now an american individual who can be targeted under that policy speak with yes. i don't have a problem with
that. because american nationals to leave the united states and plan attacks against the united states become combatants. and we have a series of u.s. supreme court decisions going back to the 1940s, that very famous case of the german saboteurs. that led into the. two of them were american nationals. we have lots of german americans who at the outbreak of world war ii went to germany to be joined the german armed forces. they put on german army uniforms and they joined come and when we're fighting against them we did not say, well, we have to detain them because they are american citizens. we simply engaged in combat with them. so american nationals like mr. awlaki, believe the united states and become combatants against the united states,
basically are assuming the risk of combatants. and the president can't order that they be attacked. now, there has to be -- the president needs to have a process in which the intelligence is reviewed very carefully to determine that indeed they are combatants, they are not just preaching fiery sermons in the mosque but they are indeed engaged in planning an attack against the united states, and that intelligence should be reviewed i legal counsel in the administration. but ultimately the president under the constitution has the obligation to protect the united states against people who are planning attacks. let me make it very clear. we are not attacking simply an enemy. this is not a case of political assassination. i do not condone political assassination. i do not condone trying to kill fidel castro, who made them
enemies of the united states but you're not planning attacks against a tiny. that's the key distinction. so as combatants come individuals such as mr. awlaki, placed himself at risk and you cannot say we say to the united states, well, we have to arrest him. we can try a resting pimco mary ellen. i think it a peaceful techniques, whenever feasible. i think your analogy put out the i.r.a. in germany are inappropriate. no more than we should have killed the boston bombers. we arrested him. they are within u.s. territory. we have the appropriate legal instruments to do with them but these individuals who operate in lawless areas in which the government are either unwilling or unable to turn him over to us or to allow us to work with them, we have to be able to defend ourselves, and to the extent that the fbi was able to do this in yemen early on, i
applaud the effort. i think that's -- whatever we can, but i think we are not able to do that in every place around the world. to our places around the world with the fbi is not able to operate to bring these individuals to justice. and to also protect ourselves from the danger that they're posting. the rules i think are still there. i'm a strong believer in the relevant, a strict believer in the -- the rules of the charter of their but an armed attack is not the same thing in 1945 as a what needs to be. in other words, today aren't attacks are carried out not only by states but also by these individuals who because of technology and globalization and all kinds of development between social media are able to attack us in ways that they really could not do back 70 years ago. >> i've just come i didn't say this before and i want everyone
to understand, regardless of alberto's argument based on practicality, the world changing, the law has not changed. in 2005 the united nations held at world summit in new york city, and every member of the u.n. agreed to abide by the u.n. charter rules that i explained to you, as written. there was no exception made for this idea that was first tried it out by some think tank folks at the uk that instead of reacting -- >> nothing wrong with think tech folks. [laughter] >> we love think tech folks but we don't let them decide for our countries what international law is. and they want to allow attack based on this date been unable or unwilling to prevent terrorism.
