tv U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN June 11, 2010 1:00pm-6:30pm EDT
>> i guess, the big question is, why has anyone -- why has not anyone been fiied? >> in terms of the process, forward, we have rules and regulations as i mentioned, there are other findings including findings against the deputy superintendent that will be he has chosen to retire. his retirement is imminent. we felt that the actions against them with respect to the letter of reprimand, with respect to the taking away of his supervisory authority as well as their review of potential monetary awards he may have received are appropriate
given the context and the content of the findings. there is nothing that precludes further action, but that is subject to the discharge of the disciplinary procedure. >> this sounds extraordinarily lenient, to lead the superintendent retired and to put the deputy superintendent on administrative leave. if this is such a massive failure, why hasn't someone said, you are not retiring. you are gone. cannot your desk. >> first of all, the graves have not been described against any individual. second of all, as i said, we have a process within the united states army by which e need to go forward in terms of
discipline. that is ongoing. i do not think it is accurate or fair to say what has or has not3 this was a report that was received on tuesday. we continue to work it to and the contemplation of a disciplinary proceeding across the board are continuing. >> has anybody in the past or is anybody in the future going to look into who in the army knew what and when they knew it. we have an army facility which oversees arlington national cemetery and there is certainly a senate -- a general there. is anybody going to look into whether army officials knew or should have known about these problems? >> i will leave the fuller legal response to whitcomb -- to
general whitcomb. when you have a chance to go to the website and look at the stand up order i have issued with respect to the new supply rise reposition, i think you will see a pretty detailed- supervisory position, i think you'll see a pretty detailed description of what i expect the new supervisor to follow for work with. that would be a place where we would find out if any indication of those kinds of things exist. again, this is the end of the failures, but it is not the end of what we are learning in our way forward. this would be going on for some time. we felt it was important in the sense of full disclosure and i
think that those of you who have been due similar circumstances would agree that it is totally unprecedented to post the document in their entirety. we want to be as transparent as possible. we want to be fair with the media, but more importantly to show that we are deadly serious about fixing this. >> you said the majority of the cases were in 1959 and 1966. >> i do not know what years. we do not necessarily fill rose by year. -- rows by year. >> we cannot tell you that which
we do not know. it is the place where fallen are being interred and honored. it is a little unique in that past sections were not as much. when you have a question or discrepancy about the site and the presence of remains, it is+ pretty difficult to give a date. >> the mistakes or discrepancies did not occur during the internment, but then years later when things are knocked over or records got lost, it was not like there was a problem with the burial. >> not from anything we've found during the investigation.
the cases we found -- one of the cases we found is that you can have a coffin and if the other person is cremated -- we have had several cases where we have k, where the urn was scooped up and put in an area where and fill in after the ceremony is over. in a couple of cases, we found burial earns that had been exhumed in and put in this village piles. -- spillage piles. part of the ongoing process, and not all cases have they been marked. i had no idea that they should
be at the head of the coffin or the foot. those are systemic things that we can make that determination to where it goes. there are standards. it all depends on where they go. a headstone improperly placed maybe something has easily fixable as a misspelled name or a date. reports. i brought this to their attention years ago and it has not been fixed. those are combinations of
efforts, but no indication that the point of burial mistakes were made. >> when you are dealing with cemetery operation that has been activated for more than 140 years, there could be any number of reasons why a discrepancy occurs. our interest is to discover those reasons where we can, but more importantly to try to match and bring that baseline of assurance. >> i promised -- >> do you have an estimate at this time when the families and the public can be assured that everyone is where they should >> over 300,000 grave sites from 1864, i do not know if
anyone can assure everyone that circumstances are perfect. i think you can say that about any cemetery in america. but we can tell the family members is that we will make every effort to ensure and examine every possible technology and approach and system by which we can achieve that. as i said, we want to ensure that from today forward, we are doing this inappropriate fashion and one which does not cause questions in a similar nature to arrive. for those family members, and this is important, you may have a question about their level. for the vast majority of grave sites, we feel with predicted confidence that there are not issues. things have occurred and where
they have a question, they should call 703-607-8000, press 0. register any questions and concerns so that if we do not have the answers immediately, we will do everything we can to develop them. >> we have time for tomorrow. for more. >> this gets to the peace of the issue. we are proud and impressed with the ceremonies that take place are together within hours of
each other are conducted. every single internment at arlington, the 27 or so today, are done -- that was part of it. from that stunned, i think that is impressive. -- from that standpoint, i think that is impressive. this is a final act for our fallen or their family members, that we participated in a ceremony and that is the first place.
that is the first reassurance that their loved one is being escorted and taken care of properly. we see that all the time. the most depressing part is that -- >> just to give some context do that. i attend every funeral when a soldier falls in afghanistan and iraq. i was there on monday for the most recent internment. i will be there tomorrow for the next. as i stood there at the grave site of the -- within seconds of ofh other, i heard tivoli's 21-gun salutes. this shows the case that these
employees have been laboring under and yet to, as the inspector general noted, that they were done in a way in which every one of those family members in those three services felt that their hero was being properly and knowledge. the staff has done an amazing job and i want to say that after we have concluded this event, we will go down to our intent and we will hold a town hall meeting with the staff to make that very clear. tomorrow, arlington and needs to discharge its duties. tomorrow, it will provide appropriate honors to 30 fallen heroes and pay respects to their families. that is job number one. it warms one heart and a very sad way to see that kind of
tribute, understanding the enormous sacrifice. >> what needs addressed directly? what were their shortcomings specifically? >> it is posted on the website along with the other documents. offthose will be my letter of admonishment to mr. mets zler. as to thurman higginbotham, there is a due process that he is entitled to and we are falling forward with that. it is a custom and appropriate to that we provide to him his due as to presumptions of
innocence and we will talk about what he did and what he is accused of and what he will be found failing score until that is completed. thank you very much. >> congress has completed legislative work for the wheat and returns monday. the senate continues on a 140 that billion dollars -- billion dollar bill to extend tax breaks. the house will work on a $30 billion fund to get banks to lend to small business and legislation to limit corporate campaign donations. live coverage of the house on c-
span. at 2:30, the assistant attorney general for national security talks about u.s. coonter- terrorism policy. we will have live coverage from the brookings institution. this week, david cameron takes questions on election reform and the british mission in iraq and afghanistan. sunday night at 9:00 on c-span. and that day, at 2:30, the assistant attorney general for national security talks about u.s. counter-terrorism policy. we will have live coverage from the brookings institution. this week, british prime minister david cameron takes question -- this weekend, as chicago tribune live on c-span to. today's of paddles, and argues, and call ends. -- bay discussion on -- a
discussion on anwar al-awlaki and gave sermons attended by the 9/11 hijackers. he is now on a list of terrorist suspects targeted for a rest or assassination. this is an hour and 10 minutes. >> good ternoon and welcome to the crneeendowment. i'chris bozic, patof the middle east program here at carnegie. i like twelcome everyone here today and ur viwers on c-san to what i think will be a very stimulating and informative discussion about anwa al-awlaki. our dia in theast seeral months, includingeing linked were accused of being linked to the for hod sugar last
november and the christmas day attack with ties reaching bak to yem. so today we re two great speakers, chris heffelfinger who is going to speak first and scotshanhere chris is a consultant with the comating terrorism center west point as well as for thebi and his auor of the forthcoming book about radical islam in aera. chris is going topeak for about 15 or 20 miute and then scottshane will speak. scott is national security reporter for "the new yo times. i'd li to ask everyone to tu off your phon hey ll interrupt and disrupt the speaker d the auio system. also, during the q& i'd lke each of you who askeda question to please identify yourself and you phrase your question in the form of a question. with that, chris, thank you >> well, first ever tohank you foorganizing this. it's certainly an important
topic right now. it's oneore and more people have started to follow since last novembe so i would likto start really- i like to cover three things ithe next 15 minutes if i can. first of all give a brief overview of his biography, what hesaw, thank you -- and try to account for his popularity. white we are talking about it today. in the fir place, why is he unique. secondly it ike to talk about northe virginia and going about a dcade. itas i thin maybe the scene of some of the activists seem that not all ofus are that familiar wh and i think the context of what theas preaching, just ldingp to 9/11 and throughthose critical years in u.s. up until 20 the context of backdrop for those are important, so i'd like to provide some of that. dlastly, iwant to talk about his role in relationshipith al
qaeda, specifially al qaeda in the arabian ninsula and what ifany role he had relationsp with them. so, al-alwaki hasbeen as interested me since 2004 25. heirst popped up in an fbi investigation of the northern virginia feeble grop, this is a group of 11 young men that were studying ude someone called on we are aaniac who was originay iraqi bt was born in washington d.c., spent his adolescee in saudi arabia and then returned. andy had been encouraging these gentlemeto go fight in afghanistan. and he startedppear in some of the investigation nd on the case file. and what really struck me and a t of people ater that was his
relationship with two of the 11 hackers of the mosque here in fll stretch. and so, i is or of started -- kept tabs on him from distanc and even until today, even having this eve now, it's sort of hard to take down wife disguise significant? .. >> he returned at the age of 20. he came back to colorado and received an engineering degree.
the people that talk about him during that time say that he is missing some gaps in his american pop culture. rougher sense that everyone would understand as an adolescent had grown up here -- references that everyone would understand as an adolescent. i think he is divided between the two places. he has this. throughout the 1990's where he sort of working his way out. he has no higher islamic education. he has studied in yemen and he has the basics. he has learned what a young man would learn in yemen. he is not considered a scholar. he is not a cleric. he does not take on that role until the last two or three years. even in his earlier time, he was
potentially being radicalized. as far as i know, that sort of blew over. it was not, -- it was not something hanging over his head. there were no charges. around 1999, he makes his move from san diego to northern virginia. he had completed a master's in education at san diego state, but he never completed. he was somehow able to enroll in a ph.d. program in washington, at george washington university, if i am not mistaken. i know in san diego, he had connection with one of the other hijackers. he seems to have had a relationship with them, and i believe it was more of a mentoring relationship than any kind of operational guidance or
instruction. but there are people in the government, and some people in the 9/11 commission, that disagree with that and felt strongly that he did have an operational position. i have not seen any evidence for that and i know this is someone who has no training whatsoever in battle. he does not understand bomb making. he does not understand the tradecraft of terrorism. really no tactical or strategic experience on that front. what he offered them, the reason they came together, was a shared viewpoint. they saw the world in a similar way and formed a connection on that basis. that is really the way that radicalization workss that is how this process has been working across he country. i will not say in mosques across the country, because it does not typically happen at the mosque. it may be where like-minded people fight each other. the more in-depth discussions
about what to do about this problem, have to confront the tyranny and oppression of the united states takes place in basements or in people's homes or outside the mainstream. in colorado, there was a member of the congregation who noted that he and some others were sort of self segregating and talking about -- they seem to be dangerous, radical issues. i think that is typical. you see that in a lot of radicalization cases, or the individual sort of move out of the mainstream. he was ontinuing to serve as an in mama for a large congregation -- imam.
he was pursuing ways to get young man to get training for jihad. he was really pursuing these to concurrently. in 2004, he moved to the uk. part of this move was because of the pressure from the fbi. there were agents trying to make a case against him. and there was -- there were a variety of reasons this did not happen, but one of them was political pressure from muslim advocate groups in the united states. i know from certain people within he fbi at that time, at there was concern that political pressures, essentially the idea that there conducting an anti muslim witchhunt, and if they were to arrest this well-known
imam, that would feel that. that was why he got away, in part. under this pressure, he moves to the u.k. and then really gets under way with this speaking tour, as it were. most of these are on line. some of them are linked privately to conferences and to groups and some of them are -- stay on youtube and remain public. his talks -- he finds this market in northern virginia and find an audience so that people -- all of the young man from the muslim community are vying to collect the latest tapes from discolored or that ssholar. there is a buzz about him. he is a very effective speaker. he is charismatic.
he is able to reach and connect with used in a way that a lot of others were not able to do. at the same time, he is not the only english-speaking imam that has come along. it is this dual identity that he has formed between being from yemen and being american, so that he is able to communicate the authenticity of what he learns in yemen. it is the culture. when you are giving a talk, at islamic terms are given in arabic and the pronunciation is correct, and can provide to back up what he is saying. are le to
-- the's a lot of people attempting to rouse young n and into action. ey dn't find the same attraction he dond part of is because the bridge between the o cultures and his authenticity but a lot f others didn't. another reason is hs another reason is the way he manipulated popular culture. i was reading a 2002 sermon he gave this morning and there are all these references to malcolm x and this theme of overcoming oppression. this was in 2002. his perspective, his world view, was formed a long time ago. these guys were not radicalized at one particular juncture. there is a lot of discussion about where this radicalization occurred and was in prison in yemen there is just a lot of
questions. i have not seen any real satisfactory answer. in his case, there was a he did not become radicalized at any given point. they were raised here and then got the bulk of their education overseas. i imagine more familiar with his formaa education and where he went in saudi arabia, but what they were brought back with him to the u.s. was a very austere form of islam that i think he was attempting to reinterpreted into american society. he comes and then interprets everything as decadence and send and he is not able to talk to women at all. there is a gap.
even know he is american, he is embarrassed and this american activist community and with a large muslim congregation at his mosque, but he is still not fully american. he is not fully integrated into society. he is sort of self segregated from what he considered to be the more decadent parts of society. in that context, i actually believe that there is a chance he did not know anything about 9/11. i do not think he had any operational role with the hijackers. there was a saudi minister of state in the same hotel as three of the hijackers on september 10. in this setting, in northern virginia, and it was. this was an act of this committee that had been there forever these decades before that. millions and millions of dollars have been provided from saudi arabia from individuals and the
government to set up a wide range of organizations -- muslim organizations. those reorganizations that were raided and operation green quest for four or five months after 9/11. in that lecture that was mentioning, it is a march 2002 sermon. he discusses operation green quest and how this is a war against muslims. we can say no longer this is a war on terrorism. it is a war against muslims. they raided all these organizations. they arrested them. they held them in handcuffs. even from that point on, this idea that he was once moderate and was there to speak out against 9/11 and he was the
representative moderate moslem voice -- muslim boys, i think that is a misrepresentation. that ism voice ba, i think a misrepresentation. what turned him into militancy in the formal way it was after his imprisonment in yemen. i think he was heartened by that experience. it forces them to look for other means. after that, is actually very typical pack and radicalization that someone will have all the same concerns and want to address the oppression of their fellow muslims, but they will attempt to do so through nonviolent means. after those have failed, or do not produce the results there --
they want, they're more willing to turn to militancy. i think that was facilitated by his imppisonment in your mom -- in yemen, but i certainly do not think there is anyone key trigger. we find him in the last two or three years in this position where he is becoming more and more popular on the internet. he has a wider audience and on this is the page, which was up until mid november or late november or something, the majority of comments are from young people who are just passing along his talks. this is a great talk on spirituality, whenever it may have been. it is rarely even a political discussion. there is not much talk of attacking the u.s. or jihad or anything of that nature. it is really about his ability as an orator and a compelling speaker.
and that still accounts for 90% of his popularity, even today. his cds and recordings are being sold in a lot of mainstream muslim violence. and they are not about g hyde. -- jihad. he is a gateway to the unsuspecting. i think that is putting it very mildly. but you would find yourself listening -- one to find themselves becoming a fan of him, listening to nothing related to jihad or violent activity. you may find that in one at 10 of his talks leading up to that point. and now, there's a tremendous difference in his talks. when he releases a statement, it's an all-out call for jihad on americans and he renounces his position that he had not taken this up sooner, and i think that is a lot -- that is a
combination of the u.s. pushing him into that position. i did not think he has any operational role in all qaeda whatsoever. he has nothing to offer. this is someone who has no operational training. he is never spent time on a battlefield. he does not know how to manufacture a bomb. there's plenty of people and yemen you have been engaged in that sort of activity, whether al qaeda related or otherwise. there is not a need. he does not offer anything from that froot. he is not a cleric. he does not have any higher islamic education. i don't think that al qaeda is in need of people with master's degrees from san diego state. what does he offer? i think he offers is a stick in the side of the u.s., that
similar to the way they wasoted -- he's someone who imprisoned in guantanamo bay and then he was supposedly rehabilitated by the saudi system and then infiltrated the border. i think they're promooing him to a leadership position. this is a great pr opportunity.+ he is fulfilling their role. in my perspective, his tremendous ability, his bringing people who are sympathetic to this movement, people who have an inclination of ready to support the global jihadists in the defense of their brothers and sisters, people who are moving in that direction have that tendency. he is able to get them to actually do something. he is able to fire them up.
it is difficult. it is difficult to give a really good explanation of why he is so popular right now. i think it is like trying to explain my skinny genes are popular at the moment. maybe there is a reason based in the 1980's or in people's psychology or in this or that, but it is just a trend. he is not the first english speaker who was trendy. for now, he is the man in the spotlight. i think a great deal of this charisma -- he is able to reach people, able to reach young people, and really have an impact on them. and his role as a radicalize our -- in a way, anyone can do that. they have a dozen guys who can
do that. for someone to be able to bring thousands of people to step closer to joining, to getting training, that is a tremendous asset for that movement. significance is.what his%- with that, i believe it to scott. >> thank you very much. >> i would just elaborate on a few points that chris touched on. i will begin with the point that chris was saying that he did not see a turning point where this guy went from moderate to radical, or first embraced violence. and i think that is true. there does seem to be in evolution. but from his point of view, i think if he were here today, he might say that the world changed, or if you observe the world as it is the vault during his lifetime, he might say that it is not me that changed, it is you.
and what do i mean by that? a kid who was about his age to grew up in the same neighborhood in yemen, he had spent his very early years in the u.s., then the back to yemen, spent his teenage years in yemen, and then came back to go to college here. this friend of his said that it was -- they were against the soviet army in afghanistan that was the inspirational hot topic of the day for young yemeni men. some yemeni then they're going not to fight. this i remember people coming back with videotapes of bits and pieces of the fighting over there. they were extremely busy as sick about this fight. said then he -- so that he comes to colorado state and during the summer he travels to afghanistan. i do not exactly know what year.
probably around 1992. he comes back to fort collins, colorado, wearing an afghan hacked and kind of dead people, asking where is that my summer. it is clearly a point of pride with him to of been there. this was like a great triumph. he is living here and then 9/11 comes along and i totally agree that this march 2002 speech after what are sometimes called the saar raids, that seems to have then -- his voice is shaking with rage during that talk. that is when you first uses the language that america is at war with slam, although it seems to be a little bit metaphorical at that time.
he seems kind of shocked by this. that comes at a time, in the weeks after 9//1, worry seems to have been trying nine different roles. sa flnt speerof accent eglish to explain various asets of reved in the limelight11 and he accordinto his colleagues an he said som very merate stuff. heaid in fact to "the new york times" in the past we were livious. we meaning of the muslimimm because weidn't expect things to happe now i think things are fferent. wh we might ave tolerated in the past we on't tolerate any more. there were statements inflammatory conided just talk but now e realize the talk can taken seriously and acted upon in a violent way, he is
either sincerely r ot so sin u're prsentingimself as a moderate by who ill root out the adicalism that at thesame time his mainole is explaing the muslim point of view and even a sort of here's why te violence came to america. so then hems have been set off also thenvion o iraq and now you have the air strikes in hagaman so his list of grivances and list his is a long one. i think he revels in his understanding of the language, but this sort of american political viewpoint. in a recent statement, he said that jihad is as american as apple pie. he is taunting this country.
