tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN December 22, 2015 6:00pm-8:01pm EST
mr. olson: if i could respond to a couple of points, first, on the doctor we fully agree with you that he has been unjustly imprisoned, and we have communicated this at the highest levels. >> why don't we tie it to our actions? his release, why don't we tied the future of this individual to the sale of our weapon systems and our aid? who is negotiating these deals on our behalf? mr. olson: we believe, and again
i cannot talk about the details of a perspective notification, but let me say we believe that the f-16s we have already sold to pakistan, or provided under security assistance, have been used to advance our national interest. they have been used against terrorists in north waziristan and in the tribal areas. the precision strike capability of the f-16s, and our programs are focused on counterinsurgency and counterterrorism. >> i understand the value of the weapon system and what it can do. we are very frustrated that for the american people's involvement, we do not see a whole lot coming on the other side of the ledger. that is my personal perspective. >> thank you, mr. chair. i think you have probably touched on some of these answers already, but i really want to deal with my own concerns like congressman higgins and cook and others. i am troubled about the reports of pakistan's development
of what i consider to be de-tactical nuclear weapons at a faster rate than any other country. i want to understand more clearly your assessment of pakistan's cooperation on nuclear proliferation concerns. the second part of that question has to do with recent media reports suggesting that our administration is considering some kind of nuclear arrangement with pakistan. i am not clear what is a nuclear arrangement, and if we are considering it, is pakistan really a trustworthy partner? like other members, the nuclear proliferation treaty concerns are very troubling. mr. olson: thank you, congressman. we share your concerns about the scope and pace of pakistan's
nuclear program. we have an active dialogue on nonproliferation issues. >> has pakistan increased the rate of development and production of tactical nuclear weapons? mr. olson: we continue to have concerns about the scope and pace. that is all i can say in this venue. i want to address another issue. i can assure you, despite press reports to the contrary, we are not negotiating a so-called 1, 2, 3 agreement, a cooperation agreement, with pakistan. >> are we setting any preconditions or any conditions? or talking to pakistan about the reduction of its nuclear weapons? mr. olson: we have had a very
candid discussion with the pakistanis about some of the concerns that we have, including about shorter-range nuclear systems. pakistan has been prepared to engage with us in those discussions. >> i gather, for the last 60 years, we have provided over $75 billion in assistance in military and economic assistance. going back to the question asked by the chair, is any of our assistance tied to changes in pakistan's behavior? mr. olson: there are very
specific metrics and conditions does we use in all of our assistance programs, specific to the nature of the program, particularly in civilian assistance. with regard to security assistance we have a framework with the pakistanis in which our security assistance is focused on the counter insurgency and counterterrorism missions. it is worth noting that 2 additional provisions that, obviously all of our assistance is subject to the leahy amendment. and we have a process that addresses human rights. in addition, we have very a stringent monitoring requirements on the pakistanis, especially with regard to high
technology security assistance. i can say that we are very strict on those. the results have been satisfactory. >> what does that mean that the results have been satisfactory? thank you. i yield back. technology security assistance. i can say that we are very strict on those. >> recognizing the gentleman from florida. >> mr. ambassador, appreciate it. i was fortunate to go to afghanistan. we had an informative trip. we have given them $30 billion since 2001, to pakistan. looking through the list there are at least five terrorist networks operating in the fata area along with isis. we have heard over and over it is a no man's land. in order to get peace in that area, there cannot be the threat
of terrorism. is pakistan's goal to get rid of terrorism? how serious are they? i am not seeing it. mr. olson: we have agreed for many years that the threat from the tribal areas was significant. >> how serious is pakistan about bringing this to an end? it is like my mom, i told her i wanted to play piano, but i wasn't serious and never learned. if you are serious, you will do it. if you are not, you will not. with 30 billion dollars of american money going into pakistan, and giving them the original f-16's after them helping us in 9/11, we have seen them as complacent as working against us in afghanistan. yet, we hear they want to have
peace in that area and have talks with india -- but, if you are not willing to stand up and stop about terrorism, you are not serious. am i right or wrong? mr. olson: they launched operations in north waziristan, they have reasserted their authority -- >> what attacks have they done? we did authorities against isis in the summer a year and half ago, but they were not meaningful. we were doing maybe five or 10 a month. if you are serious, you annihilate that. mr. olson: they have completely cleared this city that was the headquarters of the haqqani
network and the pakistani network. completely cleared out. there is no one there. they're cleared the city, and cleared all of the networks. a have taken 480 casualties just amongst their soldiers in operations. i think their commitment is serious to fighting terrorism. the concern that we have, sir, and i flag this, we think more needs to be done against the haqqani network and groups that threaten pakistan's neighbors. not just the ones that threaten them internally. >> if you look at the attacks in san bernardino, malik studied in pakistan. do to the country's support for terror, administrations have argued that the u.s. assistance is necessary for pakistan's antiterrorism capabilities.
