tv Today in Washington CSPAN September 21, 2010 6:00am-7:00am EDT
voluntary military, and as resources are dedicated to iraq, afghanistan themecame the forgotten war. and as we try to a guy with the performance of our commanders before general petraeus, i would say one thing -- they held it together with wire and duct tape. and now, for the first time, i believe we have the right amount of resources and the right strategy that could lead to success, and that is a very difficult for america to hea six or seven, eight years after the war started. all that time has gone by and, really, we are justeginning to get it right. i am sorry to tell you that, but i believe it. now, this new strategyhat involves do troops has a decent chance of succs, but the
outcome by no means is certain. the parties are pretty solid about where we should go and how we should get there. our tea party friends have done the country all lot of good by focusing on our part of control spending in washington and the imbalance that we have at the federal level, that we have gone too far and we have overreached. but when we talk about foreign policy, i do not hear much coming from either party or the tea par. now, ron paul, who i can align with in fiscal matters, has been consistent. he believes we should withdraw from iraq and that we should stop being involved in anlace wars. endless wars. and dennis kucinich would agree.
what about the rest of us? and there is a lot bween ron paul and dennis kucinich. what about the rest of us? my view is that i do not want to be involved in endless wars anymore thanhey do, but i do insist that we win wars we cannot afford to lose. now, the left and some of our libertarian friends believe we cannot afford this war and they e ready to leave. what happens if we leave and does it really matter? all of you are smart. you can aner that question probably better than i can. i can tell you what i think and that is probably why you came. if we lose i afghanistan, whatever that may be, it will matter. and what is losing? i think losing would be allowing the taliban to come back in
power in portions or all of the country. i have one simple thought -- the taliban running anything is not a good idea. particularly i you happen to be a young woman and you believe in religious freedom and tolerance. but what does it really matter? their places -- there are places on the planet where women are treated horribly and we do not have one troop. so this is not just about righting wrongs that may come towards young women. i would argue that within a decade of 9/11 our efforts in afghanistan sult and having to do a deal with withthe taliban where they are back in power, at least in part, then our national security has not been well served. on september 12, 2001, how many of us in wasngton would have ever envisioned of negotiating with the taliban so that we
could come home from afghanistan? ladies and gentlemen, if we leave afghanistan in a chaot state, where the taliban have much say and control, it will be a matter of time before the forces they gathered before 9/11 gather again in that same country. but i would argue that there he is -- there is even more at stake since 9/11. how in the world are we going to persuade rogue regimes to do the right thing when it comes to our national security interests if we lose to the taliban? do you believe iran is watching? i do. do you believe iran is getting bolder when it comes to supplying the taliban efforts
that disrupt our strategies in afghanistan? i do. so too are libertarian and democratic friends who say this is an endless war and we need to leave, i ask one simple question -- what happens when we leave? to my hawkish brothers and sisters, what is our plan "b"? plan "b" forhe left and the libertarian movements to leave. plan "b" for the right is see plan "a." i do not know what we can do after the strategy efforts, i just know what we cannot allow to happen. the july, 2011, a withdrawal date, ladies and gentlemen, i think is a mistake. is it fatal? i don't know. i envision a scenario next
summer were some parts of afghanistan can be turned over to afghan control, transitioned without compromising the overall war effort. next july inisenvision afghanistan that does not seek -- need an enormous amount of american military support. i have heard from people on the ground in afghanistan that the july withdrawal date is confusg and is creating uncertainty. do not misunderstand what it means. the president said, we are going to be wrote -- begin to leave next july. the only question is, how people will begin to leave and at what pace? i do think it is a mistake, but it is a policy we will have to live with. but i did not come here just to talk about afghanistan. i am going to ask you a question to try to keep you away. how many people believe the