what is intriguing about his most lengthy pronouncement, which was excerpt on our jazeera. it is a long talk, but one of the things that is kind of fascinating to see if his analysis of what the u.s. wants versus what he wants is not different from our analysis. he says -- what they want is an american, a democratic, liberal, passive and civil is llama. in a typical notes showing off his knowledge of the enemy, he cites a rand report. that is a fair description of what many in the united states are seeking. and he has completely broken with that and is seeking a very different brand of islam. let me make a couple of other points quickly.
in some ways, i believe that his english is almost a little bit misleading in the sense that it disguises the depth of his cultural roots in yemen and this sort of shaping adolescents and young men. a guy who is close to him in the moslem student association at colorado state talked about how on easy he was with women. we're talking about color a mistake, right? i mean, there are not many guys you're running the other way from women on american college campuses. he carried out with him very much. he married a distant cousin who was always covered and never shown to friends. this guy remained very yemeni. he certainly observed american
culture. -- absorbed american culture. finally, i would take site issue with chris saying that he does not have any operational role. you do not need their skills+ necessarily to do that. i think american authorities believe that to -- that he had an important role in convincing him to get on that plane. supposedly, he is part of the recruiting, persuading, preparing chain of supply in al qaeda in the arabian peninsula now. the americans think he has an operational role and for that
reason, earlier this year, he had the distinction of being the first americans a dissent put on the cia official list of approved targets for capture or kill, you know, notably killing. and that raises one final question, which i think we might want to get into in the questions, and that is, to what degree has the united states attention to this guy made him what he is today? if you tall to people who mainly follow the she had to arabic sources, he was sort of that nobody. in the english-speaking world, he was very big. as a yemeni guy i talked to
about him said, it was only after the reports starting going around that the cia wanted to kill him that a large number of people started saying, who is this guy that the great america wants to kill? are we sort of playing to his strengths by putting him on a pedestal? it is certainly true that, among those to cover terrorism movement's interest groups, they have always relied on the reaction of the enemy. it is interesting to see that after being accused by any pre- 9/11 era of being at war with his mom -- and i am not making any comments here on whether we should or should not have taken any particular step -- but from the point of view of the young, a muslim man who is looking at the world, we now have a pretty
big wars going on in afghanistan, iraq, pakistan, and yemen. you do wonder to what degree we are generating -- are we generrting more new recruits for capturing or killing?that we ar- if you look at the sort of curve of his fame and influence, he asserted the case study. let me stop right there. >> thank you very much. in many ways, i think any discussion of anwar al-awlaki raises more questions than answers. it is not just his language skills or his ability to switch
between english and arabic. i think there's been a good deal of discussion about how his ability to set -- to speak clear, flint, english and to switch into arabic, lent a real sense of authenticity. for people who are already going in a certain direction, i think this is all you need to get even further. i have a number of questions. one of the things i often think about is how popular he is in yemen. i would like to open it up to questions now. just introduce yourself before you start. who would like to start? i guess i will. one of the things that i have
been thinking about is that i am not sure what he has done and yemen that is a crime. this is something that came not in his video. all he is doing is explaining and defending what is already known. if one or both of you could comment on that. what is it that we want the government to do? >> the american agencies -- there was a brief counterterrorism investigation of him in 1999. they interviewed him a number of times after 9/11. but when he was in london and after he went to yemen, i know there was a very active debate
inside the u.s. government as to where does the first amendment stop and some kind of terror related crime began? this country is much less liable to charge people with crimes related to free expression than many countries, even in europe. i also know that there was a dispute inside the american government over his incarceration and yemen. this is an american citizen being held in yemen. he was visited by diplomats. he was also visited by the ffi. we have your citizen. he was released -- originally jailed over a tribal dispute.
we have no particular objection to his being held, and so they kept holding him for months. they came under some pressure from tribes and others to let him go and they went back to the americans. the fbi had been quite uncomfortable with the idea that an american -- that we were sort of conniving in incarceration without charges of the sky. the second time, the u.s. government said, we have no objection to his being released. and he was released and the rest is history. >> has committed any crime in yemen? i would say that you do not actually need tt commit a crime to be held in yemen. i am not sure it is essential. anything with him -- if you look at a map of yemen in 1965 --
that is his family. he is there in his family's kingdom. arresting him and trying hem, handing him over to the americans, i think forget. even arresting him and trying him there would anger so many tribesmen, there is a separate insurgency going on in yemen, three right now. in the south, there's then sort of a renaissance of southern culture and identity and a revival of the old south yemen. there is an internal dynamic in yemen and that is not worth riling the thousands of people that are affiliated with the tribe in that area over this one guy. i think that is part of their inaction.
>> sprick i'm wh of the congressional searervice. my question related to what is the rle that al-awlaki had in some of th caes? ery time there's a new terrorist eved it is immediately reported t he was the perpetrator wa inluenced by l-alai either by his lectes or so forh. what we do know in he hasan case is at hasan reached out to him there were only e-mails at al-awlaki replied to and specution that maybhe was bei entrapped so all the other emails at has had sent he didn't repond and ere's talk in the cabout abdumutallab and that he was influenced but what doweknow in he open source liteature
about what that was xactly otr than may they just >> i can take a stab at that. it is a very good question because somebody said that finding a young muslim man who was influenced by a anwar al- awlaki is like finding a republican who was influenced by rush limbaugh. this goes to the difficulty that the u.s. government had in earlier times and sort of putting a diet -- a crime on the sky. he says what he wants. people listen or to not listen. the thing that was striking is in a number of cases -- i counted a dozen or so - is material, the more radical material had turned up in about
a dozen cases, all english- speaking muslims in in some ways, it is hard to distinguish cause from the fact. if you begin to get radicalized and you go out looking on the web. i recommend this to everyone. go ahead and you'll be amazed at mp3's.mber of mps three's there posted everywhere. you can listen to his voice. young guys are getting a radicalized. that probably a little more plausible than the alternate
scenario where they are absolutely moderate, they go surfing on the internet and a stumble across a radical talk and the next thing you know, they're ready to plant a bomb. there is this sort of symbiosis. when you think about an american muslim in a relatively small community and not getting a lot of encouragement for any radical thought he might be having for his family or his community, that this is sort of a virtual committee he can join. despite many efforts, we have not been able to get a hold of those e-mails. if you listen to what he himself has said, the first question he recalls him sending him was, how would be, under the laws of islam, if i were to kill, or if a soldier were to kill his
fellow american soldiers, because they are about to go it killed muslims? he indicated that he thought it would be a good idea. after the fact, he famously posted a posting saying, he is a hero, and approved it in retrospect. you're absolutely right to raise this question. >> he was catapulted into the mainstream media after the fort hood shootings. before that, there was a plot to do a lot of things. abduct the prime minister. he was involved in that case, a tube. it is a very good question to ask how he was involved -- what is
it is really just a dialogue. i know in that case, they had some sort of a video link up with him. in the fort dix case, in new jersey, those guys were being monitored closely throughout at -- throughout it. but they were, in that case, looking for an imam. they needed someone, not to radicalize them further, but to give them direction. >> this has been a fascinating
conversation, and i thank you for it. as politically difficult as it is for the yemeni government, it sounds to me like some good lawyers could mount a pretty strong first amendment defense and a cut -- in a courtroom in this country. i am a little bit unsure as to what the president are -- precedents are, given that people can preach -- as long as they do not actually kill an abortionist, they can preach that it is ok to kill an abortionist. otter pretty outrageous political speech is protected under our constitution. are there any parallel cases where our government has
successfully prosecuted people who are preaching a jihad, violent jihad at this time? >> thereewas almost an identical parallel case. they were carrying out the same activities. the leader was tried and convicted and is serving life in prison. it was an almost identical case appeared >> i would add to that just that the community prosecution was and is quite controversial. but if you believe what you hear from american intelligence officials, anwar al-awlaki, at least in recent months, has crossed a line he had not crossed before. he had direct contact before he got on the plane to try to blow
it up over detroit. if what is alleged about his more recent activities is correct, there may be a much more direct caae of even attempted murder and the same kinds of charges that others are facing for conspiracy. we have not seen that evidence, but that is what is alleged. it does raise the uncomfortable question of, if you are targeting him before death, essentially, by a missile fired from a drowned -- from a drone, under the law, if we want to eavesdrop on his cell phone, whhch presumably we do, we have to go to court and prove that he is an agent of an international
terrorist group and get a warrant. as far as anyone knows, the approval process for designating him to potentially be murdered or killed has not gone through the judicial branch. it has been strictly through the executive branch. it does seem like there is something kind of out of whack when congress has passed something that says you need a warrant to listen to somebody, but you do not need a warrant to kill them. >> i think that thiss an interes >> there is an interesting point about advocating violence and actually stepping over the line. something that comes to mind is, one way or another there is
something after anwar al-awlaki. what is that like? what are the implications for the big picture? are there other guys out there like him? could you comment a little bit on that? >> well, i think now is sort of lose-lose for the u.s., which is why a arabia has been so excited to get him on their media dockets. his videos are increasing in popularity. we know after the fort hood shooting and the christmas eve attempt, these things have grown to a wider and wider audience. i think in death or in life, either way he is going to grow in popularity to a certain then he will fade like all
trends, i think. there will be other english- speaking, french speaking, italian speaking, cross-cultural in bonds that are able to find an audience. i think -- imans that are able to find an audience. i think as culture changes, those people that are best able to connect with other youth audience -- there may be another anwar al-awlaki within the next five years. i think that is probably unlikely. step back for a second. i do not think someone could say this is what anwar al-awlaki did over the last 15 years and i could become the next one. i do not think there is a formula for it. but i think it is the means of finding an audience on the internet nnw, or finding an audience through the internet, it just makes the process so
much easier that more and more people are going to be competing for the space. there are going to be people continually trying to represent their own ideas and be the one speaking out in defense of all of these atrocities,,whatever they may be. that has been going on for 10, 20, 30 years. that will not change. >> to dd to that, one thing that struck me in reporting on is that you can find him all over the web. is not going away. if he is hit by a missile tomorrow, it barely changes his status or his influence. arguably, it would enhance his status to become a martyr. you can kind of imagine all of the flowerr tributes pouring in from branches of al qaeda all around the world. you cannot remove this guy now from the weather.
if you take postings down -- you cannot remove this guy now from the web. if you take postings down, his followers will put them back up. is his death actually dessrable as a goal? could he be more dangerous after death, at least for a time? the other thing that has made him, i think, a subject of so much fascination recently, is that, as you know, in 2009, there seemed to be a real uptick in the the number of u.s.- based, u.s.-focused terrorist plots, almost all of them broken up, a couple of them in the category of totally controlled by the fbi from beginning to end. these were things that never poseddmuch of a threat, but you also had other things.
you also had a case which was troubling to a lot of people, and that was the five young guys from northern virginia to headed off to try to join a jihad is groups in afghanistan. they wandered around pakistan looking for a group that could hook them up with the war. when you go back and study their histories, there is a little bit of variation. one had a minor criminal record3 university. they were all u.s. citizens. the iiea that these guys, growing up in northern virginia, could kind of look around and say, the best option for me is to go off and sacrifice myself in afghanistan, is a kind of shocking thing. i do not know of any influence
anwar al-awlaki had. they're the kind of guys who undoubtedly went on to the web and listened to anwar al-awlaki. but that is a reason why, when you ask what anwar al-awlaki comes after, i think the reason -- when you ask what comes after anwar aa-awlaki, i think the reason we are all worried about it is that you need so few people -- a guy like shazaad, look at what he has done it with an incompetent bomb placed in times square. an enormous impact. there is kind of an erosion of the barriers against too much violence among young muslim men in this country.
that is a very significant thing. >> i think it really demonstrates how difficult and complex a lot of these questions are. it strikes me that al-awlaki is not going to go away, no matter what. he is just going to become more popular. if you look at all of these sermons and all of these addresses online, he gives an incredibly powerful speech. this is only emblematic of a larger problem. i wonder how we are dealing with this problem, if we are making it worse. are there any other questions? yes, sir. >> [unintelligible]
>> i think there is -- i ask people this. i visited all of anwar al- awlaki's mosque's been in this country and visited people at all of them. this is probably not restricted to muslims, but anyone who puts high hopps into any presidential candidate on the right or on the left, republican or democrat, they are inevitably disappointed by what actuallyy happens on the ground. american presidents tend tt have
it to the middle anyway. here was a guy who with a muslim name, a muslim and father, early on wednesday gave a speech in cairo, and yet, certainly if you read what al-awlaki says about the great sorrow, president obama, he is trying to encourage a sense of disillusionment. if you thought america was going to change its stripes, forget about it. all he has done is keep the same stripes, killing muslims. he is playing that card, and the sense of disillusionment is playing into it. >> it did not change al-qaeda's approach when obama was elected. it was frankly, pretty unsavory. there is not the same easy
triggered issue that they have, but in reality, none of the policies have changed. it is not difffcult for them to make an argument that whoever you elect, the situation will be the same. the situation in gaza, the israeli-palestinian question is no closer to being resolved. iraq and afghanistan remain battlegrounds, obviously. we have been engaged in firing missiles into yemen. in addition to that, we have given a large degree of intelligence and technical support to yemen and services. even on that level, he is much more likable, sure. is not a jihad tist,
game over. >> i direct the center for a muslim studies. i want to thank you for your talk. there is one point i am unclear about. yemenin the government arrest anwar al- awlaki and hand him over for trial in the united states? why is that not about the u.s. government could pursue -- a route to the u.s. government could pursue instead of making him a target for assasssnation? >> i do not know if it is a lack of will inside yemen, but the yemeni constitution forbids the extradition of its nationals abroad.
there are several individuals who are wanted in this country for terrorist crimes, and the yemeni government will not extradite them because of their nationality, their citizenship. >> i guess the only other aspects to that is that now that his profile is so high -- it was one thing when they grabbed him in 2006 and locked him away. he was a low-profile guy at that point. now, if they grabbed him, he has called on tribes to come to his rescue. there have been competing statement by tribal leaders as to whether they will stick with him or lee him go. but he is now very high profile in yemen and in the world, which poses a political dilemma for the yemeni government. >> i am with the university of
arizona. my question is, you both have been speaking about how, in many ways, the american media and public government has almost propelled him into this stature. we are not sure now what we can do in response. either way, it is a difficult decision. but what about the future? what should be done differently so that this is not a continual response mode, so that we are prevvnting things like this? >> i am just a reporter. i will say that there are other countries, european countries, and many muslim countries, saudi arabia, indonesia who have done much more along the lines of
counter-radicalization. either individual rehabilitation programs where you take someone who seems to be an extremist and try to brainwash un m or- brainwash them. -- brainwashed them or un-the brainwash them. the u.s. government has not done much of that. people and the muslim community have done this on a small scale, and some think that more needs to be done in terms of putting out -- been anwar al-awlaki not allowing to go -- in not allowing anwar al-awlaki to go
unanswered out there in pyyerspace. they want to put some kind of argument on the other side. >> i would say a little bit of the direct question, but i think it is relevant here, you mentioned the fisa people from northern virginia who were arrested. -- the five people from northern virginia who were arrested. i found that fascinating. that is an organization that has been n the u.s. since 1971, and is part of a group of islamic activists who came to the u.s. in the early 1960's. for most of their history, they were not concerned with preventing a raddcalization. i think it is fair to say they were more concerned with pursuing anti-muslim discrimination than worrying about their people becoming radicalized. after that happened, they were
going to take action. they wanted to set up programs to intervene and they wanted to be involved -- obviously, it was self preservation to a degree, but it was still a change from what we have seen in the past 10-15 years. i think it's encouraging more of that is the answer. that is more of an issue for law enforcement and policing, but the models -- i worked with some people in australia, and they have learned a very simple motto from the uk that communities and defeat terrorism. they learned that from the ira. that is really the only way that can be done. to counter-radicalized people i think is an impossible objective. you cannot prevent people from liiing bad thoughts.
you can learn and to address the signs, and most importantly you can work with people in the communities that know the signs more acutely, who are more aware of them, and i think that is the best model. 's jumps of al-awlaki to stardom, i think it was a confluence of influence. i do not think you can say that if we sat back and just ignore him he would not be there. we cannot. i do not know if it is possible to do that on a media global wholesale, but on a community level, that is where it is most effective. >> to pick up on some of what scott was saying, i think there are opportunities to respond to these messages.
within islam, i would say that about 80% of what comes out is factual. it is the other 20% that throws things off. anwar al-awlaki says that everyone in america is target because they all pay taxes which means they all support the government. anyone who lives here would not believe ttat. we all know that there is a wide range of opinions. it is important to point out that a factual representation of the united states is not being drawn. >> i does ant to make the point that there actually was a very eloquent response to that last message by another popular american man. he went through not only a facttal refutations, but a
religious refutation, according to law, very well detailed, well cited, and that has been circling among muslim-americans, attention. i think these responses need to be covered. >> there are people since 9/11 who have been saying, where are the moderate muslim voices? they are everywhere. but they are not newsworthy. i do not know the mechanism of bringing those voices, whether it is a government mouthpiece, or media. there should be a way to amplify those of voices so that they have equal time in the spotlight. >> i am glad to make that point.
it is kind of an indictment of the u.s. media that this is not newsworthy. >> far be it from me to defend the u.s. media, but there is an element of, what is news? we do not write about all of the planes that do not crash. when these five guys go off to seek a jihad in pakistan, that is news. the 500,000 guys who did not go off may be much more sensible in a way, but they do not lend themselves to the news. i think we are obligated to do a better job than we have done up looking at the dynamics within the muslim community in in this
country. one hing that strikes you as you go on the internet, especially as a non-muslim reporter, is that youufind this dilemma that american muslims often face, which is, and a couple of years ago, if you said you were against the iraq war, well, so what if you were american dax 50% were opposed to it. but if you were a muslim and you said that, there was something devious about that. how do you feel but the afghan war? how do you feel about this and that? there is something about, i suppose, the left, during the days of mccarthy and the red scare. so and so is connected to so and
so. so and so attended a mosque with this preacher. what does that mean? there is a lack of analysis out there. >> i would like to thank both of you for comiig out to add to this discussion today. i was hoping thii conversation would do a lot to explain and elaborate, and at some nuances to the discussions we have been having. i think we have definitely done that. i do we have raised questions that we need to focus on in the future. but of our speakers have written excellent pieces that you can find outside. one is in he "west point sentinel," a great profile on anwar al-awlaki. please join me in thanking our speakers. [applause]
effort is coming up in just a few moments. we will have live coverage as the assistant attorney general for national security talks about u.s. counter-terrorism policy. that will take place at the brookings institution here in washington. >> this past monday, a c-span crew took a tour of a margin that has been affected by the oil spill in the gulf of mexico. speaking at a washington briefing today, admiral fattah allen said they are still trying to refine and numb -- admiral thad allen said they are still trying to refine and numbers. here is a look at that marched to war. -- that marsh tour.