what specific contributions have the pakistan's f-16's made to our directives in central america? what can i go back to the people that i represent and say this is a good thing, because it will give us peace down the road. we are going backward. what benefits have the f-16s done? mr. olson: they've used the f-16 for precision strikes in the tribal areas. i don't have the specific metrics with me on the number of
strikes they have conducted, but they are regular feature of their operations. we believe they are essential in taking out terrorists of concern to us and then. >> they do not know the actions that they will be pursuing in the tribal area. would you recommend giving them, selling them more airplanes with the results we have gotten so far. the $30 million, you read off an impressive list of scholarships and schools. i am not seeing the return on investment. american sentiment once this to end. mr. olson: with regard to the f-16s, we believe they have been an affected instrument. out of respect for our congressional prerogatives, we to not discuss perspective cells
until they have been notified. >> they protected osama bin laden. there is no way they did know about that, and no one can convince me different. they are heading a beehive. they are hitting a malignant tumor over here, but the main tumor is over here. we have to go after the main cause before i can support any sells of those. >> thank you. on november 18, the brother of the activist here in washington was killed. there is an ongoing investigation. i want to thank you and the state department for the focus on this.
and raises the bigger issue if there are other regions that are hostile other than punjab. what percentage of the general officers of the military are punjabi? i do not know if you have that available. mr. olson: i do not have that available. we can take that back and see if we have the information. for my own experience, it is a high proportion, but not an exclusive proportion. >> a zero-based budget.
most people that i represent feel the roughly $2 billion we give pakistan could be better spent in the valley. the doctor that helped us get osama bin laden will be rotting in prison. do we have a plan to go to zero? what was we expect the pakistani response to be? mr. olson: is it considered an act of war to give another country money? mr. olson: we believe that engagement with pakistan is -- >> other countries don't give them money and they still talk. i'm not saying we close our
embassy. i using the pakistanis would refuse to talk to us. does every other country have to give them money as a party gift to have a conversation? mr. olson: our specific programs, civilian or military, have done a lot to improve the conditions in the case of civilians and the rise of ordinary pakistanis. they are facing an enormous demographic challenge. they have a youth bulge. the youth are about to come into the most productive years of their life. they will either have jobs or not have jobs. >> i know we do good for pakistan. if we spend that money in india or congo, we would do an equal amount of good. what is the pakistani response
if we simply say "zero?" mr. olson: i really can't say what the government of pakistan -- >> we are spending $2 billion, much of it military, if we eliminated the military aid it is clear that the pakistani military does some good, it is also clear the pakistani military does some harm. have we discussed with the pakistanis that congress would specify zero, particularly if we don't see changes in policy, starting with the release of the doctor that helped us get osama bin laden. have you talked to the pakistanis that there is sentiment in congress to go to zero? mr. olson: i would be happy to convey that sentiment. i think that is a point we can make. the administration's position is that we believe that the assistance programs that we have
our and our national interest. it is in our national interest to have pakistan be stable and prosperous, rather than the alternative. it is in our national interest to have pakistan conduct inc. counterterrorism operations in that part of the country. >> is the money that we use them used for oppression rather than prosperity and counterterrorism? they may be confronting the haqqani network, or not. they may be funding the operations that kill people in mumbai. how do we know which of those two activities our money is funding? mr. olson: we are very careful about how we spend our money and what we spend it on. in regards the military assistance it is subjected to a very strict leahy amendment
vetting process. we continue to raise the issues, the question of the haqqanis, and the doctor. at every occasion. >> unless they think that you are willing, under some circumstances, to recommend zero, you will not achieve our objectives. the biggest weathervane is the physician that help us get osama bin laden. then, to say that we should ignore the fact that they have that doctor in prison, begs the question if the aid that we get them is warranted.
>> i will return to points that i made in my opening statement. including the legislation authored by myself and eliot engel on targeting hezbollah. there are several cosponsors here, like mr. sherman. if i could return to some of the points that i made, i hope that with this observation about the schools in pakistan. there are 600 of these iron concerned about that over the years we have tried to convince the government to shut down. they are funded primarily by the gulf states, individuals and
families in the gulf states, that make these "charitable contributions." the problem is that these graduates have a foundation and radical ideology. we have the national action plan set up by the government. i asked the congressional research survey about to that plan. they say one year later there is limited evidence that the government's national action plan has brought major changes. i would like to ask you about shutting these down, shutting down the foundation from which this radicalization is occurring. many young people will go on to become clerics in pakistan or elsewhere, continuing to expand on this radical jihadist ideology that has advanced and comes out of the gulf states. mr. olson: mr. chairman, let me say that we share your concern about the schools. we think it is a serious issue. it was addressed for the first
time in the national action plan put out last year. the government is in the process of putting together a greater regulatory framework for the schools. it is presently mapping geopolitical -- >> this is not rocket science. we are talking about the particular schools. they are incubators -- saying that they are all incubators of hate and violence is wrong. but, there exist religious centers that continue to spew hate. unless that is shutdown, pakistan will never win the struggle for internal peace. we have a list of the 600 schools. i have made three trips to try to convince the government to
shut those down. we have had little success in convincing families and the gulf states not to send their money there, or convincing the governments in the gulf states to fund this. it is a phenomenon. it is so frustrating. what we see is that failure of the government, time and time again, to address issues that are in that government's own best interest. this, to me, given the knowledge of what goes on in those 600 schools is the most obvious and vexing problem that is right in front of us.