the world community is never going to accept that. really, we are going to allow vladimir putin to decide that the ukraine is unable and unwilling to control a lawless problem? seriously? we're going to let the ayatollah khamenei decide israel is unwilling or unable. no, it doesn't work as a general and it will never be adopted and nobody gives the u.s. an exceptional right to decide who is unable or who is unwilling to control their lawlessness. they say it's a lawless in yemen, or alberto does, that is not the view within human. yemen gets to control its own country. and attacked the lawlessness you find there today has a lot to do with us. so if we get back to being a cooperative supportive country helping to build the rule of law, supporting criminal justice, we would be able to do this extradition, deporting the methods that did work in the uk
and in germany and in the united states itself. regardless of what works or doesn't work, the law does not permit what alberto is suggesting. if scott was here unsure he would talk about his new book which is focused on anwar awlaki. one of the most interesting points that he makes this this very technology is driving people to think that what you can do with it must be lawful. you've got the capacity, you want to use it and, therefore, that's clouding your clear idea to what the law and morality of the law required. his care for reporting showed that anwar awlaki was no combatants. he was guilty of propaganda end of inducing people to commit terrible crimes, perhaps, though he was never tried to that in a court of law as opposed inside the white house. and he makes i think a very
strong case that anwar awlaki was killed out of revenge. not because it was lawful under our constitution under the human rights treaties that we are committed to under the u.n. charter that this country, our president franklin delano roosevelt wrote. so this is an example of how careful you have to be with technologies like the drone that makes it so easy with very little risk to the country itself not putting their own individuals in harm's way. asking them to pay the price and patience, persistence resourcefulness in doing the right thing. but look at, it may have some short-term benefit but really long-term costs. that's absolutely the isis story. don't have any or haven't been
listening. but as you come back on this point, the international law and the dilemma that viewpoint. co. paid -- dilemma that you paid for example the humanitarian law in the responsibility to protect 2,200 world leaders also accepted as a concept we haven't agreed with to do about it but that's true for most of the things that we do under the law. how does the international law change. >> it reflects customary practices. the professor thomas frank was a wonderful scholar of international and a strong supporter of the rule internationally and argued very convincingly to the last decade of his life that for this
absolute prohibition of the united nations charter on the use of force have had to be interpreted in light of what actually was going on in the world and nobody would accuse them that he said look, you have to recognize the use of force is not simply conventional armies invading another state as saddam hussein did when he invaded kuwait so what we have here is a serious problems with regards to russia and ukraine. if you allow the groups in the territory to carry out attacks against russia, russia would have legitimate grounds for holding the ukrainian government to its international responses.
from launching in the territory against another state when they don't exercise that responsibility, you cannot expect another state to say it might take ten years, we are going to try to address them in situations where that is not practical. if it's practical, yes we need to do it. and so, i think that we need to understand that the united states of course you can look at the policy and say how we can improve it and maybe there've been too many of these attacks. but to argue that this technology is simply unacceptable i think deprives us of very legitimate means to exercise our right to self-defense against individuals who are planning attacks. i think there was a lot of intelligence. he wasn't simply just a preacher, he was involved in operational planning activities and i think that was part of the intelligence that led president
obama to authorize his killing. so we have to look at these issues and say that states have a right to defend themselves and this is not simply a matter of discarding the rules that are international but recognizing that they have to be applied and not just restraining the use of law but allowing it to be used to justify self-defense and legitimate situations. >> at this point, i want to go to the audience. please put up your arm and we will have someone bring the microphone. one of the things we like about it when you ask questions is that you actually ask a question so we can have as many people as possible participate. right here up front wait for the microphone. there you go. >> thank you. i teach university level courses entrepreneurism.
the question i have is a question of fact whether or not before 1945 considerable nonstate actors that involve attacks on civilians and government when things beginning of world war i for example but also the people's will and russia and a whole host of other examples and how does that fit into your factual statement in 1945 dot the wall was based on the nationstates and presumably the changing? >> the capabilities just were not there. you could mention, for example, the fact that in serbia, there were people that hated hungary and they came from of those groups, okay? but there wasn't the ability to systematically organize and
carry out attacks against transnational boundaries across-the-board justices as there is today. very different situation. >> they absolutely did have groups in mind. there are provisions in the international humanitarian law of course that were built on the spanish civil war where there was plenty of capacity by the nonstate actor groups to carry out an awful lot of violence. so, in fact as the capacity and technology becomes more and more widespread, it's good to become incumbent if you're going to have any kind of sense of order and restraining of the rule of law to raise the taboo against this kind of violence to ever more stick to the rule of law as agreed in the community and not take these interpretations that meets your needs at the moment but don't have the idea of how we are going to raise in