the white house has invited bp executives to meet with the president on wednesday. johnny hayward will make his first appearance -- tony hayward will make his first appearance before congress next week. that will be covered live on c- span. >> this weekend, the chicago tribune printer's row lit fest will be coveree on c-span2. >> alive now to the brookings institution here in washington. the assistant attorney general will talk about counter- terrorism. he is expected to talk about the recent bombing attempt in
times square, and the christmas day bomber. here is david kris. >> let's get started. i am a senior fellow here in government studies. thank you for coming. i will be very brief, because i am sure that not a single one of you came to hear my voice. i am pleased to welcome david kris back to brookings. he once spent some time as a resident fellow here before going back to government. david is a very rare thing in government, which is a sort of scholar/practitioner, whoohas as
deep an academic understanding and background in the material that he works on as he does a kind of granular, a working understanding and working familiarity with the matters and that he writes about. he is here to talk about the subject of law enforcement as a counter-terrorism tool. it will not ssrprise you that this has been on a lot of people's minds of late, either because of claims of inadequacy in the system, or of claims of successes in the system. we all have our opinions one direction or another on aspects of that. davis will present the argument, the case that we have under valued law enforcement as a tool in our counter-terrorism arsenal, and the deserts a stronger place -- and that it
deserves a stronger place than we have given it. david has been working in national security almost since the beginning of this administration. before that, he worked in various capacities in the justice department across several administrations. among other things, he was one of the principal figures in the 2002 litigation that broke down at the proverbial wall between intelligence and law enforcement. he also wrote a monumental treatise on national security law which, if you have interest and time, it is really a wonderful piece of work. so, i am going to stop there and turn it over to him. please welcome david kris. [applause] >> thank you for the very nice
introduction. i am grateful to brookings for hosting me. thank you to all of you for coming out. i have been asked to talk about the role of law enforcement, by which i mean an arrest, interrogation, prosecution and that kind of thing, as a tool for counter-terrorism. this is kind of a timely subject. if you hang out inside the beltway and you are at all conscious, you will have noticed some talk recently about whether, and to what extent the federal courts should be used against international terrorists. there are, i think, some pretty strongly held views on that subject. there are those who think,
really, that law enforcement should be the main or the only method by which we combat terrorism. there are also those who think we ought not to use law enforcement at all against terrorism. i suspect that members of both camps are well and ably represented in this audience, which is great. with my luck, the only thing you will be able to agree on by the end of this is that what ever i say about it is completely wrong. nonetheless, i am going to try to talk about this subject in four parts. first, i will reduce some of the recent history of our national counterterrorism strategy as i understand it. i will focus here a little bit on the origins and evolution of the national security division at the department of justice. knowing a little bit about that may be interesting to you, as i hope it will be, but it is also
an important part of understanding how the country came to a consensus, at least until recently, about the appropriate role of law enforcement as a counter- terrorism tool. second, i will try to sketch out a conceptual framework for thinking about the role of law enforcement in the current conflict. the idea here would be to try to identify the right questions, the right way of thinking about and approaching the policy debate that we are, as a nation right now, involved in. identifying the right questions, i think, is not as easy as it sounds, but for many things it is critically important. then in the third parttof the talk, if anybody is still here, i will try to answer the questions that i have identified. to do this, i will identify some of the empirical evidence about how law enforcement has been used to combat terrorism. i will offer a comparison between the civilian law
enforcement prosecution and the comparable alternatives which are detention under the law of war and prosecution in a military commission. let me just give you fair warning right now. this comparison maybe be a little bit technical, and it might be a bit boring, but it will not be nearly as detailed as what you would need, i think, to make really informed intelligent decisions about public policy, let alone particular cases. i hope it will give you a sense of the major pros and cons in the system, at least as i see them, and reinforce the idea of how i approach, and how i think we ought to approach the question. finally, i will conclude with some ideas for improving the effectiveness of law enforcement as a counter-terrorism tool, and more generally improving the effectiveness of the government
as a whole in using all available tools for counter- terrorism. i will talk here briefly about the idea of proper legislation with respect to the public safety exception to rebranded that you have heard discussed as of late. ok? so, that is the plan. looking at the back of the room, i feel particularly grim. here we go. to begin with recent history, we often hear -- i have often heard anyway -- that before 9/11, the u.s. government took a "law enforcement approach" to dealing with counter-terrorism. i think there is some truth to that, but i also think it oversimplifies things a little bit. if you look at the 9/11 commission report, it found that before september 11th, the cia was plainly the lead u.s.
government agency confronting al-qaeda, that law enforcement played a secondary role, and that military and diplomatic efforts were "episodic." i was involved in national security both before and after september 11th as a member of the clinton and bush administration, and that does not seem terribly far off the mark to me. after september 11th, oo course, all of our national security agencies dramatically ramp up their counter-terrorist activities, and as our troops deployed to foreign battlefields, and does the its operation, the department of justice and the fbi also involved. we began that evolution with an important legal change in bed then actually -- and that a been actually referred to in his --
that ben actually referred to in his introduction, that involved tearing down the so-called fisa wall which limited law enforcement's ability to be a counter-terrorism to will. if you do not know what fisa is, you should count yourself lucky. it is a federal statute that governs electronic surveillance of foreign intelligence target in the united states. it cannot be used against ordinary, red-blooded american criminals like bonnie and clyde or someone like that. it could be used against osama bin laden. it is a critical point. it is an extremely powerful and important investigative tool, and it is vitally important to our security.
if we could not do the kinds of things we do under fisa, i do not know what it would look like, but it would look very different, our counter-terrorism posture. but until the wall came down, the price of using that powerful tool, of using fisa, or even of preserving your option to use it, was a requirement to keep intelligence and law enforcement at arm's length. tearing down that wall permit intelligence and law-enforcement to work together more effectively, and allowed each of -pthem to do better than they hd done on their own. i think this a legal change, tearing down the wall, reflected, but also reinforced, the conclusion that law enforcement helps protect national security, not that law enforcement is the only way to protect national security, or even that is the best way to protect national security, but i
do think that in the years after 9/11, that we came to a kind of national consensus that law enforcement is one important way of protecting national security. certainly the executive branch, the bush administration whhn i was there, argued quite statements that the fisa court of review clearly and expressly endorsed the idea. congress supported it on a bipartisan basis in a number of different pieces of legislation. so, this consensus that law enforcement is one way, not the only way, not the best way, but one way to protect national security, led to not only legal changes, but to structural changes at both the department of justice and the fbi. at the bureau, i think the story
is pretty well known. integrated intelligence and law- enforcement functions with respect to counter-terrorism, and it dramatically increased its collection of intelligence and analysis. this also led to the creation of the national security division, which i head. that combined terrorism and espionage prosecution on one hand, with intelligence of lawyers and other intelligence professionals on the other. they are united by a single shared and overriding mission, which is to protect against terrorism and other threats to national security using all of the lawful methods that are available to us. it is easy to overstate this, but at some level, at some level nsd approaches
this to neutralize the threat. we do not mind it is a prosecution solution or an intelligent solution. we prefer the method that is most effective under the circumstances. from living through and having studied some of the history, i think that reppesents the more crystallized consensus of our government and of the people of the united states in the aftermath of 9/11. just right now, today, i would say that that consensus is showing some signs of potentially unraveling but just a little. that is why we live in interesting times. in particular, there are some who say today that law enforcement cannot or should not be used for counter-terrorism. they appear to believe that we
should treat all terrorists exclusively as targets for the other, non-fbi elements of the defense community or for that -- elements of the intelligence community or for the defense department. here is the argument that is advanced, as i understand. it comes in three parts. first, we are abat war. this is not a game. this is not a police action. it is a war. second, our enemies are legal and adaptable. they are not common criminals. they did not just drop a liquor store. third, because we are at war, and because our enemy is not just a bunch of common
criminals, we should fight them using military and intelligence methods and not just law enforcement methods.3 argument. even as saying it to you in character, i find myself very attracted to it in many ways. it sounds good. [laughter] this is why i m not going to have a future in public speaking. i have to tell you, and i mean this with all due respect, because i take the argument very seriously, but i have to say, i do not agree with it. i think it is wrong. i think it will, it is adopted and implemented in public policy, make us less safe than we are now. i do not want to be over dramatic, but again, it is not the case of that laa enforcement is the only tool for combating terrorism, but i think it is also not the case that it is never the right tool. faugh in the middle ground --
the middle ground in pushing for is that it is sometimes the right to will. whether it is the right to will, in any given case depends on a large part on the specific facts of that case. so, in fairness, to try to sort of compare apples to apples, here is my version of that three part argument. first, we are at war, so in that respect we start from a common base line. the president has said that many times. the attorney general has said that many times. and our enemy is legal, adaptable and intelligent. there are peoppe who go to bed every morning and get -- get up every morning and go to bee every night and do nothing between those two things but think about how many americans they can kill. second, with that at this area, your goal must be to think of how to win. no other goal is acceptable in a
war like that. third, to win the war, we need to use all of the available tools and weapons that we have if they are consistent with the rule of law and our basic values, selecting in any case of the tool that is best under the circumstances. in otter words, we need to be more pragmatic and empirical. i do not think we can afford to limit our options until late in an artificial way, or to yield to sort of preconceived notions of the suitability or correctness. that is not to say that we do not need broad policy guidance within a legal framework. it is only to say that that guidance has to be grounded in empirical experience. we have to look dispassionately at these facts that we are facing and then respond to them using the methodsswithin our value structure that will best lead us to victory.
that is some fairly highfalutin rhetoric, so let me just tell it down a little bit. what i am really saying is, when we look at the tools that are available to us that are consistent with our values, we have to use the tool that is designed best for this particular national security problem that we find ourselles facing. so, if you go out and look and survey the field, and you see a problem that looks like a nail. , then we need to use a hammer. but when the problem looks like a bolt, thee we need to use a wrench. hitting a bolt with a hammer makes a very loud noise and maybe it satisfying in some visceral way. i know this from many failed attempts at home repair and improvement around my house. but if you want to take out a
bold, you should not use a hammer. it is not effective or smart. if we want to win this war, i do we need to be both effective and smart. now, how are we doing out there? there is a lot more to cover. if you take this idea that i have just described seriously, and i kind of hope you do, given how much i am putting into it, it complicates your strategic planning quite a bit, because it requires you do have a much more detailed understanding of our various counter-terrorism tools. if you are a pragmatist, if you focus relentlessly on winning, then you really cannot make policy or operational decisions from 30,000 feet up. you have to come down, get in the weeds, and understand the details of how these tools work at the operational level. may end up extracting from that experience to make policy, but
you have to understand reality. that leads me to the second part of this four part speech, and to this question. as compared to the viable alternatives, what is the value of law enforcement in this war? is it categorically the wrong tool for the job? is it a distraction from the r at best or at worst an impediment? to put my cards on the table, if you have not guest, i think law enforcement helps us win this war. i want to make clear, because i am giving this speech in a very particular context, in a very limited setting as part of a larger, a national conversation that i perceive. in light of that conversation,
in light of the nature of our current national debate, i want to make clear that when i say this, i am not primarily making a values-based argument. i am not saying, for these limited purposes in this particular context, that law enforcement helps us win in the sense that it is some kind of a bright, shining city on a hill that captures hearts and minds across the globe. i do think our criminal justice system is widely respected. values are critically important both in and of themselves and in their affect on us, our allies and our adversaries. but i am talkkng now in this very limited, narrow context about something more direct and country. when i say that law enforcement helps us win this war, i mean that it helps us disrupt, defeat, dismantle and destroy our adversaries without destroying ourselves or our way
of life in the process. in particular, and want to say, law enforcement helps us do that first, it can disrupt terrorist plots through arrest. second, it can incapacitate terrorists through incarceration that results in successful prosecution. third, it can gather intelligence through interrogation and recruitment of terrorists or their supporters by cooperation methods. so, that is the pitch. here is some of the evidence in support of that argument. between september 2001 and march, 2010, the department of justice convicted more than 400 defendants in terrorism-related cases. some of these convictions involved what i would call
"first-level" terrorism offenses like writing letters. everybody knows about the guy from colorado who went to new york, the guy from chicago. both of these guys have pleaded guilty and are awaiting sentencing. most recently we have the guy in times square. there have been others over the years ranging from the first world trade center bombers to various african embassy bombers to richard reid. all of these guys are now serving life sentences in federal prisons. in just the last year, we sentenced a terrorist for planting improvised explosive devices in iraq.
we sentenced another terrorist for providing material support to al-qaeda. another terrorist was sentenced to life for attempting to establish a jihad training camp. last year, we picked up guys in separate but similar undercover operations after they allegedly tried to blow up buildings in dallas and springfield, illinois. the texas sky has now pleaded guilty to that crime. has now pleaded guilty to that crime. i could go on and on. there is jihad jane, there are a bunch of them. now, all of these -- not all of these cases make the headlines, and not all of the people who are convicted are hard-core terrorists or key terrorist operatives.
an aggressive and wide ranging terrorist operation made net a lot of smaller fish along with the big ones. that is a good thing, because it allows us to stop operations before they go through, and allows us to catch the small fish before they become big. we have used the criminal justice system to collect valuable intelligence. in effect, it has worked at what the intelligence community would call a human intelligence platform. it is a platform for collecting human intelligence about terrorists. the fact is, when the government has a strong prosecution case, the defendant knows this. he knows that he will spend a long time in a small cell, which
create powerful incentives for him to cooperate, not that those incentives always lead to cooperation, just that they do that quite a bit. there is a limit to what i can say about this publicly, as you can imagine, but let me give you some examples. terrorism suspects in the criminal justice system have given us information on things like this: telephone numbers and e-mail address is used by al- qaeda, al-qaeda recruiting and financing rate, terrorist route+ used to avoid detection into the west, location of al-qaeda training camps, al-qaeda weapons training programs, the location of al-qaeda statehouses, locations a senior al-qaeda leaders, al-qaeda security protocols, operatives for planned attacks, and nformation about plots to attack u.s.
interests. i think i can tell you, from my work with our intelligence community partners, and i have a good relationship with a lot of these guys, including the national counter-terrorism center for example, they believed the criminal justice system has provided useful information that has helped them to do their jobs. that is the basic outline of the affirmative arguments and some of the evidence for it. there is so much more is that i could say, but i kind of want to move through this so that you do not all just leave before i am done. i think what i would like to do is, having outlined the basic affirmative arguments, let me take up some of what i perceive to be the argument on the other side, that is argument against using law-enforcement as a the first argument that i heard is that there is some kind of
inherent tension between national security and law enforcement. they just do not go together, like oil and water. i guess i think that this argument confuses and -- -- ends with means.eans. i want to clarify something. the criminal justice system is a tool, one of many tools, but can be used to protect our country against terrorism. sometimes it is the right tool. other times, it is the wrong tool. but at some level, that is no different than saying that sometimes the best way to protect national security is through diplomacy, and other times, the best way to protect national security is through military action. it just depends on what the tool can do, measured against the problem that you're facing. . .
face a host of legal constraints operates under rules that require it to for broken that it strikes against terrorists. if those strikes will inflict unduly disproportionate harm on innocent civilians. that means you do not strike, even when you could operationally in certain circumstances. these limits on the military and the result the law of war and associated rules are real. and they're not trivial. but they're not, i think, a reason to forbid all together the use of military force against al qaeda two just to guard against any misunderstandings, the point of this argument that i just
constructed is not to equate the limits in the two systems they're obviously in a whole host of ways a very, very different. the. i am trying to make is only that all of our counter-terrorism tools have legal limits associated with them. that is what it means to live under the rule of law. and those limits, along with variety of other factors, should andddo inform about which tool is best in any given case. to me, ultimately, the worst of the criminal justice system, and i am speaking in a narrow range in coming at this from a particullr angle, the worst that the criminal justice system is a relative thing. its value as a counter-terrorism tool has to be compared to the value of other available tools.
comparing the criminal justice system to the use of military force or diplomacy is kind of difficult because its shares so little in common with them, and your quickly into an apples and oranges situation where it really is just not a good comparison. as a tool, i think it is readily compatible with two others. detention under the llw of war and prosecution in a military commission. so i am going to try to do a liitle comparison now between and among those three systems. and if you think it has been pouring up till now, just wait and see. it only gets worse.
before i did the difference is, i think i should do the similarities. particularly the two prosecution systems i think there has been potential misunderstanding. whether you're the defendant in a civilian court for a military commission, let me tell you what you have got. resumption of innocence. requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. right to an impartial decision making. similar procedures for selecting members of the jury or the commission, and the military context. the right to counsel and choice of counsel. if you do not want council, an unqualified right to self representation, the right to present during the proceedings, a right against self- incrimination. a right to present evidence and compel the intended the favorable witnesses. the right to exclude president -- prejudicial evidence. a protection against double jeopardy, a separate section against ex post facto laws, and a right to appeal. i think these systems, the position of the obama
administration, provide the basic price that most americans would associate with the fundamental fair trial. that does not mean they're not a lot of differences. as for the differences, an exhaustive comparison would require a lot longer discussion than we are going to do today. it keeps threatening you. i have identified five relative advantages of our military authorities and five of the civilians. this is a little bit aabitrary. a portly, looking at it again, i keep emphasizinn this, solely from the perspective of the government and effective in this -- effectiveness in combating terrorism. so i kind of want to run through those, or at least some of them, depending on the look of pain on your face. i need to emphasize that this is not nearly as it detailed the comparissn as you will need to make an informed judgment. this is an equivalent of a stone skipping across the surface of a very, very deep body of water.
ok, with that caveat, let me lay out the five main advantages that i see from the government's authorities over civiliantary%- prosecution. it is from the perspective of the prosecution. i will discuss each one or at least most of them. let me quickly list the. first, a trip requirements. second, rules governing the admissibility of confessions, closure of the courtroom, here's the rules, and fifth, classified evidence rules. so approved requirements. in military commissions, the burden of proof is the same as in civilian court. that is proof beyond a reassnable doubt. i non-capital cases, only two- thirds of the jurors, rather than all of them, are needed for a conviction. under the law of war, it is tested through a habeas petition. the government needs to not only person in one -- needs to persuade only one person, and that is thh judge, and only by
a parent is -- preponderant of the evidence that the petitioner is the part about it horses needed for system turns out that is not always as easy as it might be. we have had some tough results in the gitmo case. is that the risk of really laying it on too thick, to back up and emphasize the ppint about the stone skipping across the water, it is true in the military commission that you only need two-thirds of the jurors in a non-capital case. and from the government's perspective, that is an advantage. but i want to point out sort of the week and unpacked these things. in a military commission, if the jury votes, say 7-- in favor of conviction, that is an acquittal in the military commission. because e did not get two- thirds, unless my math is off. in the civilian court, the
governor gets a second bite of the apple is the converse with one juror out of 12 to vote for the conviction, and in capital cases, even in a military conviction, you do need a unanimous verdict for the death penalty, just as in federal court. but the verdict in the commission in a capital case as to amount to the end chide -- the entire jury of a panel that might be substantially larger than 12 persons. that ends up being even harder. i wanted to, at the risk of going on way too long, just give you one example of how you can really just get into the weeds in the us and how things start and get very complicated. i will not do that again. so do not panic. requirements of admissibilityyof confessions, in the military
commission, unlike a federal court, miranda warnings are not required to use the defendant's custodes statement against them. while the same basic voluntary this testifies, there is the statement taken at the point of capture. for were dissenting, the reliability, which may become in effect, ppactically speaking, a pretty similar or something like the basic voluntaryness required. others might know better. but it seems to me not wildly different. third, closing the court room. both federal trials and military commission proceedings i think will overwhelmingly be open fares. that will be the rule rather than the exception. there may be some increased stability to close the courtroom in the military commission. they can be helpful, particularly dealing with classified evidence. there's certainly greater ability to close a court order in habeas proceeding.
unlike both commissions and federal prosecutions, the petitioner does not have to be there, which can be useful in dealing with classified. fourth, admissibility of here say. the hears the rules arr somewhat more relaxed by statute in military commission and they are in federal prosecution, and they are significantly more relaxed in the habeas proceeding. the d.c. circuit had an opinion this week say, pretty much of the here's a comes in. the only question is what we call the judge assigned to it. this can be good for the government. in some cases, particularly when talking about protecting sources. but what is good for the bears is also good for the gander. if you get the homdom case. this is osama bin laden's driver. it is under a imilar rule. i am told that he used the hearsay rules to much greater affect than his military commission proceeding than did the government. these rules are symmetrical and can cut both ways. finally, classified evidence.