attacks on our country on 9/11 were an act of war? how many people believe it was a crime? manmade disaster? does it matter if you treated as a crime obverses an act of war? yes, it does matter. i would argue that we have drifted away from treating the attacks of 9/11 as an act of war and we are going back to the law enforcemt model, not just here but throughout the alliance that we have enlisted to help fight the enemy. who is the enemy? and how you engage them? does it matter if you resort to all law enforcement model? i think it matters greatly. ladies and gentlemen, the difference between it fighting a
crime and a war is enormous. and i believe we are at war. the eny has declared war on us. the question is will we declare war on them? here is the state of play in america in september, 2010. the cia is out of the interrogation business in the war on terror. i say that boldly and prove me wrong. the cia, after the debacle we have had over abu ghraib, guantanamo bay, water boarding, you name it, is now in a position by executive order the cannot use the tools tt congre authorized in the detainee treatment act to deal with war terror prisoners. the enhanced interrogation techniques that was overwhelmingly passed by
congress in the detainee to treatment act have been disallowed by the obama administration. that makes us less safe. to my friends on the right, there has to be something other than water boarding. there has to be some middle ground between the army field manual and water boarding. the army field matter was never written to be the end all of american interrogation. it was written for the army. that is why we call it the army field manual. and thos in the army to capture prisoners on the battlefield need to have guidance as to what to do with those prisoners so they do not get court-martialed. it was never meant to be the exclusive ability, techniques available to the country to deal -- tbe able to interrogate a prisoner, but that is where we are at. i would ask you if you are a cia
agent, but you should not raise your han put yourself in the shoes of the cia, director leon panetta. what dyou do? how do you go forward? what do tell your agent? to those who advocate water boarding, is it a violation of the geneva conventn? yes. ask any military lawyer if water boarding violates that the articles that are written to protect enemy prisoners from abuse. this is not even an honest debate on the military side. does it violate the war crimes act that i helped write? yes, it does. does it violate the convention against torture, which has now been codified in terms of the criminal cents? yes, it does. can we be safe without engaging in water boarding? yes, we can. but it has got to be something
other than the army field manual. another question for thought. should the united states abandon the geneva convention? it now applies to the war on terror because our supreme court has ruled so. and to those who keep advocating techniques like water boarding, have the courage of your convictions to say that we intend by our actions to withdraw this nation from the geneva convention. because that exactly is what you will have done. i do not believe that is the right course to take. what i believe it is that the world needs to come together and re-look at the geneva convention. the geneva convention has served the world well even though the worst among us will never comply
with it. it really is about who we are. not about our enemies. but the truth of the matter is that the geneva convention is a warehousing agreement that basically says the falling -- you catch my pilot, i will treat them well. i catch your pilot, we will treat him well. we will leave it civilians alone and when the war is over we will swap prisoners. that is not the world we are in. the world we are in depends on intelligence gathering, not combating a nation-state. that means a good, sound, for interrogation techniques that are not available to this country right now. nine years after 9/11, we do not have the ability, in my view, to effectively interrogate in enemy prisoner. i know that is not as exciting as talking about delaware. but i think it is important.
we do not have one black site. maybe that is a good thing. maybe we should look at that because we are not using gitmo. we are a nation without a present in all war. guantanamo bay has not had a new prisoner in years and is not likely to be used when it comes to future captures. what does it mean to be a nation without a present? ison? what happens if we capture someone in somalia tomrow that is a high-value target? what do we do with him? after we have to use the law enforcement model? do we have to take them to court? do we have to take them to american federal prison because we are not using guantanamo bay? can we take them to afghanistan? how long can we do that before it brings the afghan governmt down.