people's minds that violence is beyond the pale and that you do have the possibility of being part of a government that gives you a voice. the emphasis by alberto that somehow you don't have a right of self-defense, yes you do that again, for the united states to treat somebody like our lucky as a combatant and use the law that was created to defend the country marvel on the invasion of poland, that's where we are getting things wrong and we are not understanding the lessons of history. thanks for your point. >> just very briefly, when we attack our lucky we are not attacking the country, we are attacking him. >> that's not what they think. of course they are attacking the
country -- frankly that is the dilemma that if you are attacking individuals in your own country is one thing if they are in another country that is when the dilemma exists. so the question is is it a combatant or not which may be or may be not. but let me bring up another person. >> i'm president of robo watch. you talk about the technology of the drone. let me ask you what it is committed as a flying robots of death. now, have we not censored a dangerous inconvenient presence of killer robots eliminating certain human beings and they
will continue to evolve by moore's law doubling the capacity every 18 months how long will it be? think about the unintended secondary consequences in the future of allowing robots to become bringers of after human beings. >> thank you very much for that comment because one of the things they didn't have time to talk about is what is happening next in the laboratories in the united states hard at work on what we call the fully autonomous robotic weapon and this will allow us to program a drone to attack it sometime in the distant future, years after the programming on printers that the programmer today thinks are important and through using sensor technology and other
means that are also being developed, the robotic weapon carries out its lethal task. that is a big problem in my mind, this technology isn't the subject of a un review in the part of the article 33 review process, and there is a strong effort to try to create a rule that fully autonomous robotic weapons wouldn't be permitted so there always has to be a human being in the near time decision to kill and i support that. but what i support even more is understanding that the best way we are not going to -- the history of arms control is that we are not going to stop the invention. the way we succeeded in the past is creating legal barriers to use. the prohibition on the use of the nuclear weapon, the
prohibition on the use of chemical weapons, the prohibition on the use of laser weapons, that is what has succeeded so we need a legal prohibition on robotic weapons and we need to restrict the use of drone technology with the missiles to the armed conflict zones and not too policing matters. >> i think we are in danger of confusing tuitions. one is technology that is unsupervised. i agree with the professor that absolutely we don't want a situation which weapons are themselves making decisions, but right now that's what the situation. right now they are fully controlled by the president. they are under the full command. there is no robotic drone on its own deciding who to target. so let's not be overly dramatic about this issue. the second thing i want to say is with regards to policing, if
the american people want to have a conversation and decided that we want to ban drones along with other states as we might ban chemical weapons or biological weapons, that is a very legitimate conversation between me to be aware of what the costs will be, which are different from the cost of banning chemical weapons. the cost will be that we will be vulnerable to attack by these individuals who will then not operate within the armed conflict zone somewhere else. and they will have impunity to plan and attack against us in areas he will not be held to get the governments to do that if we want to decide that it is acceptable that is a decision for us to make but i think that
right now the idea is that somehow we could allow these individuals to find areas in the world where they could operate for this is not a combat area we cannot attack them is morally appropriate. >> if we don't have drones we can't do anything about the terrorist threat. we did plenty about the threat before we had drones so that is -- >> i disagreed with. >> we have plenty that we can do and we are not saying the legitimate use of the drones on the battlefield have been as we heard from the introducer they can be in a close combat engagement situation where you know you are engaging to set the fighting forces where they then
aren't balanced and nobody does this counterproductive to go after a single individual with a suspected. we don't allow that to the united states. we have plenty of people plotting things here as we know. and by your logic we should be using these invaluable drones to fly around after them. to say that we can do this in this small list of countries is to say that somehow those countries don't deserve the same respect of the rest of the countries in the world and we are in no position in the international law to make the claims but my objection is for painting this black-and-white extreme that if we don't use the attacks we can't do anything. >> in many ways we cannot do
anything in certain places of the world and that's where i draw the distinction there are many places in the world they don't operate because even though they may not like us they do not allow attacks against us. >> but you do agree that international law doesn't say to the u.s. you can pick the countries where you want to and where you are allowed. an international law it doesn't say that. >> it does say states have the responsibility to prevent them from being used. >> and to say that it's the right response to the country that isn't fulfilling its obligation and not doing its duty of the gems that country is responsible for the attack on the u.s., we have to work through countermeasures, sanctions or cooperations to get them into line. >> i will just raise what happened in october of 2001 as a counterexample which is to say a terrorist organization trained and operated from the counties