the rules governing protection of classified information are+ very similar than the two prosecution forum. in both, they're very good. not only on the substance but also as a matter of process and making sure the government can plan in advance and no sort of what information is going to need to make the trial go forward. the rules are somewhat better in military commissions because when we are asking for them, we asked congress to codify some of the federal case law and adopt some lessons that we learned from litigating classified information issues in federal court. just to wrap it up, in habeas proceedings, i would say the rules are both more flexible and less certain than they are in either the other two settings. those of the five main advantages. i see them subject to all of these caveats that i laid out, which really are important. so now in order to answer the mail, have to do the other side of the coin.
and i will move as rapidly as i can. let me just list the five relative advantages of using civilian prosecution as i see it. first, certainty and finality. second, brad thought of scope. there, incentives for cooperation. fourth, sensing. i ave already talked about that a little bit. and fit, for and support. -- fourth, sentencing. certainty and finality, the rules governing civilian prosecutions are more certain, and they're better established than those in the other two systems. this can speed the process, reduce litigation risks, promote cooperation in guilty pleas and result in more reliable long- term incapacitation. you know, i am now a waffle- bottom bureaucrat. and a proud one. i used to be a litigator, and i still hang out with some litigators. i will tell you, from the perspective of a litigator, the certainty, the finality of these
rules is very important. it is very tough to operate in a new system. i think this is a significant factor right now, although hopefully, it will receive overtime as we gain more i think it would be wrong to discount it right now. second, scope. civilian criminal justice system is much broader than the other two. first of all, a lot more crimes can commit. covering everything from terrorism to tax evasion. and it applies to everybody. military commissions, at the outset, are not available for u.s. citizens. so people like flies also saw -- like shazad and on warlock he will not get prosecuted in net commission. neither is available for terrorists who are not related to al qaeda, the taliban, or associated forces. we're talking about groups like hamas, ramallah, and lone
wolves. remember the two guys to try to plot -- buildings in illinois and texas. they thought they were conspiring with al qaeda. turns out there were actually conspiring with the fbi. not nearly as effective. but they do not have, as a result of that, the actual requisite connection to the terrorist group, so they're sort of out of bounds. so the criminal justice system has a broader reach. in some cases, it is whaa you are going to need to use. third, incentives for operation to a criminal justice syssem has more reliable and pretty well developed mechanisms to encourage cooperation, to get information and intelligence from somebody in exchange for changes to their conditions or duration of confinement. military commissions had borrowed the plea and sentencing -- sentencing mechanism from the court-martial system did not think this may come over time,
work out and grow some pretty good mechanisms. right now, it really has not been tested. this is a market system essentially. that is a little crass to describe it that way. but the supreme court has talked about it that way. those kind of systems do not grow up over night. sentencing. i talked about this before. in federal court, justice impose sentences based in large part on the sentencing guidelines. and in military commission, as -psentencing is done by the jury members. without any guidelines. so we do not have a lot of experience with sentencing in the commission's, but what we do have suggests that maybe the sentencing will be a little less predictable. two of the three commission defendants convicted thus far, including this man who was osama bin laden's driver, got sentences of about five to six years. which meant that the credit for time served, they were released within a few months, and they are at large.
under the law of war, there's no sentence. law or detention is designed to take people out of the fight for the direction -- duration of the conflict. it did attention is lawful, the can be held until the end of the war. but in that hom d case, the supreme court warned that at some point of this word tends to be unlike the other ones, this authority to detain may unravel. that is the way the court put it. as circumstances change, a combat operations are concluded sunday, it is not totally clear, at least to me, how long into the future that detention authority will endure. final. on the comparison, international cooperation. unfortunately, some countries, including some of our allies, will not give us either the body or the evidence that we need to convict the terrorist. unless we promise that we will
not prosecute them in a commissioner hold them under the law of war. sometimes we have to agree to those conditions because it is the only way to go forward. now let me hasten to add, in case there's any risk of misunderstanding, this is not a plea to subject our counter- terrorism efforts in the united states to some kind of global test of legitimacy. this is just a hard-headed pragmatic recognition that in some cases, it flew want and need help from abroad, we're going to have to rely on law enforcement rather than military detention a prosecution to get the job done. all right, thanks. i appreciate you're not making a mass run for the exit during this. i know it was not the most exciting thing ever. you can see that the basic. i was trying to make is that you have to do this. believe me, it could have been a lot worse. so let me just try to wrap it up.
i think we cannot, and we should not to immunize terrorists from prosecution in our federal courts any more than we should immunize them to use of military strikes here are any other counter-terrorism tools. but i think there are a couple things we need to do. first, we need to educate ourselves about all the tools in the president's national security toolbox. so within the government, people use hammers for leaving, they need to know something about ranches and vice versa. if they do not, there is a real danger of a kind of myopia. person whose job is to use a hammer, every problem starts to look like a nail. prosecutors as an example but it appliis to everybody, you cannnt have prosecutors reflectively, the dollar is leading every national security threat as something that they and only
they can deal with. without considering the other purpose, and that applies i think across the board. we want to consider all of the tools. more generally, outside the government, i think the american people should understand and have confidenne in the tools of the policy makers have put in the toolbox. those of you know me know that this kind of public speeding -- speaking is not my thing, but it is a big part of why i came here today, to talk about this. and the second thing, as always, we need to consider improving and sharpening our tools. our adversaries are smart, and there are adaptable. we have to beethe same. so here's one example. recently there has been some discussion about whether congress might adopt legislation that would be useful on the issue of miranda warnings in terrorism cases. now for all the legal scholars out there, obviously, miranda is a constitutional rule. you know that from the dickerson decision from the
it cannot be changed or overruled by statute. that is not have the federal legal hierarchy functions. but the supreme court recognized an exception to the mayor and a role in 1984 in a case. it said that questioning prompted by concerns about public safety did not have tt be preceded by miranda warnings. in other words, you can use a person's answers to those questions to support its conviction and incarceration and incapacitation. even if you do not mirandize them. now, this case really did involve a common criminal. a guy who committed an armed robbery and then he ran from the police into a supermarket and they chased after him and found him, and he had in holster but no gun. they said where is a gun, and he said over there. it is not a smart thing for him to say. the question to the court said, well, we know that interrogation was custodial, and it was
interrogation. even though you do not mirandize him, the statement can go against him because it is prompted by public safety because we do not want guns lying around supermarkets. the question now is how the public said the exception, recognized by the supreme court in 1984, would apply innthat very different context, and that is the context of modern international terrorism. because the threat posed by terrorism today is a lot more complex, sophisticated, and serious than the threat posed by, you know, ordinary street corner crime. and precisely because of that, i think there are some good arguments that the public said the exception should likewise commend a lot more questioning, to mitigate the threat. and we would like to try to work with congress to see if we can develop something here that might help us, maybe give us a little more clarity and flexibility in these very narrow circumstances now involving operational terrorists basically.
because our goal always is to promote and protect national security consistent with the rule of law and our values. and i think possible, any way it seems worth exploring the this might be one way to help do that. ok, thank you very much for listening. now i think it will be happy to take your questions. [applause] >> like to spend a little time posing some questions of my own and then go to the audience. i would like to start -- before i began, it is a disclaimer up
front. david is not in a position, obviously, to address any pending cases are any operational matters. i am not going to raise any with him. if anybody in the audience does, i will glare at you and move on to the next questioner. then you'll be wasting everybody's time. sari. -- sorry. i would like to start were you ended with the mayor and a question. in the wake of the attorney general's comments on one of the talk shows about there has been a lot of commentary to the effect that miranda does not pose a serious problem in this context. some people, including me, have argued that the real issue is the necessity of presenting it to a magistrate in a very short time span. some people argue that none of them pose a serious problem.
i guess the question that i would like you to address is to what extent is this really in iran that issue. to what extent is it -- is it a miranda issue. what is it a hybrid? >> that is a good question. let me try to take the marine the peaciece in two parts kind f what they protected in the speech. let me do a little empiric c ground work and then a look conceptual work to sort of at least identify how i think about it, for what it is worth. tte empirical question on miranda really is, does it, in fact, have a bad effect on your intelligence collection? does it discourage people from talking who otherwise would talk? ttere is a fair amount of social
science that has been done on this. what there is suggests that miranda rule does not have a very profound effect, i think. there have been criticisms, studies pointing a little bit in both directions and studies criticizing the other studiis and so forth. but my sort of take away from looking through some of it was this study did not suggest it had a profound affect. i have to say i am a little bit more influence by many, many, many conversations i have haa with the professional interrogators to do this for a living at the federal location. they do a lot of interrogation'' preceded by miranda warnings. i think what you get from talking to them, at least what i have gone is, people who are going to talk are going to talk interrogator, the situation, and so forth. and people, by and large, who
did not wage and info, we now know from the supreme court that you have to invoke, probably in are going to talk any way in a voluntary and is constrained interview. it does not mean it did not have any effect. i would not go that far. i think it is easy to overstate when you put it that way. for purposes of thinking about it, let's assume some inhibitory effect. i guess the way i think about miranda, in keeping with the approach that i have talked about here and the context of our current national conversation, right, if you assume that miranda warnings reduce somewhat your ability to ggt intelligence from somebody, an assumption, but let's make it. on the other side of the balance is they obviously enhance your capacity to detain and incapacitate the terrorist because they give you evidence that you can use that is
admissible in court that leads to prosecution, the least conviction, that leads to incarceration. both ntelligence collection and incapacitation our national security values. both are good. both need to be promoted, and there are situations, if you indulge this assumption, or you may have to strike a balance between them. their intentions. by the way, this is not unique to the criminal justice system. i have friends at dod. i talk to them. if you are in the defense department in the merit -- in the military and are thinking about what to do with it terrorists that you have identified abroad or on the battlefield or elsewhere, you get a couple things. you can do is straight operation to kill them. assuming this is all legal and engage in within the law of war. that is a relatively low risk compared to the other option. it may have a higher chance of
success in the capture operation, which is the main alternative. by and large, it is easier and lower risk to killing then it is to put people and then try to capture him. the kill operation will have a higher chance of success and incapacitating this enemy combatant terrorist. but obviously, you will not be doing any interrogation and intelligence collection. so that is one option. if you try the capture approach, you will possibly get both. you'll capture him, and he will be incapacitated their detention rather than death, but he will also be available for you to interrogate. that might be intelligence collection. you have one opportunity, which is sort of low risk and potentially low yield. you have a high-risk option which is potentially higher yield. but you can think about, in a
purely pragmatic perspective now, which is not the only way that we could or should think about this, but it is the way i am talking about it for purposes of debate. think about miranda in a similarrway. if you mirandize somebody and get them to talk, you get both the intelligence and the capacity to detain him using those statements. if you do not on the make it the intelligence, but you might get the enhanced detention option. we should be clear, there will be cases in which a mirandize concession is all that stands between containing a guy at letting him go. those cases may not come up every day, but they will come up. i mean, i think that is the way i think about it in his pragmatic approach. that is what is public safety exception is an appealing one because it would allow us to do and warrants interrogation. so it there is a concern about the inhibitory a bag of miranda,
it would not be present. and yes, the statements would be admissible. in terms of present an, the rule is you present them to a magistrate without unnecessary delay under rule 5 of criminal procedure. and that generally means within the number of hours or overnight sometimes on the weekends it would be the next day. it is not a long, long time. but in the time between the arrest in the presentation, we have had pretty good luck, i think, not just luck, getting information. in some cases we can get people to waive not only the miranda rights but also their present minment. i think both factors are in play. i would sit -- but also their prestentment. we're always trying to improve
the system as much as we can. right now, all we're talking about so far as the public safety thing and not the presentment part. >> talk about about the current threat environment. we tend to focus, for obvious reasons, dramatically more on these issues when we have recently had a near miss case or we have reason to think that there is increased activity. are we, you know, the dhs code is always our ranch no matter phat happens. what kind of environment are we in? >> i start every morning with the attorney general and the director of the fbi and a number of other people getting on the overnight intelligence and the threats picture. it is a terrible way to start your day. i remember when condoleezza rice was being interviewed after leaping into is asked whether she missed being in government,
-pand she said no, and that particular do not miss starting off with the threat briefing every morning. you're right, these near misses, or in some cases hits, they have a tendency to concentrate the mind. i guess, it has been a very dynamic and very, very busy year for us in lathe national security community. if i tried to abstract back from sort of the trees to see the forest, i guess i see maybe three or four things going on, which would put under the heading that the threats is evolving in a way that to me makes it look more diverse. and maybe also that geography is becoming less relevant. so i am not, by the way, an intelligence analyst. so take this with a grain of salt. i described sort of what i see do this every day for a living.
i guess i think we have a couple new areas be on the faa's top region. we have eqat operating in yemen. and we know abdulmutallab came out of that. now we seem to have the pakistani taliban going. so we have some new nodes that can produce externally directed terrorists. we have u.s.-per cent recruits. zazi and others, rather than what you saw earlier which is people coming in from outside and infiltrating are penetrating. in fact, would you have, and david headley has a weird situation. that is not the right word, but it is unusual. which is a u.s. person here, physically here, but extra only directed out of the united states for a tax with a double- attacks with an a.q. affiliate.
the kind of turns our head. in this area of life as in all others, the increasing relevance of the internet is there, which does not respect geographic boundaries. that is my sort of amateur assessment of the threat environment. i do think it is a very serious in our men. and what i said when i was standing there before, which is a think there are a lot of people out there to wake up every morning and go to bed every night and think about how to kill us in between those two things. i think the threat is real. some people might not agree with that, but i think it is the real threat, and i think it is becoming more members. >> on that, there is a weird effect in counter-terrorism, which is that the more successful yyu guys are, the less people tend to believe the threat is real. it is this sort of, you know, it is like trying to convince you that it does not exist and then
-- that obviously affects people's willingness to use a robust palette of tools to address the problem, their willingness to believe in the problem. when you have these two near misses in six months, people tend to believe in the problem, at least for purposss of believing the administration has handled ii. i am curious, how does that affect the ability to have a stable set of tools overtime and opprobrious set of tools over time when there is a sort of waxing and waning of intensity of belief in the problem? >> first of all, i would be more than happy to be a victim of our own success in that regard, and we're flat out working to stop every one of these cold.
i think -- i talked about history before. if you sort of follow-up national conversation in this area, it is a lot like development of policy in other areas. there is a back and forth that occurs. some of that is natural. it is not just a linear, rational and intelligent progression that were the plan is adopted and executed seamlessly for 10 years. it is a back and forth, and that is part of the american political system. and it is, i think, also part of the changing perceptions about the threat envirrnment, the changing reactions to the threat environment. but as i said, what we do really first and foremost is try to protect against these threats as best as we can. and then we leave implications of that in the conclusions people want to draw, you know,
where they may. i have commented on things like that. i do not mean to say we just do it and forget it. but i want to emphasize, whatever tools said thaa we're given, and there are real questions about that, value based questtons and other questions. we will use them as well as we can consistent with the guidance to prevent every single one of these things. >> on that point, there are two totally divergent narratives of the last several months. one of them, the public one, that you hear, prettily in conservative circles, goes we went for many years without a successful attack on the there were, in tte last several months, two near misses that failed only because of luck. and this is connected in some sense to a retreat from a war paradigm and back toward a law
enforcement paradigm. on the other hand, the sense you get when you drove around the justice department, for example, as people really have a sense that there have been enormous operational successes and you hear phrases that the president can say on television, but i cannot say on television, in terms of taking parts of the enemies anatomy. i am curious how you assess -- how you assess it. i am not asking for operational details, but at you see how it has gone? >> i was in doj from 2000 to 2003 doing national security work. then i left and came back. i got back in about march of 2009. it has been, for us, an extremely busy, very hectic,
very challenging little more than a year now, and we have done -- i started reciting names. you have not heard of all of them, but we have done a lot. those represent successes. and we have worked hard to sharpen our tools and improve our synergy, take it mintage of the structure that the national security division has and the tearing down of the wall to lead intelligence anddlaw-enforcement work effectively together. i mean, you have to take this with a grain of salt given what i do and where i work, but i am extremely proud and very gratified by the work that nfd, which i know best, and doj have done in this area, and i think we have done a lot of things extremely well. we can always do better. we're always thinking about
improving things. but i would say the threat is evolving, and it is in many ways becoming more challenging and there does seem to be, i think, in your views on this might be just as well qualified as mine, there is a lot of activiiy in this space right now. so i think we have done a lot. we have sharpened their tools a lot. we have improved our processes, and we have learned when we do not do things right. and i think we need to keep learning because this is not something that you sort of fire and forget. this is an iterative process where you have to be constantly moving. i said the enemy was intelligent and adaptable, and they are. and we need to be intelligent, adaptable, and responsive of them want to keep up. >> why don't we take some questions from the audience? yes. >> [inaudible] >> wait for the microphone,
please. >> thanks. i am a student at amherst. i do not know if you read it the recent article in "national interest" about arguing that al qaeda is winning the war on ideological grounds and is more successful because they're able to sort of win more recruits over and replenish their ranks. i was wondering what tools are in the toolbox of it -- in terms of winning the ideological war and what this law enforcement has in that area of counter- terrorism? >> so i have not read the article, maybe i should. in terms of, you know, dealing with the supply of terrorists, as it were, as those from the demand side,,obviously, doj, intelligence, law enforcement agencies are focused on stopping them, catching them, preventing, protecting. we also want to do outreach to
communities to make sure that, you know, they will tell us when they see things. and we do not want to have an endless supply of these things, of terrorists coming forward. i guess it gives me an opportunity, without going way outside my lane and getting into the ttrf in the area of the state department or something in that realm, sort of make a much narrower. , which is, you know, in this conversation that we have been having thus far in the speech i gave, as pretty explicit about saying that i was coming at this from a pragmatic point of view sort of thing. look, but the tools and the tool box that you think are consistent with our values. give us some guidance on how to use them consistent with those values, and then let uu try to make sooe adjustments about which tool is best. that is part of the conversation.
but your question gives me the opportunity to say that values are important, and they do have an effect, not only on us and how we see ourselves but how our allies see as and how they will cooperate with us and our adversaries -- adversaries see as. i think you can be pragmatic in your outlook. you ccn be focused on winning and still think about values as something that tells you whinn they're good in depriving your3 what it might consider the moral high ground or recruitment tools that might allow them to get more people in. we need to be conscious of that as we go forward and tried to, you know, reduce their supply of recruits as much as we can. >> yes, dan. >> thank you.
denmark is, teaching at american university's law school. -- dan marcus. i want to ask about the intersection of your talk today with the problem of closing guantanamo. if i am -- if my memory serves me right, none of the people have been prosecuted successfully in u.s. courts that are guantanamo detainees. and obviously a major setback that the administration has so far, perhaps not a permanent one, is the inability to close guantanamo and transfer the detainees to the united states. how much of the problem for using the law enforcement model where we should use it is that creating for you and the justice department? and how much of that problem has been exacerbated by the reaction to the plans to try caius them or the other high level detainees in new york --
to drive ksm or other high level detainees in new york? >> there was one in the southern district that was in east africa bomber from the original indictment. no, gitmo is a vexing problem and has been for the last administration and for this administration. and i do not think that -- let me put it this way. there is a conversation going on, a political conversation, and a policy debate going on about how to deal with and what tools should be available for dealing with the gitmo detainees. which is kind of a subset of a larger conversation that i have been talking about, which is how to deal with all terrorist detainees. my perspective on it, you know,
is we ought to make available to the operational folks all of the tools that we think are appropriate and consistent with our values. there's a lot of room for disagreement year. i do think, as i have tried to argue today, that depending on the fact, law enforcement can be very effective in protecting national security and incapacitating terrorists for the long run and in gathering intelligence. but openly i am reactive to the tools that are put in the box. so what ever we have with the guidance that comes with it, we will use it to the best of our ability. i think that is about as far as i can go with that. >> to follow-up, -- >> i just said, that as far as i can go. >> i will redirect it.