? not very exciting. unless you are a special forces operative in your face with capturing someone or killing them. we have put ourselves out of the detention business as well as the interrogation business because the parties cannot find a way forward. i happen to be in the middle on this issue where you always get run over. now i know why the road is littered with dead animals in the middle of the road. i happen to believe that, on balance, closing guantanamo bay would good for america in terms of the ideological struggle we are facing. we are not in a war with the nation-state. we do not have a capital to conquer, and air force to shoot down or nab to sink. we have an ideology to defeat and our enemies have used guantanamo bay against uass.
that does not mean we let the enemy defined our policy. does mean we need to eject our policy when it makes sense. president bush thought it made sense. senator mccain it who was running for president thought it made sense. senator obama thought it wamade sense. the one thing that did not make sense is announced that we will close guantanamo bay without a planned to do it. they may have been sharing in france within 48 hours of his becoming president, president obama announcing the closure of guantanamo bay. but they were not sharing in south carolina, because they did not know what it meant -- not cheering in south carolina, because they do not know what it meant. i will not support closing guantanamo bay unless he could do it safely. this is football season. we keep punting on the hard
issues surrounding guantanamo bay and the war on terror in general. talk a bit more about that and a minute. nine years after 9/11, we have had to attacks that failed and where did they come from? -- two attacks that failed and where did they come from? they came from homegrown terrorism. so the war has shifted. what do we do it nine years after 9/11 when someone tri to blow up an airplane over detroit? we read them eir miranda rights within 50 minutes. what do we do with the times square bomber? we read him his miranda rights. nine years later, we have not figured this out. we cannot rely on the fact that the parents of the christmas day 0-- day bomber workedth th
with the fbi. this country, working to the congress, needs to come up with national security exceptions to miranda rights because we are fighting a war not a crime. this is not kandahar csi. we are talking about finding people in the homeland, on the homeland, and our law enforcement model we are relying on makes us less safe because, when you capture a terrorist, the one thing you want to know -- what is coming next? where did you train? what got you involved? that, to me, is in intelligence gathering activity, not a law enforcement activity, and our laws are such that our intelligence community cannot do their job. i know that is boring, but i think is important.
so, congress has been awol. democrats are scared to death to talk about this, a most republicans just demagogue. other than that, things are going great. iraq? remember iraq? it is now in the classified ads section. remember iraq? remember the iraq that harry reid said was lost? i do. iraq can teach us a lot in terms of how to get it right and what not to do. is it a part of the war on teor? how many believe that going into iraq was a sensible extension in the war on terror? how many think it was alunder?
how many people believe that now is a part of the war on terror? i do. i think that unites us all. we can have that debate. historians and people who are really smart and choose to come here instead of play golf on a pretty day, you can figure that out, but i would argue it is now part of the war on terror and it could have a huge impact one way or the other, and it is not over we are inside the tent, but we have not scored. the one thing that i can tell you about the war in iraq from conservative's point of view, our avsion to nation-building made as irrational when it came to how to secure the country. that it could not come out of the conservatives a lead that we were there to build the institutions. this idea of nation-building was some lef idea, some liberal idea, and if we embrace it, that would be a cardinal sin. and i probably was in that camp,
quite frankly. and i a here to tell you i have learned. the only possible way, when you try to replace the nation state in the grips of terror, whether it be saddam hussein or the taliban, to be successful, is to leave behind institutions that work for the people and not against them. and that is hard. and we finally understood how to get that right in iraq, but before we understood, a lot of people died and a lot of people were seriously injured. and for that, i will be forever saddened. but in 2007, we changed strategies, the counterinsurgency strategy will have proven to be successful and it focused on securing the people and improving
institutions. it focused on the idea at you need me troops living with the forces you are trying to help and get out behind the wall. you need to buildur role system where the judges can administer justice without being killed. you need a detention policy that understands just parking the people and letting them get worse in a jail is not a very smart idea. as a reservist serving in iraq, i went to a camp in 2007 where there were about 18,000 sunnis in the shia desert that had been capted by u.s. forces and had not seen a human being and three years, and surprisingly, they were getting discontented and they were not being turned around. it was about to blow up. they had all right. along comes a lieutenant general -- that had a riot,. . he took that prison and he