and attacked the united states and our invasion of that country was designed precisely to go after the individuals that were responsible for this because the government explicitly failed to take care of it so the issue was to use military force as we did in afghanistan or when we didn't have the attacks that wouldn't have been very effective. >> they are somewhat different plan we went to war in afghanistan, the british had produced a detailed white paper that pointed out purposes of the international law and analysis into the link between the taliban government and al qaeda and its training camps and it was on is on the basis of the u.s. and britain made their cases in a pair of letters that went forward and pointed out the
rule of law but i'm emphasizing here that afghanistan was responsible for the attack. subsequently we know that the british have a problem with cooking the book as they do in 2003 as as most of the factual case that they had made the to the international community accepted as the proper legal basis going to war in afghanistan under article 51 as self-defense was weak and to our great regret because of how many years to years do we fight. what is happening in afghanistan today was also a case and if you read one's right to the tower we would have been far better off if we had taken a very different strategy than the wholesale force but it was our understanding that we were fully income clients with. >> i think we will have questions but the issue here is
really not about drones that it's about under what circumstances do we use the force to do with terrorism. >> is germany the only foreign country for which the united states launches the strongholds? >> no. we have the drone bases in about a half a dozen countries now but the only european country as you probably know if in fact negating whether germany is complicit as a result of supporting and providing intelligence and locations and i've expected that they would end of that on and that on that complicity and the unlawful conduct. >> as far as i am aware of the drones being used for part of this is a part of the basis.
>> the question is whether or not is there was another place that the american bases on site with germany that isn't one of the placesright here up front. >> congratulations. i'm more confused now about who is right and ever so he we will argue on both sides. two questions one in terms of the things you mentioned is the degree of the absurdity in the administrative or intelligence agency would need to have two authorize the force and that is the ultimate question so how do we define that degree of absurdity and to go deeper into that is very well documented that essentially machine
learning algorithms have been used to essentially indicate potential threats moving forward and that in and of itself has been used to authorize legal force so i would like to get your thoughts on that. and professor, let's not kid ourselves. cnn is okay with us launching drones in their country and whether it is or not can't pakistan in the same right if we were doing them a favor we may have encouraged them to do more in their own right but can't you talk a little bit about where
the u.s. is launching these strikes on individuals with either explicit or implicit kind of agreement and the host nation >> the attorney general have tried to articulate to the american public some of those standards. the standard is simply speech, it's not the fact that somebody is the enemy of the united states. it's the fact that the person in question is participating in action supporting the planning and the carrying out of an attack against the united states and that is on the basis of intelligence and the evidence has to be multi-sourced it can't just be one human intelligence thing.
and then that is studied very carefully to the level of planning and participating in an attack against the united states and international standard is reviewed by the legal counsel within the executive branch and so i think those are reasonable standards. and obviously we have to continue to subject them to scrutiny and demanded that the president does abide by the standards that we are not talking simply about speech. we are not talking about simply taking a political position, we are talking about specific steps taken by an individual plan and participate in attacks against the united states. >> so, the content of a country where we might be using military force. first the fact with regards to pakistan there's an excellent
new book by the pakistani international lawyer and he has detailed information about the obstruction within pakistan. it's very clear from his book and from my own independent research that the united states has never had the clear authorization of the president of the elected president of pakistan. we have had some cooperation and some quid pro quo negotiating. that kind of deal making which is offensive i hope to every american from the isi and from some members of the military and in pakistan, this is like asking the cia come if mexico were to ask the cia if they can kill some of their drug lords who are here in miami on vacation because it would be an easier place to send a drone to where they are now having a good time
on the water off miami because they can't control the borders and we've heard that from plenty of people recently, so can the cia give authorization? we have given them drones. this is the same as asking for permission to kill people on their territory. so that's pakistan. everything we did in november of 2002 the first use outside of the battles on was to kill six people in the passenger vehicle on the road in yemen. as far as i know they decided that al qaeda was the real deal and found its way and wasn't his vehicle was the intended target
the cia operating out of djibouti sent a drone and sent to missiles into the vehicle. the cia flights and flies and individuals down to the site and takes the na to prove they got their guy. this is the situation that alberta was talking about and yes we have the indirect okay for that. as far as i know they can give their okay to deny the basic and fundamental human right to life. there was no conflict going on in the country that he invited us into help the press as we been invited into iraq and into afghanistan after hamid karzai came to cover those are the basis on which we used the force for 12 years in afghanistan and are using force in iraq right now. we had consented to suppress the civil civil war in its direction.