is it hard to disagree in principle with the idea that the government should use all the tools in its arsenal, directed at how you define what ever those tools are? >> one consequence of that is that if you do not have a set of sort of known principles, if it is a highly fact-specific inquiry related to this individual, which box will go and what tools you'll array against them, it inevitably comes out looking like the answer to the question, what tools you use, is the master of the convenience of the government at any given time. there was a lot of criticism in the last administration of the fact that at the three alleged 20 of hijackers, they ended up buying three different systems. moussaoui ends up in criminal court.
one other ends up in military detention. you have your very different outcomes that seem to have no guiding principle to them. is a curious, so you advocate using all the tools that are there. what then looks like a principal in how a given case gets disposed of? >> interesting question. i mean, i think you can think of values or sort of other factors in at least two different stages. first is kind of a threshold determination, which is deciding what tools will be made available. and you can simply say at the outset, certain tools, not in the box, not consistent with their values, you know, not going to do it. there is the second order in which values are other factors beyond just sort of the path of
least resistance as something can informed judgment. in president obama's speech at the national archives last may, 2009, he talked about five categories of detainees. the fifth category of which were people who we thought were dangers and cannot be released and cannot be prosecuted for whatever reason and therefore would be held in detention. that is not your first resort, -pas i read that speech and the policy that goes with it. it is available, but it is not the first resort. so there can be, based on the other than just raw pragmatism, a kind of ordering our policy guidance that goes into the use of these tools. there are protocols by which federal prosecutors decide
whether somebody should be prosecuted in federal court or in state court or in civilian courts or in a ucmj if there in the military or within the u.s. court or foreign court. they set out the mannal, the big nasty policy but that governs prosecutors in doj. and those factors start with the assumption that all of the systems that are available, federal, state, military, foreign, are fair and consistent with our values. and then they set out with some factors. some are pragmatic. willard -- where will you be able to make the most of the case? some are a little more abstract like who is the victim and what is the nature of the offense? and where did the victims reside or something? so you have to decide at both
levels high you're going to do that assessment. i do not mean to suggest, and april should the opportunity to clarify this in case there's a misunderstanding, that it is just a one-level determination to you either rule it in or rule it out and get out of the way. that is not what i am saying. i am is suggesting that there is multiple levels at which we can do that kind of sortiing and prioritizing. but i do want to say that i think the policy guidance that lessons learned from the operational reality. i've always felt, always felt, i have often felt that the best policy is derived from extracted operational experience and the lessons of a really happens and that the policies that we adopt, if we think all of the
various tools are fair, ought to leave relatively large amount of discretion. because i think a lot of turns on the particular fact. i do not want to go so far as to say just give us what is in and back up. there is room for and we would welcome policy guidance within those bounds. >> next. >> shane harris with washington ian magazine. i want to ask a question of the justice department that is a bit self interested. i did you are not going to discuss the indictment of thomas' straight for the subpoena that has been issued. i would like to know, given what appeared to be an unusual number confidential, classified information being leaked through the presence of the public, what is your opinion on whether or not a journalist should have legal privilege that protects them from having to disclose the identity of their confidential sources?
>> i think law enforcement is an extremely effective method of combating terrorism. [[aughter] and we will be talking about that later. credit where credit is due, those two cases mentioned are the work of the department's criminal division, not the national security division. i think leeked cases are challenging to prosecute, for i think under doj policy today, there are requirements, as i am sure you well know in that u.s. attorneys' manual, for whee it is you can go and get information from a reporter. and that goes above and beyond the constitutional protections that the supreme court has ruled on in those cases and others.
and there's obviously a conversation going on about media shield and the like, and my goal here would be not to make any news on that issue. [laughter] >> i am with newsweek. the justice department -- care about the legal underpinnings of what you're doing. when you read your briefs, for everything you are doing that goes beyond the law enforcement mode, yes everything of law and 40 authority and you and vote that with afghanistan which was passed a few weeks after 9/11, which specifically talked about retaliating against the people who attacked us on 9/11. here we are nine years later, as you point out, the threat is evolving. one of the new nodes you talked about, pakistani taliban, did not exist at the time of 9/11.
how would you respond to people who say we are already at the point where you're stretching it by using everything based on that authorization to use military force? and more broadly, down the road, as some point soon, don't you have to find a new legal basis for conducting the kind of operations we're conducting around the world? >> i will give your process- based answer to that and the substance answer to it and then look down the road to sort of validate a little but the premise of the question. in terms of process, we are relying on the aumf and its definition of who may be detained at the first promulgated on march 15, 2009 in the context of all these habeas cases. and, you know, the definition realize pretty venerable
principles of the law of war, which was till love -- developed over a long time span with respect to al qaeda, taliban, and associated forces under this principle of belligerency together. i think there is a relatively well developed, not perfectly developed, and i guess it develops further every day, but there is a good solid body of law beneath that. so i do think this was not just something that was made up to deal with the short-term crisis. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] 3 cable satellite corp. 2010] >> in one case, the supreme court said we know that the aumf use the attention authority to use military force because it is part of the used to detain+ people whom you captured in that context. the court also said pretty
explicitly, if this conflict endorse for a time span and makes it unlike the other conflicts that informed the development of the law of war, then enter standing that you may detain for the duration of hostilities -- the understanding that he may detained for the duratioo of hostilities might unravel. we are in court and subject to judicial review. we do not just decided on our own in a lot of cases. there is habeas testing. substance, i think it is based on solid loss of four principles. the third, the court has said that it may unravel us some time of this one turns out to be very dear than the others. and then we would like to be able to anticipate that and get out in front of it.+ and certainly deal with that before happens. >> are we getting there? >> you know, we still have
>> i talked about miranda, i think, in response to the end of first questions. -- in response to one f ben's for questions. there are a lot of cases in which people do waive their rights to talk voluntarily. if they're going to talk, there are probably going to wave. a would not say absolutely, but there have been in a lot of cases. according to what you say, shahzad is one of hem where we have been able to get but i would ot want to leave the mpression that marin that prevents us from gathering intelligence. -- that miranda prevents us from gathering intelligence. nevertheless, you do not know
in every case that this is what is going to happen. that is what drives us with public safety. >> thank you very much. this has been illuminating in every respect and we hope you will do it again sometime. >> thanks. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> c-span, our public affairs
content is available on television, radio, and on line. and you can also connect with us on twitter, facebook, and youtube, and sign up for our schedule of birds -- scheduled colors and e-mails c-span.org. >> ships and rigs are drilling two relief wells and another ship with a flare off to the oil from the gas leak. if we will watch this for a minute. -- we will watch this for a minute.
house on wednesday. anddhere is a live look at the oil spill, continued to flood into the gulf of mexico. this camera is provided by m.v.p.. from this morning's "washington journal" this is about 45 minutes. continues. host: chles holliday is one of thsiness leaders whoet with president oma, alonith bill ges and others, to talk about u.s.nergy commitments. i just wanted tow our viewers, you are part of this american energy innovn council. guesrect. host: you put together a report and recommendations. i wa to theyre calling for. tripling annual spending on ean eney innovation to16 billion. currently around $5 billion.
create an independent natnal engytrategy board to conate federal energy rech. create and funcenters of excellence at a price tag of 150 milli, to two runs the 2 million each. spend a billion on high-tech high risk eney resrch, mmit $20 billi over 10 yrs for energy in private sector. it with taxpayer still angry for a bank bailout, why should u best taxpayer inst more into energy? guest: a great question as ou group came together from many parts of the economy -- nobody really from an engy or utility comny. we'reust trying to do wt is right for the country over l. we sawhr things. numberne, secury r the countr defense curity. anytime youre just -- pendent on just a few country for so mh for energy
supplies, a billion dollars a da we nt overseas for and 's because, that is not sustainable. second, we s energy costs onl increasing over time. more and more dends on plet. so we need to find ways to ha lower cost energ that is also clee thd, we are dealing with major environmental issues. global warmingand just the resses on natural resources. fromur experience and creativity -- creativity we see in our coury around internet and biotechnology, this is the right timeoome together on a host: what was your response om president obama? and you also met wit congressional lders. guest: we met with 30 congressiol leaders. i found a pitive. this is not a republican o democratssue, thiss an american issue. that is what we felt. very good dialogue. a lot of concerned about how you pay for it. no question about that.
weew out some ideas. likewise, with the president and his staff, but questions, challenging qstions, but i think very constructive. host: what type of questions? guest: fy this amount. why do you think an energy strategy board makes sense. why are these prototype project necessary -- why can't industry do it themselves? host: what is the answer? why can't the private sector do is? guest: these are very long term, very, very high risk an capital intensive. it is just morehan what most industries would have. it is understandab. if it was a good business decision and not too high rk, the would be doing it. what we believe it is these ototypes centers, whe you can demonstrate your togy, so you did not have to pay the
up-front cost but you do pray -- pay increment of cost. this is not a free ride for industry at all. host: want to go back to the issue of how you pay for it. what are se of the suggestio you are making in your report? guest: i worked for dupon for 35 years. we wouldave a long-nge research budt and we know w much we could spend. but we would from ti to time reallocate the budget. one option for our coury -- we spend a lot of country on r&d as country, a lot on defensend a loof medicine. could reallocate betwe those pops is one step. nodditionalevenue al, we look at the bilon a daye spd outside, $1 trillionnergy bill forhe country. only aery small fraction, less than 1%,l more tn pay f what we are talkin about. when you lk at whats in the best interest of users, if there we some kindf fees tha would partf the energ
system, that coulden opti. host: youentioned the business leaders are not from energy coanies. n you give viers an idea of w ch to run a company, how much energy costs you. what impacon your ttom line? gu of course it varies endousy ccuntry. but of perspective, tural gas to dollars per unit forever. -- was $2 per unit for ever. $4 per unit now, spike over $10 r unit. certainty around energy cost is not att used to be. that is one key facto all depends on whereou are. at dupont, we saw this need we took an effto keep o energy flat as we increase our production. we were able to save cuba to blee over $4 million on --
just -- we were able to save kunitz of lead for mlion- dollar just on and it. how do we get solar? if youook at a solar cell, 15% efficit. every scien i have seen -- if we only get 30% efficnt, we could ange the ge. that is what think it is a good investment. host: when you look at some been like wind, what do you makof that? perspective, wind, since inception, has cut the cost in half by perfecti the turbines, knowing how to placet and making the right decisn. we believe win is one area wherehe research money should be spent. i believere is a potential to cut costsn half again. th a of suddenou are starting to become mpetitive wi traditi eney sources. host: i want to read sometng lamar alexander wrote this mornin he has an etorial,
and up dead in "the wall street journal" about win. stop pretending it has anything to do with -- you disagree? guest: my fellow tenneee i think he me the se of what we were talkinabout yesrday. if we can't take wind downo a different cost plan, we hav -- he has a good poin iupport som subsidies -- and many oth countries are doing this -- because of the learning cue.
the way would cut the cost in half, isuilding them and knowg how to make a more efficient and effected. what we said in o report is we arnot taking any one technology -- wind, nuclear, solar, bfuels. we want the free marketo make the call on what is best. host: before we take phone calls, the viewers will see another idea for you, chai of the board for bank of amic they will probably think about tarp and bailoutoney. what is the status, as bankamerica paid back the money? guest: bk of america has paid back all theoney wh interest. and i bieve our bank is headg in a very good direction and we are focusing on operating efficiently. efficiently. our chief executive officer is doing fantastic job. weant to play r role in the economy. ery othe houseld had a relationship with us we feel a obligatn. host: you areew to this.
it brought in eaier this year. -- you were broughtn earlier this year. what is t role of chairman of the board? guest: i joined the board last ar and became chairman a month ago. it is to lea the board o directors. e chiefxecutiveice's role is to lead the company. it is an important part of the governance process, a series of commites. we look at the risk, credit, audit, governmts. it is my job to make sure the committees are staffedell and we have great people of the board workg together to accomplish that. i enjoy working with ian to ma that happen. host: bill on the repubcan line from dallas. yo are first caller: thank you for taking my call. i'm a first-time caller. i woullike to ask your guest about nkamerica's role -- bank of america psible in its creation of e climate change.
cap-and-tre legislation, and how bank of america, a po -- bank of america, g.e., and others will profit from what is e scam of themb in exchange in chicago. guest: i an not close to the details of the climate exchange and i am not aware of any unique role of bank of america, so i would have to pass. you ntioned cap-and-trade. the real question is not cap- d-trade vtax, but the issue is will we look at a ct of global warming a increase in temperatures and what impact will it ultimately have on the climate. the science is very, very complex. so, the awer for sure exactly howuch wi the global warming and what we all care about, what does it mean for me,o one can
tell y exactly. bu we think it is prudent to diversify our energ sources use a different ways of accomplishing that it is bter for o secity, a good step fward. we think some incentives -- it cod beigrfficiency standards for buildings and cars. there could be different ways to omp -- accomplish it besides cap-and-trade and ct. our group did not take a sition on what theht answer was, but it is something what the nation ha to deal with. wereery proud at bank of america that our new building in new york city is one of the great his buildings in t d. we have a cneration plant, we use low-costlectricityt ght to genate ice to cool the war occurred during the day. we tak water from theas basins and recycle it for toilets. i think there are examples and i am proud the bank is dog that, taki steps to make difference. host: eard onhe democratic
line from wionsin. caller: on the advisory board -- they are talng about $10 millio invesent from taxpayers. theernment -- taxyer should on the money. just like a gamble that money to nk of erica obail them out. we own part it for a little while, a now we don't, if we have any iovation that comes from taxpayer money, th taxpayer should on that. host: we should have shares of whatev com out of it, a businessomes outit? caller: exactly we shoulnotave to buy it back from private -- from the private sector. guest: we are in agreement. ihink iis imptant o t government makes these investments, that the taxpayer get it back. a lot of ways you ceturn the valu it does not have to be a cck but there ar ws -- if i would lower our energy bill, that is y to return it. but we think t cperati,
though, beeen the private seor makes sense. why are we the leader in medic techlogy? use the national instites of health made investments, yet the private sector generally invested twice as muc. that iwhwe see this kinof program workingut. you will see private money coming innce ey see commitment fro ourovernment. host: what kind of cpanies do you envision coming out of is coitment? guest: we are at a very unique time in tworoad areas of science. one is biotecology. one is biotecology. in the last 20ears we started to reall uerstand life - trees, grass, all kinds of crops. i think as we advance that furtheyou will find a whole series o bioch compani tt caeate things in different ways we have n done bor ilso think the whole solar ars very impressive. solarcan't drive down the
cost curve and make it competitivwith tradional form oenergy in the next 10 years, i would be shocked. host: william on eeplican linerom jacksonville, texas. caer:reta? host: yes,ir. caller: talking about the ice melt up there in alaska. it a te --n the wint months, the price is 42 inches thk -- the ice is 42 ihes thick in the arctic ocean. host: charles holday you believe in glol warming? guest: i wt up the to look, william, with a gup of people. cleay the is some ice melted. but there are cycles. this year the iig build. it might build up next year. so i would not argue over any one year. . .
basically, when i see the human genome project, i'm not seeing any royalties or even any of these previous high risk investments that because public has made prior to, and also, my concern is when i see all of this capital that big corporations and businesses have invested in getting better for us, let alone havvng them move all of their capital profits to having congress pretty much been the patrons of our elected officials. why are they not appropriating any of their capital into these investments? and why is this made off
the backs of our country? guest: ithink she makes some very valid point and there. there a tremendous amount of money in investment. i believ that will return t the erican pple lower costs and moreney. if i was writing rules, if i am creang jobs in th u.s then that is good. if i am taking that technology somewhere els it shld have -pto pay a higher royalty. host: how does this play into, if a al presidentba's
plan to double exports in the next five years? guest: i thi it is ctical. i ave ben the manufacturing cu-- industryor 25 yars. this is a great industry. one thing i acerned about is our energy supply long . if we c be leader in energy, whh i know we can b i think debt -- hat brings our ability to manufacture down and our just look at how many foreign mpanies are manufacturing here. ho:ext phon call,obile, alabam republan line, ruth. caller: high school science at teaches usow easy it is to turn any kind of ener int someth else, emical into heatenergy, electricity io
motiond solar into heat energ. i have house that is worse -- worth less than $100,000. i called ut solar panels on my house, a company that said that ty could do it for $45 ñi said it would pay for itself in 26ears. i am 86 years old and cannot wait. t only one at that could benefit from this is g., who is caught up this cap and trade thin g., who was caut u in his cap and tradin
guest: the numrs you descre are wh we're proposings somethin more efficient and out of it.tive, and you get more and secondwe are doin the studie of that we can brin down the stallation cts. it is a very expensive thing to do today. what would suggest is looking into insation r yourome. anyou' get much better pd back today for ding thathen a urce o host: next call from new york. calr:owould he he feel if iwned a 10% of his income ta? [unintelligible]
guest: i spe my time in our when money from banks and companie it is a relatively new experience of being inside one. what ixd sees the ability to ve moyo make money available for projects, which is whatbankerica ander banks to do. its very importan to make our economic stem work. i think the banks are critical. we need t have a strong relation, with you are aig bank or a small bank -- whether you ar a big bank or a small bank. i think that bigbanks play lot of value. witharge companies, we like to have a bank that can work wh us in the u.s., and also in mexico end canada -- and canada. i think if we restrict e size of our banks will make them less
competitive with europe banks and asian banks. host: when you say restri t size, are you tain about a sort of securities trading? guest: m personal view, no speaking for the bank, is that our banks need to oer the same products that of their global banks do fromermany and japan and china. i think we need to have goo strong regulaons out we can complishhat want. -- so that we c accomplish at we nt. thinke can have some very unintended consequencesf we restrict banks from doing things that are very natural. host 7 johnson writ in the blog "baseline scenario -- simon johns writes in the blog " seline snario," that if
properly regulated, trading woulbe less risky. it also make it less profitable. this could reduce e tent of upse profits. this is a feature, not abo. -- not a bug. how do you respond? guest: in general, we e working to find a good solution to financial inventory reform, to find the right set of systems that pro the if i am enurag -- imy. encoaged that we ll sort through the proce and get a good answer. host they will stillo this
business of devatives trading, this risky biness. whato you meanhat they wil gonto areas that are rare- can you explain that? guest: let'say that udecide to buy a company in europe and you haveenou dollars to do that, but itill not clo for x mths a you're buying it in euros and ehereuro is ming. you walk in thewith the rht number of dollars and say'm going to do this. th is very legitimate. if yourestrict the bank from doing that, still have that need. either i put my shareholders at riskñi due to uncertaiy, or go to some other organization that will make me that deal. iould much rather have tose deals that arrelated inside
this environment. host: next phone call, huntsville,ñi rpublican line, kevin. go morning, kevin. caller i am wondering why the guest woul expect any o the american people toieve bankameric when i cannot get them to spond to an of -- bank of america when i cannot get them to respond to any of my r about phonen my house. uest: kevin, i am very sorry for the slow respon, but please t again. we're very committed to serving our customers. host:xd what is bank of america doing on this, as far as tse mortgagesñi tha bankamerica has? andq your roleok as chairman ofe ñiboard,hat are you doing about this?