instituted educational programs so every prisoner would be educated at the fifth grade level. he brought in moderate imams to teach them what the koran said it once they read it. and he built a brick factory so they could have a job when they get out. in the 26,000 people that were held in the desert in the camp have gone back to the province with about 80% recidivism rate. -- a 2% recidivism rate. that was smart. we are not doing that in afghanista in iraq, the iraqi legal system allowed the national security tension word yo could grab someone, park them for a while without a criminal trial, and in during the confinement you try to rehabilitate them and
you understood the difference between it reconcilable and irreconcilable and you had a strategy. it worked. we are about to wind down in iraq. i support reducing our forces to 50,000, but i do not support breaking our ties with the iraqi people when it comes to a military presence. i am hopeful the administration will negotiate post-2011 an agreement that will allow not only training troops but enough's presence militarily to prevent a conflict between the kurds and sunni arabs. our troop presence has made a big difference there. it is a comforting president. and at least a brigade or two would be smart in my view to lead them in iraq -- to leave
them in iraq if the people want them to secure the gains we have. if we do not form this government soon, then i think the chances of the country going back into a chaotic state grow by the moment. i appreciate the efforts of the vice president, but it is now time for t president, in my view, to personally get involved and bring the factions together to form new government. to get it from the 10 to the goal line. long story short is that we did not understand how important institutions of work to providing security to the people you are trying to liberate. our itial mistakes in iraq, where we had an aversion to nation building, wouldn't it be a shame if in the last minutes of the game we have an aversion at the end as we did in the beginning? our national security presence,
our national security interests will not be judged by the day we left completely in iraqut by what we left behind. afghanistan. the troops are beginning to provide security that was never known, but we have no law in afghanistan, ladies and gentlemen, that will allow american soldiers withfghan help or vice versa to detain someone being a national security threat. if it were not for the ability to have 28,000 people from anbar taken out of that province, we would have never been successful with the surge in iraq. right now we have that space for 2800 people. yowill never convince me that 2800 people are the only ones that need to be taken out of these villages.
so we need a detention system that will allow us to detain people who are creating problems for a period of time so that counterinsurgency will work in afghanistan. it is one thing to liberate a village. it is another thing to hold and a bill tt. and if the people who caused the problem for the village are not removed more than two week s, the local villagers were never come on our side. the rules of engagement that we used in nader now work law enforcement rules. holding someone 96 hours is probably good law enforcement policy. it is a lsy military policy. nato, we need to look long and hard at nato. it has cold war capability but with a law enforcement mentality. that will not be a formula for success in the war on terror. they are about to meet in lisbon. they are trying to define how to win in afghanistan. i would argue that nato needs to
define their role in the war on terror. to are we fighting and how you play in that war? what are you willing to do? because it is more than just about afghanistan. change your capabilities. to be relevant in the war on terror. i am not worried about russian tanks coming through the gap. i am worried about international terrorism. so should naida have morto havee unmanned vehicles? startd the nato and aneu talking to each other? the eu provides the nation building capacity and nato provides the armed services capacity, and 21 nations are members of the votes and there really is no discussion between the two organizations. -- and 21 nations are members of both and they're really is no
discussion between the two organizations. and national caveats that have crippled the mission need be replaced by a nato war fighting caveats. if you are now willing to go to war with a war fighting mentality, do not go. we are not trying to convict the taliban and al qaeda, we are trying to defeat them. iran. ahmadinejad says the sanctions are helping. secretary clinton says they are crippling. congress has given tools to this administration that if used could be crippling. how many people believe that sanctions will deter the iranian regime from getting a nuclear weapon? how many people they will not -- how many people believe they willot? if they do not, what do we do next? i am with you. i think they could, but they have been not -- they have not
been used yet. if the russians and chinese keep back filling, there will never be successful. so we are 40 something days before an election and not one person is talking about how america or the world changes if the iranian government gets a nuclear weapon. that is just stunning. it is going to cnge the course of history. every sunni arab state will be less than enthusiastic about the irians having a nuclear weapon. why don't we have an ambassador at large for them golf estates? they can form a buffer against a riranian ambitions. we let them fight amongst themselves. why don't we have an ambassador? whyh don't we trade more with th e mid east?