but that isn't what was going on in yemen so we got permission to violate the fundamental human right to life. i don't think that he had permission the permission to give, so so much for the consent >> the gentle man in the back. >> i think that this would be kind of short. you mentioned that the basis for the strike is the governments inability of the willingness to control its own territory. as a result of the drug overdoses thousands of more were killed indirectly. that's more than dave killed in all streets over the last 100 years. mexico is the primary source for those drugs. they may be willing that they are unable to control the portions of the territory particularly in the south.
so i wonder if you feel that they are a legitimate tactic to use in mexico and if not, why not? what is the legal difference? spinnaker is a fundamental legal difference. they kill people but so does air pollution and for this cancer masuda's reckless driving. what happens with regards to mexico and drugs coming to the country is a matter fit for the criminal law. it is a criminal activity. it is not the sponsorship and using weapons against the united states. >> so it is probably the motivation of the attack -- >> there's a distinction between using an armed attack and simply exporting to a country substances that may cause people who wish to consume the product
great harm including death, two different things create no more than the united states. when the export of cigarettes to a foreign country and that they cause cancer and that causes people to die that would be justified. a significant difference. the armed attack been something very different than simply selling substances that may cause harm. >> i think that the aspect of your point is how this thinking about drones is diluting the idea of when and where you can use guidelines and when not. in july of 2001, the ambassador said that this country was morally and legally opposed to the targeted killings. and now we do it without hesitation. they bring to the white house that this guy might be planning
something in the future and he is in an area they will kill maybe six or seven people around him, let's kill them. we used to think that i was wrong and now for the modicum of what turns out to be false security, we think that's okay so why not the drug lord plaques why not the reckless driver, he knew when he went out and he didn't make arrangements to get home why can't we just pull out a gun and kill that guy? we see this view into different contexts of its affected the police forces, but they've been militarized. we've taken the violence as acceptable. and the leadership from the white house, learning the threshold that we think is beyond the pale is causing
exactly the kind that you are worried about in the question. >> i think the framework that mary ellen is giving us would leave us unable to respond to the very serious threat posed by individuals and groups in the united states and the rules of international law were not intended to prevent the united states from defending itself. i think they would tell you that all of them say that there has to be the means by which the law recognizes that the ever more creative ways have to be the means of responding to that and it also provides some individuals will know that if they operate in certain parts of the outcome of planning attacks against the united states they
can be subjected to destruction. that's important and that is a part of the sinful world. >> i think we live in a complicated world in which even if we agree with what the rules are compelled to apply them in what circumstances and what purpose is content just -- contentious. it's been civilized which is good. i know we won't end despite disagreement, with agreement, but i do think that we will end it by thinking both of you for elucidating some of the difficulties. [applause]
c-span, c-span radio and c-span.org. hillary clinton was out at las vegas hosted by the international union of north america. after being introduced by catherine cortez, the democratic attorney general, mrs. clinton talked about her background in labor and other domestic policy areas including health care and after, she greeted voters. polls show a close race between former secretary of state and senator bernie sanders. [cheering] ♪ ♪
i have the honor serving as your attorney general for eight years. [cheering] and now i'm running for the united states senate to continue solving the problems that we face every day trade three of the trade that i was hell you want. on saturday, i am caucusing for hillary. [cheering] she is the champion that we need to address the challenges we face every day. she knows or issue. she's here and i just told her to sin, my grandfather came from mexico because of his courage and the hard work of my parents, my sister and i were to person the person or family to graduate from college. i will tell you what, passing comprehensive immigration reform