guest: board is elected by the sharehders. we representhe shareholders. at the sametime, wehave obligations to the regulator we assure that theank has the right governance procedures to be sure that our customers are reonded to and we meet our obligations. that is our le. it is very clear, the differences, and we're working toat better. host: but have the sharolders said to the bank, you need to do a better job of refinancing? guest: absolutely, we just ve our annual meeti and we listen to our shareholders f three hos. we heard some very good exales of whabank ofmericisoing around ofhe cards, charge
cas, etc. and outeam of mortgages is working very hard it is just a big workload right now. but th are making good progress. host:we mentiod tt you are the former ceo and executive of du pont. are executives paid too much? guest: at dont, we took that question very serisl we haa limit on pay at was a rge of tyinghe ceo to other seor executis. sionwe felt that ceo pay back wo buy wa just no the right thing to do. -- and that was too high was st not the right thing to do.
i think there is natural outra when it ge to bso far outf line. host: the you thinkthe vement andhould st in and dictate how much executives get paid? host: why not? guest: i think that is part o our free mket sysm. are they going to step iand say how much a baseball player shld be paid? where stop? i think it needs toeut transparency, so that people understand the numbe a clear and sensible way. and people need to understand the mechanis. its ther anything in this pay package that isencoaging the ceoñ of not to act in the best interest of e sharehders? host: one last question about this, but se haveaid that
whenou hav someonehat serves as ceo and chairman of the boardhat there is a conflict of interesthere. you cannot serve in th roles. you did at dupont. gues think either systemmwi work. i think ithe ceo and chairman are the same person, then there is a presidg director, for a lead direcr. also serve on the board at john deere. host: l's get ck to phone calls re. mulrine on the indepennt line in connecticut. i will have the produr nch up this line because i'm not sure wch line is on. are you with us? allight, we will movon to their role inhe -- in delaware, -- we will move on to darrelin delawe. call wiegard to cap and
trade, i'm wondering why there is a change in opinion. gues dupt,suorted a cat and tradeyem -- cap a trade system. t we believe that will drive e right rket econocs. and it allows thefree system to work effectively. the are oer ways to accomplish this objective. as we talked about fel eficienctandards, we put thosemployes to make cars 35 miles pegallon. -- put t in ace to make our 35 mileser gallon. we are running out of ey sources. these are some things that we are proposing. overall, we are supplying 6.7 llion people anwe need to use our resources wisely. host:ould mornin marc, you
caery questiononcerns property ownership and resource. basically, wh owns theand and host: fred, wis your point here? caller from a philosophical plays, who are the rhtful owners of our nural resources? jzwe are borrowing those resours om the next generation. i think we need be very go storieof those during this tiframe because t generations before us have passed on natural resources so that we couldav good
standing. host: what is your rolen the energy council guest: at dupontor 20 yea plants in a more efficient nner. and we always sawaysto increase our capilities with our products. the opportunity came to join ll gat and jeff amelt and others, suchan opportunity to ñrbrg ts wealth of experienceçóq d we sat down. we dinot know where we were going. we did not knowñi if we wou ever meet again. but what we found s that group
ofxd people supporteñi with a p, it was something we could be excite about. and we wentxd to ee$bers&o#f congress and they said itas pretty good. i auj website. it is about 30 pages ñrfátake aook d makes a lot of sense. host: we can put the webte up as we go to the next phone ca. call: iould just like t remind the of listensthat o ... i' sorry, am i on the a? host: you a. caller: bank of america was and probably still, loaning
money to illegal immigrants who have no social security numbers for had social -- stolen social secutynumbers -- or had stolen social securityumbers. whe called the bank of america before i stopped doing business with themo find out why they weredoing that, they said, we would likeo give ese people a path to citizenship. justhink about that before you decide. if we give money tmexico. people are being killed on our borders. and this banking wants toi them money. peop thatre coming across the board illegally, money. host: let's get a response. guest: i do not wan to talk about the detail operati of the bank.
we are here to tal about energy, but i appreciate the callers perspective. host: next calfrom alabama. caller: in responseo the lady's question, your responsibility through the housing rensrction act, are u responsible to offer mortgages to peoehat cannot indite that they have a job? guest: i am not the rit pers to talk aut tsepecific requirements. host:an you explain why to the viewers we interested in thi hy you are not the right person? gut: thank you. as the board we are not working in the day-to-day bas of the management decisions of t company. make re that the regulations, wt is required, and at there are processes in
place for th3000 employees o bank ofamerica that serve our customerand ery day, that they're well traid and serve our stomers well. st: kalamazoo, mich., ken. calr: hs says that ere is some encouragement to invest in manufacturing inhis country, and i thin he ha not visited the midst. i would likeo know where this investment is. host: mr.oly? est: i think you ma a good int and i visit the mizzen-the dwest a lot. you are right, there is not the investment that there ought to be. when we are doing our job and make sure that our-12 educatn, m sure at ou employees of this company are well-educated, and we get our costs down, i beeve the u.s.
will be a great place to manufacture things. it will be a great place to produce software and multiple things and thats what we, a americans, should focus on. host the republin line kentucky, doug, go ahead. aller: you make a good presentation and you da good job of setting reasonable in the things that you are saying, and i think there are ome legitimate points about dng these alteativeoadster energy. but one thing wld like to but one thing i would like t say is, is whole thing about global warming, we ize this is just a big hoax. i looked into this issue very hard at a fears ago and en i discovered thate have the
same level of warming on jupir and mars that we have hereand there is not a smtack or a mufacturing plant orn automobile plant on any of tse planets. as far as i'm concned, that was the end of the story for me. i just sh that tholks that arersuing the agendare doing it for the reasons that we are claiming,hat we do not want to depend on reign engy and for cost ffectiveness, and all those reasons. anwe want tobring equity into the world scene. we want the united states standard of living to go down and others to go up.
i just wish we could put the arguments out on theable that are really dring this ise and give up this hoax that is man-made globawarming. gues in 1950, there were 2.5 biion people. today, ther are 6.7 billion people in the wld. we have more than doubled in over 50 years. we are saininghe capabily this plan to meet those needs. t is n obal warming or climate change. if you look at the reality of usng those natural resources for our standard of livg, aad what we areroposing here is simple measures to help reduce the demandn those resoues for us and our kids and grandds. its a very simple equion that makes s muccommon sen to us. host:heris atory in the busineection of the "new rk tes" this morng.
there is hard evidencehat in the mernmerican financial mainstam, scarcely is their isolation from new yo. can you expla that? guest: ihink theessage is clear, with bank of america in ever household. but we are very connected i do not see how a bk is going tory successful of t communit not successl, too. our commities must be stng businesses wl not do great if the commuties are also doing great. host: a when the banks are doing badly, does that impact those communi that u have vested in? guest: i thi it affects the
bank's ability to loan moy fo good projes and homes and education. i tnk of will affect the communit need a strong final system that will make the lives of the americans much better. host: richmond, va., independe line your on the air. -- you are on the r. caller: i hate to digress, but i would like to get back on the subjec of energy. i feel that if we are putting our tax dollars in research and the governments giving subsidies and grts and wha not, whenever they use to ever they used to process the rearch, i wod like to ask
how you take ownership and accept t outcome on the use of energy. i would like to know, what do u fl persollybout the goveor -- the government taking ownership guest: the free market and enterpriseystem has proven in country after country in the world as the best model. i think is in the best intest o government to make instments in things, such as ooad stem, our real y system, nd including our ene system. not to o assets -- i thinis tter not to own the assets, but to reassure lcost ergy to make our econo more effective. i think tt is a legitimate role of government. but i do believe that thas a
strategy board, thereught to ba lot of leeway in improvements for the economy. host: next pho call, republican le, bill. caller: my batterys a ttle bilow. host: and i need you toake it quick. d we are running out ofime here. caller: yesterd's senate vot, 47-53, the epa basicay was able to overrun what i consider to be the delegation of the coress here. this starting to look like a big marriage to h and the americaneopl are starting to lose. e we are starting to lose our reesentation. i just wanted to make tha point. host: charles, if you couldake
up in on the vote yesterday -- if you could weigh in on the vote yesterday allowing the epa to go forward with emissions. guest: wh we have advoted is new legislation that sets up the right system to do that. ost: congress should be doing it. guest: congress should think about whatthe needs are now, not going through this legal process. i support the decision th has been me. i think there's a bett way to do it. host: you're talking about ovl energy legislation. whathey're working on right ow, proposals by various senators. what did you hear about yesterday, about the time frame for passing?
guest: what we have heard over and over again is this is an extremy active time and people arworking very hard to fd the right comti >> next week, president obama will make a two-day visit to the gulf coast where he will tour recovery efforts in mississippi and alabama. tuesday, the heads of the largest oil companies testifies on u.s. energy policy. there before the move house energy subcommittee on the environment. the white house has invited bp executives to meet with the president on wednesday. bp ceo tony keyworhayward testis
this week. ca>> another look at the oil spl continuing to flood into the gulf of mexico. next, a discussion on the environmental impact the oil spill is having on the gulf region and how the environmental movement is trying to push for the use of alternative energy sources. this is from this morning's "washington journal." ere juatg some c-span fooge there of ere juatg pelicans bei cleaned off. what are you heari? is the national defense resource council down there in lisiana? guest: well, i have been down there,nd i'm goi again. rightfter the spill, we sen a tm for about 10 days. and we're very in close conta with a lot ofanatns th are working down there. so, you know, at th beginng,
out of the oil, and here was, i would say, a lo pregnant pause waiting for the oil toit the sho, wh would it hit, whe wou it hit. and now at's the phase tt we're , and people are really scrambling. and i think thehing that -- unl yogo down there, you really don't appreciate, particularly the wetlands of louiana, hich are the richest wet lant envirment we have in the country, h expansive it is, and also how intrate its. you know, a barrier island, you put a boom across,opefully you protect ityou put out t budozers, u cleaned up the nd. but in a wetnd, both the grass anenvironmt, wch is very hard to clean, and also, terally thousands of waterways, thousands of miles of coastline, very diffilt to protect and also incredibly rich from ecological standpoint. our shrimps, our oysters, our
bird life, they use those areas to produceandhat's one of the reans t mare environment is so rich and so abunted ant. so the consequences are really unto and t challengeof trying to protecthose rich coastlines are really, really, very, very difficult. host: what about the long term? guest: well, in theong term, there e several sues. one is what's happening off shor remember, the oil iseing generated 40 miles out. you know, we've been reading about these very large underwer plumes. we know that huge volumesf dispersement have be used for a purpose to protect that vy rich cstal environment. but in the meantime, what is the impact of both the toxicity the impact of both the toxicity of the oil and the toxicity of thdispersement on e rich mane life of the gulf that creates this incredible fishery, as we as marine mammals, dolphins, sea turtles, many of which are endangered, which are all in that environment. one of t things thatas surprised all us is how
ttle research has been done in the past on these spills and how little informati we ha. e of the reasons that the disperseme issue has been so controversial is we don't really have any scientific data at'sdequate to determine what happens at these volume or at these depths. so, you k in, there is a lot of research that needs to on after is t prepare us if god forbid, anything like this happened in the future. but in the meantime, we're pretty mh operating in the unknown. one strategy tprotct one thing is aradeofn another aspect of the natural vironmen so thi truly complex, truly complicate and really devastatin catastrophic. host: the president put a morarium on deepwater drilling, bute has -- the administration has lifted the motoum for shallow water what's the impact of that? guest: first of all, the cricalbecause what's been cleato eve single rson
wa this unfold over the last 51 dayso one knows how to contain this in the deepwater environment. anuntil newtandards, new technologies are developed and new safetyrocedures and the independent commission that the president has announced com foh thts finding we have to real put a hold on that. in the shallowater of the marine environnt, it's just as vulnerable as in the deepwater eironment. i thone thing that has also become apparent is that the oversight ecement and regulato review of the service has rlly been woef inadequate. and, you know, that has been clear literly from thstt clear literly from thstt of this, and think also going back t the massey coal mining disaster wre 29 peopleied, also the interior department, there is aong stor o much too cy relaionship between thnergy industry andhe thnergy industry andhe inrior department. at has to cometely erhauled. so the shallow water sites, we
need tenre that there are adequate eironntal protection, that adequate procures have be followed, that the full extent of the law s been adhered to before ose go forwa, and think that, younow, t shallow water, theeepwater, we know there's a big problem ith deep water, bute really ow there's a lot problems with the procedes and intio and until we cae positive that those have been overhauled, i think you have to be concerned about that environment as well. >> crif environmental groups have said, environntal groups are to blame for why there'spwater drillin th if it weren'tor environmental groups, there wod be shallow water drilling. >> therea lot drilling. there arever 3,000 orating wells in the gulf ofexico i the shallow water. the shallow water. i mean, that is a massive resource that has been develop over the past, i guess, century in e lf of mexico. i don't know how long. u know, the eonmental community hasn't stopped any of ose. it provides 30% of t oil of thcountr
i've heard tho allegions. i think they're ridiculous. host: congressman is wking on an energy bill. at would you like to see in that bill reled to ats happening in te gulf? guest: i think e spill in the gulf has brought the reality of the last 40 years of energy policy in the united stat, whicis we don'tave a mprehensive energy policy, don't have one that moving us forwa on cleaner, re efficienthnologie re efficienthnologie so coness aually has been debating for over a ar ming forward can energy a climate legislation leslation paed in th hse last year. it's n moving -- there's a different version of it, moving through the senate, and i think thathe spill is actually a great opptuni to expin why we nee comprehensive clean energy and climate lislation. thategislation needs to deal with man the condions that allowed this bill to
occur, particularly t occur, particularly t oversight in the regulatory authority of the interior dertment. but in addition to that, it needs us to get on a clean energy pathway wre we ruce thamount of oil tha w use gog forward. we're a very oil-addicd tion. u know, we have 250 million ca on the road. we havsomething like 3% of the wor's pple, but use 25% the world's oil. that is not sustaiable or the lo term. that's why we'rerillin at 5,000 feet, a veryragile xico. nment in the gulf of it's why we're exporting oil from the tar sands in alberta which is devastating the forest up tre. it's why people e interested in exploiting oiln the arctic, muchore fragi aric envirnt off of aska. it's becau we have a trendous addicti, and we trendous addicti, and we have bn talking about it since president carter was presidt in the 197 's, saying we need a n, more efficient energy poly. and we just haven't donet.
and now is the timehere i think the entire nat i clear why we need to get on a clean energyathw, which actually provides great opportuns for the country. i mean, n technologies, invation, more efficiency, just new ways to approach transptation issues. s it's, i think, a very sever need for the country, but also think itreat real opportuties still. host: phone callsor franc beinecke, louisiana democratic line. tony, you're othe caller: good morning. first off, thank you for c-span. second off thank you very much for thatittle film fro fort jackson,ecause being from do here,'m only five minutes from theman -- from the marsh, and i see the brown pelican ery time we go to the marsh fis and i a see the raccoons, rabbits. it's incredible to wildlif this is called the sportsman's
radise for a reason, o and eve time i see pictures of birds that are covered with oil, i get so sad, i want t cry. but seeing these volunteers coming from all ovethe country t ft jackson, bless these people, because that our state bd. all of these resoues down here a very important to the peopllike mehat grew up here in the marsh that fish and hunt and enjoy i so mu. hank youor what you do, miss frances. i'm just overwhelmed this morning. thank you. guest: well, thank you so much for saying that. i think looking at these videos of cleing up the birds, you rely have to thank the volunteers and people whoe toer from alr the country to be available to louisiana, to the gulf coast, to reall ensure that ere is a maximum cle-up operation.
i thk you're righthen you sethoil, oil pelans, it's really devastate wling. but your hope ened when you really see the response of ose volunteer workers and professionals in the wildlife cln-up. i know i am. thank you for all you do a for appreciating how valuable that marshland is. host: washington, d.c., republicanine. cal, good morning. caller: hi, goning. i have a question, b fir i ju wanted to just comment. with the exxon valdez, inow + they did an instigatiin, and fr the very beginning, you know, news cameorwarddthat this was, you know, related to the incompee of the cin on board and previous convictionhead for drinking whilonuty. what dwe knows far ashis investigation goes? what was the cause was iterrorism? was was this terrorism? it was as a man-made accident? guest: i think that at some of these was basically an accident
-- that the exxon valdez was basically an accident. for one reason or another, the reason these happened -- the exxon bodies was so important because it was a massive super tanker. it was a very fragile, christine, alaskan environment. it was the juxtaposition of this huge disaster in that environment. one of my colleagues has a vial of sediment from prince william sound that was collected a decade after the exxon valdez. when you take it off, the oil is as potent as it is at your gasoline pump. you can smell it still, 10 years later.
it was a very serious, devastating accident to the region. it does have long-term consequences. many of these things are problems of human error or technology. the consequences are truly devastating. host: there are news reports about several lawsuits being filed against bp. will your group filed a lawsuit? guest: i am sure there will be thousands of lawsuits against bp -- individuals making claims on losses they have experience. there will be lawsuits about whether federal laws have been fully adhered to under the marine mammal protection act, the migratory bird act, the national environmental policy act, and other environmental statutes that are designed to attract wildlife and the natural world. we are an organization that does litigation. most likely we will engage in some. it has not happened yet.
there's a lot of accountability that needs to be done here. and no doubt, it will be. as the exxon bell does -- exxon valdez, this will take years, too. span. i guess m callg just to venty frustrations, becse i ok up tyour guest and get her feedback. i gduated with dree in biology with t intent to go into wildlife ecologynd consvation. but, you know, is really hard to get a job inhat eld. and i prett muchad to go into biote, even though that'sot really where m heart lies. and i don't know, that' one aspect of . i'm jualling to,ou know, express my frustration, mainly with the gernment in terms of response knowing that all of these countries in jobs for the vast majority are shared between
nonprofittorganizations and the government, it is disheartening to see the response of the government and the lack of response -- the lack of urgency. it really puts a bad taste in my mouth -- in my mind. few people care about this. is there any urgency? there does not seem to be. there does not seem to be funding. it seems clear that obama and pp have tried -- and the ndp have tried to downplay this and hide it. host: we will leave it there. do you think you're getting more interest because of the oil spill? does that translate into more guest: that is interesting. first of all, i read a study that 85% of the american public is watching this story to the public is fixated -- is watching this story.
the public is fixated on this. you can see the oil coming up out of that right sir every day. host: you can see it right now. guest: it has been a great opportunity to talk about the consequences of the oil spill. what are we of their drilling in the first place? -- why are we out there drilling in the first place? f us. who here isn't driving a car at some point? so i think it's captured the public'sttention, and certnly our membersande have about a million activists around the country are ver focused on this d wanted to be sure that we use all the sources availableo eure th this neverappens again. at the same time, we actually went out with a funaising drivto support local groups ii the gulf, and we got a very positive response and we'll sendinevery e of those dollars down to the gulf coast fund i louisiana, which is a
network of local organizations that are working o response to ts ill. host: do you know how much you were able to raise? guest: we raised about $8000 i waseally pleased that we were abl do that and send it down there, becau it is organizations on the ground, and yocan see it from all the footage. thosare the people seeing the effect, the oystermen, l the businesses tt go along with that, consvation groups, those in the recreation business. business. i an the human toll is as devastating as the toll to the natural envirment. it's really powerfu host: whad a vwer on wednesy bring up that volunteers are being turned awayown there. are you hearg reports of that? guest: well, i think- first of all, i think it's so great that people have turned out withuch offers to go down there and help. it fantastic. but, y know, you have to nage that, and there's just -- i mean, you can seep from the wildlife clean-up, there's a certain amount of experti, but there'also just a limited amount of space and volume.