why we have a responsibility to our? her? these't we push governments to be more reonsive to their people? why don't we ask the arab world to give as much to the palestinians as we do? because it would really matter. but is anybody talking about that? no. in conclusion, i am going to keep talking about. war.alk doesn't win of i am going to introduce legislation that perform -- reforms are habeas procedures. under law now, every enemy combat and has tir day in federal court were the judge willetermine whether not the evidence supports the finding that you are a member of al qaeda. we have a case before us, the case, where the
judge let him go because they could not be proven to be an active member of al qaeda. my statute would change that. it would put the burden on the detainee to prove you are no longer part of al qaeda oncyou prove they were. a common standard for all judges to use. the courts are trying out-- crying out for help. the courts are very much worried they have no legislative guidance and they are having to do this on their own and making up as they go. so heas reform is a national security imperative. we need exceptions to our miranda warnings. i propose that if the high value interrogation team is assigned a case where we believe the person in question is involved in an act of terrorism in the united states, that within a couple or three days,
they ought to be able to go to a federal judge and say we have probable cause to believe this was an act of terrorism, all law and terrorism -- interrogation to go forward without miranda warnings, because i will argue to you forcefully that if we continue to read every terrorist their miranda rights, we will shut down intelligence gathering. we need to repeal the executive order and allowed the cia to get back and to the interrogation business without going down the water boarding road and get our agents some immunity from lawsuits that are surely to follow. there are things that we should do on indefinite confinement that need to be done. we have 48 people in guantanamo bay that have been held for years after being determined to be an enemy combat and with no proces as to an annual review. that congress should work with the administration to come up with some logical rules
concerning the law of war confinement and detention. i will do everything in my power to make sure khalid sheik mohamed never sees the inside of a feral court. the reason being that i am very worried about the presint you are setting when you hold someone ven years under the law of war and then all the sudden you introduce them into the american criminal-justice stem. where you use a theory of law of war detention to hold them for years without trial, and all of a sudden you give them the rights that come with the american constitution in federal court. i have no problem with the christmas and a bomber. the times square bomber being in federal court. that is a good use of federal court. i have no problem with finciers of al qaeda being charged under domestic federal law. i have real problem with taking the mastermind of 9/11 and saying that you get the same
rights of an american citizen under the constitution because of then you are destroying the theory that is essential to being at war, that you can be an enemy combatants. if he is not an enemy combat, who e hell is? and what does a federal judge to do with a speedy trial issue? so we are at war, but it is a hybrid, where you mix the stem. i know there will never be as surrender signing ceremony. an enemy combat a decision could be a life sentence. and i am willing to provide more process then we provided in any other war. and i do not want my country to go down that torture road because that is the road that makes it more like the enemy, not less. there is a way to move this nation forward, but it has got to be bipartisan and it nes to happen quickly.
we are about to run out of time. if we do not and did well in iraq, and if things doot change on the corruption front in afghanistan by september of next year, i worry greatly for the security of our country, your family, and the world. this effort to fight corruption in afghanistan is on even at best. and this change in strategy where you fight low level corruption and maybe leave karzai alone, i really worry about that. we will never win this war in afghanistan and we proved the act -- proved to the afghan people that the culture of impunity is gone or least on the wrong. the talib are half the problem. corruption is the other half. i hope and pray that our efforts with the major crimes task force will not be undercut because of politics in afghanistan. i know that is boring to talk
about it, but that can be outcome derminative. thank you for listening. thank you for coming. and we are 40 something days away from election. you would never know from the political exchange between candidates seeking office. tomorrow to o'clock 15, we will vote on the defense authorization bill -- at 2:15. and the issues we are talking about are whether or not we should expand abortion services in military hospitals, whether or not we should repaeal the "don't ask don't tell" policy, and whether or not we should the dream act on the defense bill. if you follow the debate on the floor of the united states senate tomorrow on the defense authorization bill, you would believe that the biggest national security threat facing america is what to do about gays
in the military, the dream act, and abortion. very sad. very unacctable. thank you very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> i think everybody is familiar with our rules. the senator has graciously agreedo take some questions. i will call on you identify yourself first and put your short statement in the form of a question. this gentleman right here. >> senator, to was a much for your presentation. thank you for this session. -- thank you so much for your presentation.