is not just important to me. it's important to all of you. and hillary is fighting for that for all of us. [cheering] i will tell you what would be just say this, thank you all for getting out and caucusing and being a voice but most important, but we introduce you to the next president of the united states, hillary clinton. [cheering] thank you very much. i sure hope that catherine will be our next united states senator because i'm going to meet her when i'm in the white house to do the work that we want to get done. i want to thank the laborers for having us at their homes. i love seeing those orange shirts everywhere i go. thank you. i appreciate your endorsement because you know i'm on your
side. i always have been, i always will be, i'm going to fight for the workers and the union's and the kind of wages and working conditions that you deserve. [cheering] i have some friends with me. you just heard from catherine and you also heard from the most dynamic labor secretary that gets up every day and goes to work trying to figure out how to enforce the labor law so that you don't get disadvantaged in the marketplace that you have your rights protected. so thank you for being here with me. i want to thank the members of congress that are here with me, congresswoman martha in ohio, and a great leader in the united states congress, you know, the congressional black caucus
endorsed me and made my day and month and year and another great champion and advocate who's been in the front line fighting our battles, the congresswoman from california. i'm going to invite them off when i finish so you can get a look at them because they are dynamic and there's somebody else that i want you to meet. you know, we take for granted in other things in our country but one thing that took years to realize was forming a union for farmworkers. chavez and dolores who is here with us. [cheering] she is an icon of american history. she never gave up, she never gave in and she made it possible
for farmworkers and their families to have better wages, better living and working conditions. she is one of my dearest friends and i'm so proud she is here campaigning for me. thank you for your lifetime of work. you've got to see the town hall, right? [cheering] i love answering questions and making it clear where i stand and what i'm going to do as your president. [cheering] i am going to fight for you because we have to knock down every barrier that is holding america back. there are economic barriers. i know i'm against. i've been very clear about that. i'm going to stop the bad actors from ever writing the economy and i know how to do that and i have the plan people say is the toughest and most comprehensive to do it. but after you finish saying
let's stop the bad stuff from happening without making some good stuff happened? thought of creating more jobs for hard-working americans and raising income and defending unions, how about maintaining the preview and wage and making sure that every american has a chance to fulfill his or her dream by making sure there is the very near that holds you back and it's not just economic but we have to knock down, we have to go after the barriers that still leave people behind. we have to go after systemic racism and we have to go after the treatment of women. we have to nick shortly don't have very years that prevent the lg dt -- lg bt community from getting ahead and we have to
defend a woman's right to make her own health care decisions and defend planned parenthood. we've got to fight for and achieve comprehensive reform with a path to citizenship. [cheering] we have our work cut out for us. i'm always a little bit bewildered with when somebody says while why are all of these unions supporting you? most of the building trade and the public sector union public sector union is because i have worked with them. i have led fights for them. i am no johnny come lately to this. i didn't just to discover that unions were under pressure from the republicans in the right. i didn't just wake up one day and say my goodness, workers are
being mistreated on the front lines. i represented new york for eight years. i was there day in and day out fighting against the obstruction and the barriers but the business and the right wing and republicans were putting up. i've been taking on the centrists for my entire life. before there was obamacare they called it hillary care. i tried to get us universal coverage. the stories i heard literally made me sick and i will tell you just one. i went to the children's hospital in cleveland to meet the parents of sick kids to figure out what they were up