so, you know, i'm hoping that they'rramping up, and clearly, a the oil moves along the coastline and it gets further and further appled, th they're gng to missouri and more volunteers. i hope that the's a maximum use of the ople who are really offering theirervices, because it's going toake a it is a question of getting -- deploying as many people as yyu can and managing that. i hope the coast guard, bp, the state and federal agencies -- really use everything to their maximum advantage. the american public really wants to help. we saw that after haiti and after katrina. everybody who's watching this show understands that the people who are most affected by the consequences of this of the same people who experienced katrina. when you go down there and talk to them, the fishermen and the people who operate the shrimp
boats, the people along the coastline, and they have experienced the devastation five years ago. there are now experiencing a different kind of devastation. they are very resilient. you must admire them. you cannot imagine having to go through that yourself. it is consequential. host: we're talking about the environmental impact of the oil spill on the gulf coast. our guest is the president of the national resources defense council. the next phone call is on the republican line. caller: i was listening to all of this crop. -- crap. days, they blod the welin you goack thereoday, . there's t a sign of it. it came from mother nature this. came froer nature. give it tim it will go back to mother nure. host: whatbout that point? guest:ell,ou know, first of all, it didome. this is milons of years o naturale that has been compressed and noo wrerying
to use it agin. i think the natural world is rilient, but i think tt it's also a worldhat we depend on. so, you know, look at the shrimpers and t they do not know how long they're going to be out of work. no one knows how long it will take for the natural world to -precover. it is critical to clean up as much as possible. a certain amount will evaporate into the air. a certain amount will disperse into the water column. a certain amount will come on shore. it is causing oyster beds and shrimping grounds to be closed. we have to do everything we can to minimize the impact and ensure that it does not happen again. weedepend on the natural3 we value it. we have a responsibility to manage it as well as we possibly can. the natural world is resilient. it needs help in this case, in my view. host: los angeles, democratic line, victor. good morning.
collar >> thank you for your service. i appreciate what you're trying to do. it is almost impossible to combat this destruction. there is no way to really measure it, except that we will not see a for a long time come back the way it was. one question and comment. are you getting the entire support of you have asked for with reference to what you need to do? i understand that the russians and finland -- this might have been with less people -- they closed the well, but it can never be used again. has anyone loooed into that or discuss that? you blow up and then close it. perhaps there be logical ramifications.
misstatinggk you're the organization a little bit. guest: we are a nonprofit organization.+ we're not connected to the government. we have people working on this year the government is ramping up their effort every day. president's tone, his multiple that down to the gulf, he determid put t resources of the federal d this. nt behin i see tt happening more every day. s far as the explosion or the detonation in russia, that was a nural gas well, and my dersnding is it was onshore. we ha not heard they are xaming th kinof effort in the gulf. i tnk what's going t happen -- i thinkays the prevus 's two dicated -- there relief wells being drilled to tuallyntersect this
particular peline. and that'she beshope close this off, and the o instry has experience with that. the only thick is 2 takes a couple of mohs, 60 days, for that to happen. gush. tryingwhy they've been se otherhings to contain it in the last several which he been altugh the l, most recent containment effort e succesul. but n we are not proposing or looking at actlly exploding something to blo tt oil from coming up. host senator l alexander, republican leader in the oday in "the wall seet journal," an energy . tegy for grown-ups and he wtes about -- that you needo put more onshore resourc for oil and natur gas back on e tab, we need alaska. lling in u addrsedhat issue. but he als says that the governnt needs to -- environmentalists need to stop pretending that windower has ything o do with reducin america's dependenc o oil.
he said windmills genate electricy, n transrtation file, and wind has bome the let pock of the 2t century and a taxpayer ripoff. y 1.3% of u.s. nl electricity, but receives yer subsidies 2 a watt s much per ur as subsidies for all other forms of lectricity oduction. gut: well, those are two differenissues, so let me respond to senator alexander. proponent of a he has been an opponent of wind. we disagree. we think there is a lot of potential for wine. it is in the single digits as far as providing electricity in the united states. we think it can be in the double digits. it will not be the only source of power, but it could have role to play. you can see that in europe -- denmark, germany, spain -- with tremendous amount of wind.
i completely disagree on the pope appeared on a point of transportation fuels -- we need much more -- on the point of trannportation fuels -- we need much more mileage per gallon. w 20's, and at's technologilly possible, d we need to go the. nvest heavily in public transrtation for our urban areas so that people hav f terniv and can get out o their cars. need to dop in a ttern that prodes people access to public transpoation so that we stop the approach, r prawl that we've had e last0 yes. and we needleaner burning alternative fuels, and people lookingthat as well, ethanol-based fuel, b biofue thaare created out ances.er subst are alternative pathways for autobiles and for transportaon, and weeed e looking atho aggressively. st: new leans on the repuican line. richard, good moing. caller: good morning. hank you for c-an.
d for thi program. ears since s bee y i've called . i've gott take issue with things your est said, made she w ts as talking, that i hope i can just go through them qckly, then if she wants to address some of th,has fine. but i don't believe the people moratorium l economic ul impact of it. fail t realize along the coast dependent on these oil rigs for their ng. a few hundred works who work onhe rigs, ple in the support jobs. and most of the experts,ost say, if tse le sit there idle.t dow they're going to leave t coury, and ack. re not ing to come b to just siting
this out. also, i've heard other ofcials y they want to hst b.p. responsible f the los wages these people hav i just don't think that's poible. too remote fro a legal standpoinfor b.p. or anydy involved in tha peration r drilling toe held responsible. that's an dependent act bng caused ban act of th president. host:hard l's leave i est e and let our gu respd, because theconomic moratorium is omething that our last guest brought s well. listening to d m, and certainly understan that. when you go down to louisiana, very apparent there are tries.in indus one is the oilnd gas industry, and the other is the ishing dustry. fishing instry is alreadout ut t oil and gas industry out of work o question about it. mentioned, there are 3,000 operating wellsand there's tmendous amount of
employment with operations that will connue. i dohink it's rlly impoant understand what went wrong here and ensure that it doesn't happen again. that's the responsibility of e fedel government. it. eto get a th need to do it quicklyand ho to to fige o do it with a minimum impact on those who ar emplod by the sexoil gas industry. with that.gr think that b.p. countable for this. reason that these is because of this spi. ce the reason the spill happened, , but it'o find out very clear that there are inadequate seguards, alternatives, redundant operations so they uld coect it when it happensand that there weren adequate safety and clean-up wheit did in ace occur. long-te befit of the gulf of mexi a all the peophat depend on that rources, we haveoet this right, and we have to take the time to do. that massachusetts. fred is ining usn the
independent ne. caller: yes. call. ou for taking my e like to address long-term impact of the dispsements, which is basically a deterge. i've been on several conservation group boards,nd thaca up in the past is effort toesck salmon.ntic it didn't succeed in a lotf e rivers because theround war that ran into the rivers had deternt, and that acted as a hormone, i belie estrogen, so that the males actually became sterile, and therore, you know, affected futureenerations. an we know now that the tunas migrate onhe sface live on the surface. that' just one speciesbut it could have long-termffec on the reproduction capabilities
of all fishes that could be susceptible to a dernt use. host: miss beinecke? guest: i think you're absolutely right. earlier, the s was to protect the cotline, to break the l the efore iteached coast so that it didt coat those very valuable coast wells which yohave in massachusetts as well, so vue ery aware of the them. but by the same token, is gotten inte water whe the tuna has swned. fish are all kinds of laae and fishests and plankton and all kinds of marine lif in tt marine envirment really ealitis we don't know what the impact is, but we do know that the dispersents are toxic, as is eould have to assume that therare long-term imcts from ts. and it's imperative that we get -- one, that we reduce the ispersements that is being used gng forward, and
e.p.a. has directed b.p. to greay reduce the volume of dispersemes that they're rrently usin and that is alsorically important, and i thinthe national oceanic administration is woing on a rearch nsure that into place so that we do undstand, and so the time -- if there ever is a hopefully there isn't wknow what to in what circumstances, at what how long. for and right now we d't have those answers. you're aolutely rit. hostnext phoneal dale on the republican line from st. petersburg, frida. like toyeah, i'd comment. i heard some divers went down up and could not see was so t,he oil thick. hat tls me everything in the to die because of that. and you're talkingbout dispersements. governmentnd everybody else to hide the l. as f as i'moncerned, the federal goverent, theyll
had a handn that, and i say vote them all out, a i'm ed of the gulf spill . it's a disaster. host: i could agree more. guest: we should e catastrop, because that's is.ly wt it i think that, you know, as i say, there tremendous oil out er you knowwhether you see it or whether you don't, and wherever t isic, it's having on mare life. it's having an immediate impt impact.-term , 10 years after thspill or yearsfter the spill in prince willia sound exxon valde there still oil there, an there's still impacts from that. so, you know,e can all anticipatet thare very rm consequence s disasr a that we need to minimize the damage. we need to reforthe procedures, and we need to protect frile ples going forward. host: kansas city,issouri, demoat line. . ul
caller: thankou very much. and two previous callers ju stole a lf my fire, a couplof add things about the dispeements. ok, numb one, i thinkhey ly remove total them. saw mething on twhere they've got a tube runni down they're shooting dispersement in the upcoming l. now, here's ththing. re mayot be any specific research on this, ere's tons and ton of informn abt the ecology sprding pollution. anwhat they're doing he is they'rgoing to have what's called utropicatio i, an overabundance of one of the lels of plants and animals in the ocean. they'reoing to suck up the oxyg and cause dead zones. o hide the this t oil. i agree with the guy. i don't agree with his solution that we shldire people. ink we need l, and i'm 100% behind doing l, but these guys tried to do ts on the cheap. d to be accountable for that. we make sure we get itnd get it safe. but right now,hey're u
dispersementhide the crime, d these people ought to go to prison o est: i think b.p. is going t fully. ttable y know, the president has ked the attorney genel to really investigate ectly what happen here d figur out what theesponsibilitieare d osecute them to the extent the l requires. , you know, i'm confident that that ll happen. in the meantime, that's not happening what's in the gulf of mexico, and that's where the federal governme really ha to come in with maximum rourc to ensu that thisamage is mimized andhat we get knowdggoing forward over mthat we can prepare, prepare in the future. dispeent iue, i is iredibly contrersial issue. it is a toxic they have -- know ty have a huge amount of e lume that's being put down there. a younow, i wish we all had more inftion on it, becae you're just adding more toxicity into tt marine environment, no qution about . e, kentucky, ll
republican line. len, gmorning. allergoodorning. i appreciate you ting my call. i wonder why the ennmentalist groups aowed the media and didn't push them. th knew the oil would evenally get onshore. shs very knowledgeable. we knewhere woulde an economic impact. orgnone f these we knew there would be an economic impact. but none of these organization push the media that wasn o ask questions t questions. it very baffling to me. a month goes by when all -- if it was on the chesape bay it was outn california, these would be a more concerned. it would then -- guest: fst of all, i'm not
sure agree with that. think the envirrnmental country, is us the deeply ccerned about t impact on the gu. i'm going down the again. we a teamown there, there are anizatns down there. mexico is one of arine environments country, a it's important tt the public at large understand that and really work trotect ito p and that's cerinly what we're trying to do. media ly thinkhe coverage has been phenomenal on this. i mean, what sty lasts for1 days these dice in the united states of erica? almost none. appmeanud the continuing coragecause i think it's really imporntor the american public to witness what , not ng on wn there only to wness what the vironmental impacts are, but also to witness what i essen all of us have, in some w on ts participated in,ecau we're you know, active users o oil, which is why, you kw,
we're going so f off sre in such fragile environments. so, you know, i a sorry, but i isagree with you, because i think the corage has been pretty phenomenal st: we have a couplef our s here left with guest, frances beinecke with thnational resources d: ense couil. the democratic le in ohi' you' on the air caller: hi. thanks for taking my call. ocou know, i've gwe'ren this b. gusher a lot of thohtanit thato p at the rate oils going he to contito gush forme time. prowas bly pretty well have dtroy that ocean. i'm thinking, wall, on't we ta me othis moneyhat everybody's talking about spendi around and invest i plants
guest: i'm not on the ground there, but i think that every technology that can be utilized to clean it up, set it up, separate it from the water -- they are using those for their maximummpurposes. one thing that was dismaying was when they got that container on top, they could only actually contain a certain amount because of the size of that ship. they have to read about the operation and use every technology that is available. -- they have to ram up -- rampant -- grant -- rampup the operation and use every technology that is available. we have to work toward a clean energy future.
we need alternative transportation choices for all americans. that is critical right now. host: one more phone call. the republican line. go ahead. caller: i have a comment about the prevention of future of oil spills. their last efforts at trying to drop a blowout preventer down on top of the malfunctioning one. i do not understand whether or not two to begin with. -- why there are not two to begin with. guest: everyone agrees with you. they should have had redundant systems in case of malfunction. that was not required by mms or bp. this is just an example of how we have to reform our operations
and ensure that we have better regulatory oversight, secretary -- separation from the industry and the government. host: that has to be the last word. thank you. guest: thank you for having me. i appreciate it. >> president obama will make a tv zero-day visit to the gulf coast or he would -- a two-day visit to the gulf coast. those hearings will be live this week on c-span3 and seized and radio. -- c-span radio.
>> mr. gorbachev, tear down this wall. >> 23 years ago, president reagan spoke those words of the brandenburg gate in berlin. what that entire speech on saturday -- speech on saturday on c-span3. >> we have three new books for you. they have unique, contemporary perspectives about lincoln, the nation's highest court, and the grave sites and lives of america's president. to order, go to c- span.org/books. these are great gifts for father's day. >> c-span2 -- live coverage of the senate on tuesday. 48 hours of the latest nonfiction authors and books. connect with us on tour,
facebook, youtube, or sign up for -- and that's with us on twittered -- connect with us on twitter, based a, youtube or sign up for our schedule and alerts. m a good morning pit it has been quite a week. -- >> good morning. it has been quite a week. i heard you talking about the scores between chicago and philadelphia. i think caliche sttkes were part of a wager here. we now have the world cup. there is a lot of attention. i was watching the lacrosse
championships. in any event, a good deal of the focus has been on what is happening in the gulf appeared we had a visit on capitol hill from the families of those who have lost their loved ones. they met with the president. they met with the senate. we met with them in the capital. it was very moving to hear their stories just weeks after they lost their loved ones -- their husbands, fathers, sons. relatives and friends came to the capitol to tell their stories. they wanted to be sure that -- i said to them, you are the backbone of america anddamerica is not going to forget you. they came here to ask for changes in high seas law. we assured them that would happen. it must be 3 miles off shore.
the only damages can be financial, not pain and suffering.+ you change that a distance from shore in change what is -- and that change when discovered as far as a liability. we met with them yesterday. the leaders met witt the president. they spent a good time talking about what is happening in the gulf. they talked about other legislative issues on the agenda. i was very pleased that the president said the attorney general to look into whether there is negligence involved in what happened there. ttis is a matter of integrity. the energy and commerce committee has been having hearings around this integrity issue. the integrity that bp stated that they had, the technology and to drill deep, up behind the technology to prevent a lot --
that they have the technology to prevent a blowout. none of these things purlieu -- proved to be fact. the chairman of the committee -- some of you were at the meeting -- after which, we talk about issues related to reform. that comes to the minerals management service's. we have legislation about that. to what to do the in the law -- we want to do that in the law as well. we're looking at all kinds of reforms. we want to protect the workers on the rigs and involved in the cleanup. we're working on private-sector preparedness. we're working on technology for drawings that are better -- for drilling. we want to prevent and deal with a blowout.
we want to make sure the coast guard house what it means to meet the challenges that it faces in these circumstances. these and other priorities are being reviewed by the chairman of that committee. we already written some bills. there is one bill from the national resources committee that talks about leasing reform. talks about the royalties. it talks about the adequacy of the royalties and the royalty holidays. it is our direction. we may update it. a bit -- did not fully take into consideration deep water drilling. that legislation may need to be updated. the full scope of what happened -- it has a factual basis on how we proceed.
the oil pollution at the 1990 is very -- of 1990 is very strong as it relates to the liability of whoever caused this tragedy, in this case, bp, to make sure that the businesses, the employees, the workers in the region to compensated for their loss pinhead there is a 70 -- loss. there is a $70 milliin, if there is no negligence. that is why it is important to see if there was negligence. we will raise the cap if there was not. bp has a responsibility to make good on a lot in terms of their obligations to the workers and businesses in the region, and to do so in a reasonable time. there spent money on
advertising -- they have spent money on advertising in dividends. they have an obligation to first -- i think it would be good public relations for them, but they did not ass me -- to ay these workers in these businesses. we of so many hearings " we have had some new who dreamed. -- we have had so many fewer loans. -- we have had so many hearings. they will have something called the spill act. deathll be a revision to on the high seas legislation. that lot is from a long time agoo it is long overdue, in light of
the reason technologies. it is been a busy week in that regard. yesterday, as you know, he wall street reform conference came together for the first time to make their opening statements. the next week or more will be involving differences between the house and senate legislation. i think today is the day that the $250 goes out to the seniorssto help close the doughnut hole. nearly 4 million seniors will benefit over the next few months. we pass legislation that make sure that the money still flows from the trust fund to address concerns in the the gulf of mexico, just to get back to our legislative agenda. we also passed another bill.
were there any other votes on the floor? i think there was strong bipartisan support for the fha bill. we're preparing for next week. we will have small business credit -- a small business credit lending built on the floor. that is a very important commitment of this congress. we need capital available to3 we recognize that they are the job creators. we are hard at work on wall street reform legislation t. that is what our wheat is like here. any questions? -- our week is like here. any questions?