i need your help, senator. i have a question in two halves. king abdullah has served arabia 0-- a charitable foundation, from the seven newspapers. i am quoting no -- whose objective is to support the construction of mosques and islamic centers and support muslims all over the world. the question, the second part is, two months ago, they sent about 150 members of al qaeda in afghanistan --[unintelligible]
i agree with you. this is war. question, sir -- you served in the army. my son served in the army. do we have 100,000 military personnel in afghanistan to qaeda people, or are we engaged in a war of ideology which is the rule of law versus totalitarianism? >> very good question. about funding mosques. i have been throughout the mideast many times, we are not at war with islam. president obama is right to make that statement.
president bush was right, and as we debate the new york mosque location, while a lot of us believe it should be moved i really fear that we are going to allow our enemies to drviive wedges between people who can live together peacefully and safely. while i would like to see reform in the mideast, i know particularly in the gulf arab states, there are many people we can live with and do business with. i have known many patriots in afghanistan and iraq who have been killed trying to bring the rulef law. many of the judges i got to meet as program, several of them have been killed in iraq. several of my friends have been killed in afghanistan fighting al qaeda. so do we need this many people to fight 450? no. but we need to make sure that
afghanistan does not fall into the hands of people who are sympathetic and will align with al qaeda, because then 450 becomes a lot bigger number. the reason there is only 450 is we killed a lot of them. i forgot to mention this, but should we be considering going across the border in pakistan? i think we should. their network is as big a threat to the future of afghanistan as and bu anybody is. within 30 kilometers of the border, they live in a small town, they are had ordered their. and i would like to see some effort by the u.s., pakistan and afghanistan to go across the border after them. to our pakistan allies, thank you for your help, but in many ways, with friends like this, you do not need enemies. the pakistanis are looking at
the july, 2011, deadline differently than we are. and i am very disappointed in the new intelligence that shows a wider cooperation between isi and afghan taliban tn we have seen in recent times. how do we win this war, sir, if the people on the pakistan side, the taliban, the al qaeda network's really cannot be controlled? safe havens have to be dealt with for us to be successful. so i hope the congress will pass benchmarks and measurements not only on the congress with there's it -- not only on afghanistan with their security forces, but of pakistan. hold pakistan accountable. so we are there and large numbers in iraq and afghanistan because replaced natiostates that were in the hands of thuggish people that were aligned with terrorism, with
terrorist organizations to present a threat to our country and the world at large is a very labor intensi effort. how many times did you hear from 2003-2006, we are down to a few dead aenders? the truth is we do not know how many al qaeda are there with any great certainty. i am sure it is smaller. but at the end of the day, if afghanistan is not secured, then everything we have worked for is going to go back in the wrong direction and 98,000 troops, in my view, are a must and the nato presence should grow no shrink because we are trying to build a nation state that will align with us and not go back into the hands of the taliban. very good question. >> senator graham, thank you for
taking the time and effort to focus on national security, with our bureaucratic dinosaurs and the national security departments of the executive branch, we need all the leadership from congress we can get. the questions on what appears elemente taliban's key to the rise to power is their success in providing "law and order. what is the most effective way to counter that strategy? >> great question. how did the taliban come back in afghanistan? it does not fit into 32nd sound bite, but i will give it a whirl. the way they came back from near extinction was poor governance and a lack of security. as we directed resources from
afghanistan to iraq, the security environment deteriorated. the rules of engagement that nato had to operate with a lot of people to go in and out of the jail. once you capture a bad guy or an alleged bad guy, 96 hours, you had to turn them over to the afghans or release them. so the detention policy is allow people who were disruptive to never isolated from the population, so they went back into the villages and to create an intimidating environment. the tribal system that had administer justice for thousands of years was eventually replaced by a talib-type system because they killed the tribal leaders and they put a cleric in charge. as we clear the village of out of the taliban presence, we will never hold and build unless you can have some sense of