against and they all told me this was back in 93 and 94 when they were totally in charge that they couldn't get health care coverage. it didn't matter what they could pay they still couldn't fight it. they were disqualified because of pre-existing conditions and one man said to me i am successful, i've done well. i provide healthcare for my employees and their families but i can't buy it from itunes authors who have cystic fibrosis. i said what did they tell you and he said while i go and show them my financial statement and the medical records and i say i just need a little help here and what do they say? will tell you the last one said to me he said you don't understand, we do not ensure burning houses. the man looked at me with tears in his eyes and said they called my little girls burning houses. so after we were not successful, i got to work to help create the insurance program that provides
coverage for 8 million kids. [cheering] that wasn't everything but i know a little bit about how you make progress. i'm a progressive catholics to make progress. i want to get things done and preserve results. i want to make a difference in your lives. [cheering] so i was pleased when they signed the act for the first time our country had a path to universal coverage where 90% am going to build on it and get costs down. i'm going to go after the drug companies again to get the prescription drug costs down. we will go after them to get medicare and the authority to negotiate for lower prices and i'm going after those price or is in the companies and companies that are upping the price for or 5000%. when i get done with them they won't be able to put over the
health of patients and customers ever again. [cheering] it's important for you to know that the republicans want to appeal the affordable care act and go back to those days that we are all at the mercy of insurance companies. they want to throw us into a contentious national debate about health care. first of all, i don't think we need that. we need to work on the economy. we need rising incomes. we need to make sure that we get equal pay for women, long overdue. [cheering] and here's my comment on this. we are at 90%. now, i think to get from 90% to 100% is easier than to starve her to start over to get from zero to 100.
and a lot of people can't wait. people can't wait. they can't take a risk for what they've achieved here so i will make sure that it works for the reasons why i oppose the cadillac plan tax because i don't want people that have good healthcare to lose their good health care. i want everybody to have better health care. so, there's a lot i want to get done and i can't do it without your help. i believe our country is still the greatest country in the history of the world. i'm not going to spend my time insulting americans believe some of the republicans do. i'm not going to spend my time being pessimistic about america. we have always rolled up our sleeves and that's what we are going to do again. if we are able to have an
election that's about real change and not promises you can't keep it real change in by going to the white house with a mandate for that change i hope i go in with a senate that is turned democrat because you were going to elect catherine to keep that democratic. i know that we have to work on a lot of different issues. i'm not a single issue candidate because this isn't a single issue country, my friend. and i will tell you something else. it's not enough to just elect a president because you are collecting a commander in chief. you have to deal with whatever comes our way. that is one of the most solemn responsibilities that i will take good care of the men and
women in uniform and their families. [cheering] i will fix what is wrong with the va can fix the health system, getting the benefits actually delivered instead of being hung up in paperwork for years, but i will not let the republicans privatize the va. i'm not going to see our veterans throwing out into the marketplace to have to fend for themselves. i won't let them privatize social security. [cheering] i will make college affordable and get the burden down so more young people can get on with their lives. [cheering] i'm confident and optimistic about the country. that doesn't mean that i'm unaware of the problems. i have lived with them for years and worked with them for years but ideally enough, i believe
that we can get this done. i know we can with the right leadership to build on the progress of president obama to go further to make it clear that we are going to have the best days of america ahead of us if we all work together. [cheering] i can't do any of that without your help so here's what i'm asking you. i love your enthusiasm. it gets me pumped up even though it is a little chilly out here tonight. i didn't prepare for the cooler nights of las vegas three at any jew to caucus at 11 a.m.. how many of you already know where your site is? have many of you can bring friends, relatives, neighbors?