>> first, there is an don't ask, don't tell. i was disappointed when the full measure came to the floor. only nine republicans voted to pass the defense bill. this is historic. the republicans are not voting against the defense authorization bill. only nine dead because of don't ask, don't tell. we will now go after the bill passes to conference. our work is not fairness in that regard. one thing of the time. -- is not finished in that rrgard. we want to finish don't ask, don't tell. we do not take it for granted. nine republicans voted for the defense authorization bill. five republicans voted for the repeal of don't ask, don't tell. only four more voted for the dod
bill. they usually go to 100% for the period -- for that. >> i want to make sure i am not repeating anything. i cannot remember who had the last question about this. >> they endorsed an expedited decision proposal. given the history of bipartisan support with this issue, passing the house in 2006, do you have any plans to bring it up? , he brought this to the freshman meeting the other day. -- >> he brought this to the freshman meeting the otter day. i said anyone who wanted to sign on could come to my office. we wanted to see a show of hands there. he is collecting sponsors for
aid. it will happen. -- for t. i certainly support it. >> [inaudible] >> the big oil companies will be here next week. [inaudible] >> we want to hear the truth. people have spoken about integrity. jintao wrote -- the integrity of the economy and the environment. the integrity of what they tell us. bp and represented that this deepwater drilling have the technology to succeed. -- bp had represented that the
deep water drilling have the technology to succeedd the technology to drill is way ahead of the technology to clean it was not good enough. this is a big challenge. it is a big issue. the federal government has responded in a bigger way than it ever has to any other environmental disaster that has happened. this is probably the biggest environmental disaster. we would want to hear the truth from them. the evidence is clear. we need a new energy policy. we want report -- we want to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, but as not in have to dig deeper into the planet, unless we really know what we're doing. they did not know what they were doing. they did not care what they were doing -- did not care that they did not know what they were doing. they represented that the technology was better than it was. we're looking into these issues.
we look to the wind and the sun and the soil to fuel our cars, run our factories. we will prepare for that. it will require a transition. we will always be using petroleum products. i am not saying that we can thaw that. we have to transition to the renewals. we should not be taking vigorous and causing tremendous damage when we should be focused on other alternatives to it. we want to hear why they -- they are in the energy business -- why are they not telling us the truth. i'm not pace -- painting the rest of them with that brush. they are probably isappointed as well. we've to look to the larger picture of how we do whatever we do to meet the needs of our
economy. we need to clean up the air. we need to create jobs. we need to have a national security ennrgy policy that reduces our dependence on foreign oil. it is an absolute must. the president has done -- he was referencing germany and china -- the country mean that -- the country that leads in the green economy will be the country that leads the world. we would like america to be that nation. their responsibility is noo only in drilling, but the bigger picture. they have to -- i should have led the way decades ago. >> cost is estimated at $37 billion. he supports that? -- do you support that? what do you see the taxpayer role in the clean-up?? >> let me be veering clear -- to
be very clear. bp is responsible for the cleanup. bp irresponsible -- is responsible. the cowboys that if there is no negligence. -- the op was that if there was no negligence. -- the top on not amount -- the cap was set only if there was no negligence. why should there be a cap? bp will pay the bill for the cleanup, the loss of livelihood for busiensses -- businesses and workers. there will be no taxpayer dollars spent that are not
repaid by british petroleum. i guess they changed their name recently. some of us are used to be a gold name. when we use it, they say that is being xenophobic. i do not say it that way. i m -- i am for no cap. there is no cap if there is negligence involved. oehner was critical of that. among is that what he said -- >> is that what he said? bp and the taxpayer should be footing the bill? was that the same statement? i am asking. i disagree. >> do you think -- is the
congressman during in the way by calling officials from the coast guard ndp appear when they should be out in the gulf? up hy shouldn't be out in the gulf? among no. -- >> no. we need to get a thought. people are jumping to conclusions. we cannot act upon this until we know what is happening here. what we learned in that time is that bp represented wrong with what their technology could do. there represented wrongly the amount of oil spewing forth into the gulf. the continued to do so. scientists have an update on that that is much higher than what bp said. pgain, when they start telling
you to cut your hair and some golf balls on diapers for the cleanup, you know that is not the technology of the future. unless you are changing diapers, getting a hair cut, or playing golf -- [laughter] i think it is very appropriate that time was given to focus on what the parameters were, what actually happened. monday, halliburton said they did not do a cement right. i do not know the complete information. that is what the hearings are about. some have taken place. some have taken place on location down there, on site. some have been here. we have a responsibility of oversight. we must move quickly. we do want to give comfort to the families that they will be
taking care of. -- taken care of. it is very important to act. we cannot act without the facts. some people have been traditionally republican. they do not know the facts. they are acting -- the less you know, the less you have to do. i do not subscribe to that. >> should they not pay dividends at all? some of their first responsibility is to the families in the region who of lost their jobs, other businesses, their livelihood. if you are a fisherman or a shrimper, may and june are your big months in the gulf. under the oil pollution act of 1990 -- if you expect me to read it to you -- i can.
you probably want to read it yyurself. they have reeponsibility to pay these people. they have to do it in a timely fashion. again, there is an expression. the pearr the anecdote is not data -- the plural of anecdote is not data. if there is enough empirical knowledge about what has happened -- and that is why i have asked the department of homeland security and pp to come to an understanding -- and to come to an understanding. we need to understand how they will pay the claims. they should pay the claims before they get additional dividends. the image is equal to the loss
of profit -- and it just goes on and on. i refer this to the oil pollution act of 1990. the liability of the responsible parties. it is on page 7. >> can you package a series of bills -- a package of energy bills? >> i do not know. we'll make that decision when we see. some bills have been written. one of the bills as the bill nal committees resources -- natural resources committee that was written over a year ago. there's a recognition of and need to make inforred -- reforms. dawson there was recognition of a need to make informed reform
-- there was recognition of the need to make reform. some things need to be updated. the transportation committee hhs a big piece of this in terms of liability and the rest. if we will -- we will just take a look and see what we can do. this spill act -- will see how it moves. i know no decision has been made about that. we will probably take them as they already are. the spill at is urgent now. we would insist the these people be madeewhole amount. one offthe people who testified -- people testified before the
hearing on monday. this is what happened. his family iis in the fiihing business. they have documented that last may, $7,000 is what they made. bp met with them. they filed the claim. they had all the documentation. they still only received a check for $5,000. 162-year-old man testified that he had four sons with him in the business -- five families are the opening of connaught month. they got only $5,000. it is not just right. rwandese people to be made whole -- we want these people to be made whole. dividends should be something that you pay because to make a
profit. i did not know it was something you paid off before you took care of your expenses. one more question? >> is anyone going to talk up position in bills? >> my concern is that we have had, in the committee, legislation that talk about more notification to the congress, beyond the chair and the ranking member of the house and senate. on the floor of the house, during the defense authorization bill, there was an amendment to that effect that prevailed. the white house has selwa a lot of discomfort with the. the conversation is been work done to try to resolve the issue. i am saying the nation not be paying dividends until they make
these people will -- i am saying payinghey should not be i dividends until they make these people hold. people are having to take up loans. i cannot afford to repay it. bp is not paying. they have the money. they made $17 million last year. they went up 12 points on the stock market yesterday. they made $17 million in profit last year. these people have to struggle to and get a few thousand dollars from them. they are on the margin. they have been destroyed or harm degree in by that. iris of -- i respect what they think their fiduciary responsibility is to their shareholders, but they also
be in session next week. the senate dabbles in oo monday and will resume work on a package of about tax breaks and unemployment benefits. legislation is pending about federal aid to states. some language was dropped from the house version that passed last month. it is unclear whether a majority leader reed has the votes he needs. .
>> two days of panels, interviews, and call ins. but the entire schedule at booktv-.org. >> now, a briefing by the state department, pj crowley. this is about 50 minutes. >> good afternoon, and welcome to the department of state. several things to talk about before taking your questions. he secretary was delighted to welcome president mahmoud abbas to the state department earlier this morning. she was very grateful that he delayed his departure for
madrid to allow -- and to meet with her. and unfortunately, because of time pressures both on her schedule with a ball on meeting at the white house with the president -- with a her. and unfortunately, because -- of time pressures both on her meeting at the white house with -- needed to depart to get to madrid, we were not allowed -- availability on that. george mitchell will be back in the region next week to follow up. specific times and days are still being worked out. they talked about the situation in gaza. the president shared ideas on how to xpand access for people and goods through the land border with israel while preserving israel's security interests. he pledged to continue on going
discussions with the israelis and others on how to best achieve that. regarding security, the secretary commended president abbas for strength in governance, reflecting growing confidence not only within the internatiinal community but among the palestinian community for the institutions of government that president abbas ii building. they talked about the economm and a successful investment conference last week. many positive economic indicators. these are issues that all leaders ii all countries are focused on -- jobs, exports, tourism, affordable housing, and how to expand private-ssctor business opportunities. subsequent to the secretary's meeting with the president, or weekly meeting, she had a one on one meeting with king
abdullah, who is here on town on a private visit. they discussed a range of issues within the region. staying in the near east, the assistant secretary will be returning to baghdad on monday, june, 14 -- monday, june 14, to reeiew developments in the country and meet with iraqi leaders, embassy staff, and u.s. forces to discuss progress in iraq from one focused on security to a civilian partnership based on shared interests. he will return a week from today and will be able to provide a readout of his visit. prior to meeting with president abbas, the secretary met with chris dodd as part of our ongoing consultations on the pending iran sanctions legislation. this is an example of wide-
ranging discussions that the secretary has maintained with members of both chambers and both parties on iran, budget, and other issues of importance to the department of state. we see this as important legislation. it is an opportunity at the national level to build on a u.n. security council resolution. we discussed a variety of concerns with the chairman. i will not go into specifics, but wwnt to ensure the legislature supports our ongoing efforts to enforce resolution 1929. that has flexibility so we can were cooperative with the international community. what is within the legislation must be implemented and focused on the areas of greatest concern with the run. later this afternoon, the secretary will be meeting with the australian ambassador.
among other things, she will express gratitude for australia's help today in locating the young woman who was traveling around the world. she will think the ambassador for australia's ongoing -pcommitment to afghanistan, wil express sympathy over the loss this week of two australian soldiers, and will talk about rescheduling the australia-u.s. ministerial sometime later this year. earlier this year, that was postponed due to the haiti earthquake. yesterday, officials met for the third u.s.-malaysian dialogue here at the state department. it was the second senior meeting between u.s. and malaysian officials in the four months. the malaysian delegation was led by come on our side, kurt campbell, and a member of the
ministry of malaysian affairs. that follows the april 12 meeting in washington between president obama and the malaysian prime minister in which the leaders agreed to further strengthen the growing partnership between the united states and malaysia. looking ahead a little bit, on monday the secretary will release thee2010 trafficking in persons report, as mandated by the trafficking of victims protection act of 2000. the release will take place here at 10:30 in the franklin room on the eighth floor. this is the 10th annual report. it is a diagnostic tool to gauge the world's efforts against modern slavery. countries assesseddworldwide, this report will focus for the first time on the united states as part of our "lead by example" diplomacy.
we will be joined by ambassadors, members of congress, and trafficking in persons heroes. each year, the department honors individuals around the world who have devoted their lives to the fight against human trafficking. these individuals are ngo workers, lawmakers, police officers, and concerned citizens who are committed to ending modern slavery. they are recognized for their tireless efforts despite opposition and threats to their lives to protect victims, punish offenders, and raise awareness of ongoing criminal practices. a report will be available on- line at 6:00 a.m. monday at state.govg//g/tip. men sentenced for the murder of u.s.aid workers have escaped
from prison in khartoum. the government has closely piled -- closely followed the trials of these men since 2008. we appreciate the government of sudan. efforts in prosecuting the murderers who showed no remorse during the trial. we expect sudanese authorities will apprehend these murderers and a sure that justice is served for those killed and their families. john grant was 32. he worked on democracy and government's programs. he was originally from buffalo, new york. the other man was 39. he joined usaid in 2004 as the disaster assistance response team in darfur. secretary of state clinton expressed once again her full support for these brave public servants and their families.
they represent the best u thesaid -- they represent the best of usaid in service and compassion for those in need. we are trying to schedule this briefing between two world cup games. we know the games are under way. the first game was a 1-1 draw between south africa and mexico. we are looking forward to a second game, you're a guy against france -- iuruguay against france. south africa has given vice- president biden a warm welcome. we look forward to a competitive tournament. we are saddened to learn of the death of nelson mandela picked granddaughter, killed earlier today. -- of nelson mandela's granddaughter, killed earlier today. we extend our condolences to him and his family.
>> what about basketball? >> we will cover that down the road. >> there was a wikleaks investigation of the release of documents. are you doing a damage assessment? >> we are doing a damage assessment. i think also today diplomatic security is assisting in forensic analysis of the hard drives to just determine -- to verify the fact a leak took place and also to see if we can identify where we are potentially compromised. >> which hard drives? more than one? are they in baghdad? >> they have been brought here. >> there is more than one?
>> i want to say it is more than one. >> i have a question. on monday -- it was a little hard to tell from your response just how grave a concern there is about the release of disinformation. is this extremely sensitive information or more along the lines of diplomatic awkwardness? >> at the time -- i will certainly repeat. we are talking about classified pables. classifications involve both the substance of cables and also sources and methods that can be revealed through the release -- the unauthorized release of classified material. we take this seriously. any release of classified material to those who are not entitled to have it is a serious breach of our security and can cause potential damage to our
national security interests. there has been kind of a report of a very large number of documents or pages. we are obviously trying to verify exactly what might havee exchanged hands here, and we are doing a damage assessment to verify the disclosure -- or the leak. we want to identify what documents of the state department may have been potentially compromised.. if you are taking up large in number is going to probably capture a wide range of different docuuents. we do cables to provide our analysis of ongoing events in the region. obviously, our greatest concern is the sources and methods we rely on when providing insight to decision makers on what is
happening. >> what are you talking about? sources and methods are usually associated with intelligence, but could be contact with people. are you talking about intelligence contacts? >> we do not classified documents for the heck of it. -- we do not classified documents for the heck of it. we do it because of the disclosures in those documents and resources we have employed to provide this kind of analysis to decision makers and posts and other officials around the network. it is hard to say at this point what the potential impact is, but we have from the very outset -- we learned of this breach late last month. we have been cooperating police across the agencies to determine the potential of that. -- we have been cooperating
fully across the agencies to determine the potential of that. >> you said you had not talk to anyone at the website. why is that? >> the defense department has the lead. it is their individual who was implicated in this. if there is a prosecution it will be a dod-led prosecution. i think we would be concerned about who you reach out to. that may jeopardize a potential successful prosecution. we have not reached out to wikileaks. i do not know the department of state will do that. >> why would the prosecution be by the dod? if u.s. criminal laws were violated, why not the department of justice? >> i will defer to either of those agencies.
this is a military specialist. it is also a violation of the dod. >> you said this was a d.o.t. employee. -- a d.o.t. employee. you also said you have not reached out to wikleaks for fear of compromising any eventual prosecution. doee that mean you feel the prosecuting the individual is more important than potentially preventing these tens of thousands of documents from becoming public? i mean, i do not understand why you would not without prejudice in your potential prosecution say, "please do not publish thi+ if you have it." >> that is a hard -- i understand the point you are making, but it is a hard
question to respond to. at this point, first of all, by doing the forensic analysis on the -- on hard drives, we will actually determine whether we have evidence that documents that might have been downloaded actually were transmitted outside of the classified and closed network. so that is the first step in this process, to verify that the rumors of the league have actually taken place. as to steps that we might take down the road, i think at this point we have not yet reached out to anybody outside of the government. and whether we do or someone else does will be a determination made down the road. >> earlier this week, india's
foreign ministry said the government of india has madd an extradition request for a c.e.o. related to bhopal gas in 1918 -- in 1980. are you going to respond to this request? >> as a general rule, extradition requests -- we pay attention. >> they say the main roadblock is coming from the u.s. not cooperatinggwith the extradition request. do you have anything to respond? >> if extradition requests are confidential, i am not in a position to verify whether we have such a request or have responded to it. >> in the week of the bhopal gas incident -- there is an anniversary this week.
what will you seek for u.s. companies overseas to cooperate, since that decision -- we have always -- they have always look for more accountability from the u.s. companies. >> i am not sure. it is hard to draw a direct comparison. certainly, if i recall the case of bhopal, there was a supplement realized a number of years -- therr was a settlement realized a number of years ago. i believe there was an effort towards remediation, but i do not have all the facts in front of me. you have an ongoing situation here. bp has stepped up and indicated it will take its own steps, sincc it owns the well, to stop the leak and to pay for the
mitigation of the impact. it is hard to say at this point, as we are still in the middle of the early stage of this, what that will entail. we are working as a government aggressively with bp to try to mitigate the impact of this, as we detailed here. we have accepted, through a variety of channels, international assistance for the bp spill and continue to evaluate sources of other support that may help us to minimize the short-term and long-term damage from this. so i would not necessarily feel comfortable comparing what happened in the mid '80s and what is happening. >> what will you expect from u.s. companies overseas if they get involved in an incident
like bp? >> you re comparing a different -- there are relevant laws we have in this country based on the opportunity of oil companies like bp to extract, you know, fuel from the gulf of mexico. there is a different set of legal issues in terms of the codes of india. i would take it on faith that u.s. companies are operating overseas and are mindful of and respectful of the laws of any country in whhch they operate. >> thank you. >> the flotilla investigation -- did that come up at all in the conversation with president abbas, and can you give us an update? has the u.s. been talking with israel about a potential american -- >> it was not a substantial part of the conversation.
the focus abbas with focus -- the focus with president abbas was more a way of trying to relieve the suffering of the people of gaza. he presented the secretary with some ideas from a palestinian authority standpoint that he felt need to be done. we were discussing our own ideas and also discussed president abbas's ideas. >> any update on potential u.s. participation in the -- >> this is something we continue to talk to the israelis about. eli? >> on the flotilla investigation, will you support a u.n. investigation calling for one -- a u.s. -- will you support a u.n. resolution calling for a u.n. investigation? >> we are not aware of any
resolution that will be introduced at the un next week. we are in discussion with the un. the secretary-general is evaluating the situation. it is within his purview to do so. >> in those discussions, are you encouraging security council members to support a resolution? are you saying maybe this is not the right forearm? >> as we have made clear, we support and is raise lee -- we support an israeli lead investigation. we are open to discussing with israel potential ways in which the internationaa community can participate. we believe this has to be seen as impartial. it has to be seen as credible. international participation in some fashion can enhance the
results and the outcome, and support for the investigation. >> in an interview, an ambassador said the israelis will head the commission. have you heard that? >> try me again. >> in an interview today, an ambassador said the israelis will be the ones who lead the commission. >> again, as to what might be considered at the un i would defer to the secretary general. it is within his purview "to evaluate actions there. we reject it is within his purview to evaluate actions there -- it is within his purview to a guy with actions there. >> to you think the committee could set a bad precedent -- do you think the committee could set a bad precedent for
investigations involving u.s. intelligence operatives in wartime efforts? >> i am not making a comment on whether the u.n. is considering that form of review or whether that will be something the secretary general supports. that will be something it is up to him to consider and then discuss with un member states. as we have just said, we continue to support the israeli led investigation, but are working ith the israelis and others to see how we might be able to introduce an international element to that. >> is there a precedent that leads you to believe israel is positioned to make this investigation? >> as we have said many times,
the question is does israel have a strong, vibrant, competent government and a democracy with the capability to lead such an investigation. the answer is yes. as we saw with the recent south korean investigations, when you introduce an international component you bring additional competence and additional force and credibility to that investigation. we were very conscious of the fact hat on monday, i believe, at the un, in a formal meeting, south korea and those who conducted the investigation would bring that matter to the council. and we think it adds just the kind of credibility that we want to see come out of this investigation. i will come back to you. >> just to follow up on the bhopal case --
>> we will go on with the flotilla and we will come back. >> is that an issue that affects jordan? >> with king abdallah, we normally highlight various issues in the region. it would not surprise me if that was a topic of discussion. >> elected flotilla question. to board ships in international waters -- the right to board a ship if it is carrying illicit materials in international waters? >> i think some of that authority was incorporated into 1874. some of that authority has been incorporated into 1929. >> to clarify, the u.s. believes
it has an auttority to board ships from a security council resolution and not just as a matter of self-defense. >> i am not going to deep dive into international law, but i do believe that in the un charter is a right to self-defense. as to things like the proliferation security initiative or implementation of u.n. security council resolutions such as 1874 or 1929, we draw authority from those resolutions. >> you keep bringing up the south korean investigation as an example. but if that was a south korean ship was attacked, shouldn't turkey be conducting the investigation? >> turkey has indicated it will conduct its own investigation. that is obviously a right that turkey has.
it was a turkish vessel was boarded. certainly, turkey has the right to investigate what happened on that ship. >> the u.s. would be willing to help north korea conduct its own investigation into that? that is the parallel. >> first of all, we are not talking about in north korean investigation. we are not talking about a north korean vessel. if north korea wants to investigate the sinking, as it indicated it might, it might start by taking an inventory of its torpedoes. [laughter] we, as an ally of south korea, were happy, along with other countries, to support the investigation. we think we added value and technical expertise into that