government and justice. so the big issue in afghanistan is a were does formal justice began and informal justice end? and i would argue, we do not have a coherent policy yet, but we are getting there. and generaletraeus is on the case here. good example. the taliban were able to provide remedies to people's problems that would seem to be less corrupt than the afghan government or there was no afghan government. so they got a foothold there. they were very intimidating. if we want to hold and build, we need to provide justice, something other than the taliban way. i believe the people in afghanistan was a justice system not run by the taliban, and it does not all have to come out of kabul. quite frankly, i do not care who gets the vote when there is an argument about the goat. if you can do it to a tribal justice, fine with me. so there has to be some
derstanding by us and the afghan government of were formal and informal justice lies, and if we do not get that piece of the puzzle right, we are going to go right back into chaos. the biggest dispute in kandahar is over land rights. there are no court rooms. there is a big dispute of who owns the land. there is a way to do land litigation witut having a trained lawyer or judge because there are so few. general petraeus understands this, but it is it time intensive. and here's what we have to let our afghan partners know. be more open-minded to tribal informal justice then you have been in the past, but we cannot as a nation turned over rape a murder cases to a system that i think is stuck in the 12th
century. that is how we hold and build. you drive the bad guys out. you put them in a prison. you do not let them go in 96 hours. you give them judicial hearings, not under a criminal justice model but in the law of war model. you keep them in a jail where you learn them to read. you give them a job skill. you teach them abouthe koran and when they come home, someone signs for their behavior. that is what needs to happen to hold and build. >> over here. >> and how do you do that if there are safe haves in pakistan? -- safe havens in pakistan? >> you seem to think that sanctions will not work. the are two alternatives. one is working for
inchregim regime change -- >> sanctions and aid together can be good tools and the war on terror. the right amount of aid to the right people on the right time can prevent people from going the wrong way. i believe and all of the above approach to energy, and i believe in the all of labeouf approach to terrorism. you do not send 150,000 to fight 450 people. you do need that type of people to turn state's around. when it comes to iran. the sanctions at we have available have not been used in force. i hope the congress will soon have hearings about the administration's game plan to impose sanctions that congress has passed. they are deep on financial service interruption, on petroleum. you want to make sanctions bite ?
deal with petroleum. 1/3 of petroleum products -- come from china. i think it wl hurt the people, but they will welcome the intervention. i do believe that sanctions and aid can result in an power in the right people and deterring the wrong people, but they have to be used robustly, and if the chinese and russians interfere, they will fail. how do get sanctions to work if people in iran believe we will never use military force? statesnni gulsf arab need to be bigger partners in dealing with this issue. how'd you get anybody to change their thought process if they are not your nationural friends? well, they have to believe that the upside and downside do not
come together. if you are the prime minister of israel, a hall long the wait? how many people believe that iran is trying to get a nuclear weapon? erybody in the room that i could see raised their hand. so, when i clicked on the judge says they do not want a weapon, we all believe he is like -- when ahmadinejad says ty do not want a weapon, we all believe he is a line. when secretary clinton said she thinks the sanctions are working, she may be right. they have not been useful ye there are tools available that were not available on a month ago. let's try and see what happens. if they fail, here is what i believe military should be available to us. if you use military force against iran, you open the pandora's box. of the people agree with that? if they get a nuclear weapon, you empty pandora's box? how many people agree with that?