go to a hillaryclinton.com/nevada and we'll tell you where to go. you have to get there, you can sleep in. sleep in the next day. you've got to get there and you've got to be patient because you have to wait a little while. they divide up. but we've got the townhall tonight. [inaudible] [inaudible] you are the future of our country and we have to make sure that it's a good future so you've got to be there at 11 a.m. because not being there and supporting the campaign you are helping me begin to break
down these very years. you are helping me make it clear that we are going to bring progress together and i said in the townhall i'm a progressive who wants to make progress. i want us to understand what he we can do together and here's how i judge my success. our people better off when i ended and where i started and i want you to hold accountable the reason i'm not just making speeches or promising free this and that and everything. [cheering] [cheering] [chanting "hillary!] i want you to hold me accountable. i want you to remember i was here tonight and i told you i was going to do. i put all of my plans out on the
website and told you how much it would cost. i have too much respect for the american people. i want you to know exactly what i will do and how i will do it because i want you to be part of this. being elected is obviously the first big step. but doing the work, talking to the american people, which i will do every day that i'm president, i want you to know what we are doing them how much progress and what i want you to help me as president to get things done because together, together, we are going to live up to our dreams. we are going to live in accordance with our values here at home and around the world. i'm excited by this. i'm energized, i'm ready. i need you to make this journey with me. thank you, nevada. [cheering]
is a great day in the south carolina? we are so excited that you are here today and i want to share a personal story with you. you know i love the great state of south carolina and you know that i always say i'm the proud daughter of indian parents that reminded us every day of how blessed we are to live in this country but the one thing i always know is i'm always trying to take care of south carolina. and last year, we faced a year where i tried to hold onto the state as much as i could and for the first time, i felt vulnerable and the people in south carolina made us all strong. [applause] they made us strong in a way that they knew we had to fight. in a way that we knew we had
grace and we had compassion and the acceptance and more than anything, we had the ability to be better when tested so that when it was time to look at this presidential race, i thought from a different perspective this is serious that this matters. so i thought first and foremost as a mom who wants her children to be safe in our country and wants her children to have the education and opportunities they can be better than we were such as what my parents wanted for us in the military wife of a combat veteran [applause] i want a president that will have will have the back of the military veterans and those in active duty. [applause] i want a president who knows when we fight the war we win.
[applause] i want a president that understands we have to stop the federal mandates that have been pushed on to states like obama care. [applause] but i want a president who understands that they have to go back to washington, d.c. and bring a conscience back to the republicans. [applause] republicans need to remember what we are about, which is about balance the budget, cutting debt building reserves and making sure they understand that this guy is all about term limits and that is what we want to see with the president. [applause] we have good people in this
race, we have good people running for president and i think them today for the sacrifice and willingness to serve to honor this great country and to make her better. but my job was to find the person that i thought could do with the best so i wanted somebody with fight, somebody with passion. i wanted somebody that had a conviction to do the right thing i wanted somebody that is humble enough that remembers that you work for all the people and i wanted somebody that was is going to go and show my parents the best decision they made for their children was coming to america. [applause] [cheering] we say that everyday is every day is a great day in south carolina. [cheering] ladies and gentlemen, if we elect marco rubio, every day
will be a great day in america. [cheering] help me welcome the next president of the united states, let's go to the polls on saturday. marco rubio! [applause] >> first i can't tell you how honored i am to have the support of your governor because there's a lot of great people we have a field of candidates. none of our candidates is a socialist. [applause] none of our candidates is under fbi investigation. but i am so honored that you chose to join our team because she embodies everything that i want the republican party and the conservative movement to be about. and i've enjoyed being here in south carolina the last ten days. we spent a lot of time here.
it's about the halfway point of the the drive and as we always stop spend a lot of time here and a little bit of money. i learned quickly do not pick sides between ufc and clemson. [laughter] i have learned fidel is the finest military college in the world. [applause] and last year the country learned what an inspiration south carolina is for all of us because as the governor said, you had a tough year between floods and tragedies. any other state and community in the country reacted very differently to these things that the state came together in a way that serve as an example to the nation. i want you to understand that for someone that doesn't live here, moved and inspired the nation was when the families of people who lost their loved ones in a horrible trash at the went
on national television and said that they would forgive those killers, forgive the killer. it wasn't just about living out our faith is with about living our values. south carolina taught that the country this year's it's been rewarding to be here and spend the last ten straight days working alongside so many wonderful people on our team. the governor going to go talk about the decision that her parents need to come here. when they came to the united states they didn't know anyone or have any money. ..