nobody knows. i think if they get a nuclear weapon, you have emptied pandora's box. i would rather open it up then empty it. and that is a lousy choice. but that is why we are here at lunch. at least we are talking about. i cannot get anybody else to talk with me about it. thanks for coming. so, if we use military force, is to beat us not the israelis. if the israelis their biggest airplane is an f- 15. military strike against hardened nuclear sites is a complicated endeavor. from their point of view, it is better than doing nothing. from my point of view, if we
engaged in military operations as the last resort, the united states should have a goal of changing the regime. not by invading the country, but i wanted military strike from land and sea -- but from launching a military strike from land and sea and that the revolutionary guard ceases to be an effective organizatio to punch back. if you have to use military force, i think our goal should be not only to neuter their nuclear program, but to destroy the regime's ability to fight back against our troops in the region hand against our allies. that, ladies and gentlemen, is no small matter to contelate. that is a very serious escalating step that i would now like to go down the road as much
as anybody in this room. thatf you'll believe sanctions will not work, i am here to tell you that i have no belief that containment will work. so you have a month -- she will have a milary action before the given nuclear weapon or after they get a nuclear weapon. if that is my option, then i would rather do it before. next question. >> you said that dennis kucinich and brand paula gray agree.granrand paul you give us an interesting
speech today. i guess this is the republican party. maybe you're running for the president. >> no, no. >> will you start another patriot act ii, which will be the new american apartheid system, one which -- >> this is a good way to end. i forgot to mention that. [laughter] the patriot act is due to what? it is due to expire. by the end of the year, the patriot act expires. do you think that is wohy of discussion? have you seen one added? hey, you know that the patriot act will expire been by the way, here it is. have you heard any candidates running for office talk about a question? i know that witchcraft is intriguing, but come on here and
we need to get our candidates who will be in charge or our partners in national security to step up to the plate and talk about these boring things. natalie do i think it needs to be reauthorized for a longer time but we need to add tools -- not only do i think it needs to be reauthorized for a longer time, so we need to add tools to it. we have seven different bills in the congress that would give the authority to deal with cyber terrorism to four different agencies. how many believe that cyber- terrorism is a real problem? they could put us out of business. the chinese are playing in this area every day. what if they came up with the ability to shut down wall street? a review of like that to a certain extent, unless you have money there. i think the patriot act needs to be reauthorized and we need to
add new tools. having said that, i hopi have left one person with you. i do believe and our values -- i do believe in our bellies. i and not a fan of gettingut of the geneva convention. -- i am not a fan of getting out of the geneva convention. i am confident we can win this war within our value system. but we have to adjust to the fact that we aret war. we have put every japanese americans in prison. that is what happens when good people who are afraid, that is what happens sometimes. good people are afraid and do some things that are not smart. i want to make for good decisions about miranda warnings. i want good decisions about checks and balances if.
i want to judicial review over enemy combatants status. ./ i like checks and balances. i believe a military commission system is one of the best in the world. we got 86 votes. i have been a military lawyer all my adult life. the same men and women who administered justice on military commissions will be the same ones in court-martials. they are close systems, but they are different. civil liberties which makes us different than our enemies need to be cherished, but we also need to understand that in a free and open society, that they exploit that freedom and openness and this is a thinking
enemy without boundaries. they use young boys and girls as shields in afghanistan. they would kill us all if they could. now is the time to understand the difference between fighting a crime and fighting a war. my goal is to be at war with our enemies but also still to be an american. thank you very much. headlines and your calls live next on ""washington journal" and the 10:00 eastern transportation department conference on distracted driving. is 45 minutes the presidents of the national small business administration will field your calls about the small-business bill passed by the senate last week. week.