what do people in the government say about that issue? mr. olson: i have had discussions about this. i agree that there is a huge challenge with the madrassas. the reason they exist and have become popular, if that is the word, is the fact that they divide a free education. >> we are talking past each other. i'm not talking about all of the madrassas that provide free education. i'm talking about the 600. given the money spent toward education in the budget, 2.4% that goes toward education, i understand that this is one of the debates in terms of f-16s and military hardware. wouldn't pakistan be better served by the issue of shutting down these 600 schools?
if they do it, funding public education as an alternative, instead of the lads going to schools where you and i suspect the final outcome will be like a lot of others that have then radicalized in those schools. mr. olson: i would agree with that analysis. there has to be a reform of the public education system. it is not delivering in pakistan, and there has to be a viable opportunity for parents, who otherwise have no choice to send children to schools that are free and where food is provided. we have no choice but to try to reform the curriculum so that at least in the religiously oriented schools, there is marketable skills and standardized curriculum.
>> thank you, very much. i chair the national pakistan caucus with my colleague, and have done so for a decade. i will go pointedly to a question dealing with an american doctor some years back in 2014. the doctor out of chicago, who came out on a mission to serve. he had a different religious background. i am wondering, did we ever solve his killing? was there any response to that very tragic incident? mr. olson: it is a pleasure to see you again. i am afraid i do not have any
details on that particular case. if i can get back to you with a response, i would do so. of course, we continue having concerns about the treatment of religious minorities in pakistan. it is a key area of our engagement. >> let me follow up. i think it is an important issue. how are we pursuing the issue of religious tolerance?
mr. olson: i think there have been some developments over time in pakistan that give us a little bit of space for advancing this. one was a decision from the supreme court in june of 2014 to extend greater protection to religious minorities. we think that is a positive step that needs to be followed up on with the government. we have an ongoing dialogue with the rights of religious minorities. we are particularly concerned about blasphemy, not only in pakistan, because the possibility of there being subject to abuse.
that has been the case in certain instances in pakistan. we think it is within the context of having concerns about the framework, the legal framework, in which pakistan conducts anti-blasphemy laws. we think it is positive the case of shakeel afridi has moved to the supreme court. we will continue to press the government of pakistan for proper treatment of religious minorities. >> thank you. let me say that it is good to see you. we will focus on pakistan, then maybe a slight question in the timeframe i have left. i know you have asked about dr. afridi and his position. you have any other update you may have given in any other testimony? let me follow with my next question. when the prime minister was here there was an impression that pakistan is continuing to build on democratic and suppose focusing on economic development, education issues that we would be concerned
about, and existence. i was wondering what your assessment is. if you would start with the status of the doctor. and if you could give me a little bit about afghanistan, i am concerned in terms of whether or not the frontierland is even embraced by the central government. if we have a functioning government in afghanistan. mr. olson: thank you. with regards to dr. afridi, we believe there is no reason for his continued detention. we have been assured that he is in good health, but we continue to press his case at the highest levels of our government and seek his release.
>> you see no other accounts or charges? you see no reason for him to continue to be incarcerated? mr. olson: we believe, inherently, that he should not be in a position of detention for helping out in the capture of -- helping out in the osama bin laden raid. that has been our position from the onset. we continue to work every avenue that is open to us. we continue to press hard on it. >> the other question? mr. olson: with regards to afghanistan, the government has actually -- does face some challenges. that is not surprising. the government of national unity has held together for over a year.
the government of national unity, any national unity government coalition anywhere, there are challenges associated. when i was in kabul last week i got a sense of her new determination of the government to improve its governance, particularly after the security challenges it has faced over the last year. it is drawing lessons learned from the experiences of the past year, and is making more government appointments. there is a particula provincial focus to the government's reforms. >> prime minister sharif came to the united states, do using them moving to more democratic development? do we have a measuring stick
that moves pakistan with all of its population, the desire for education, to a level where you are in powering many young people in the country? mr. olson: thank you. there was an important transition in pakistan in june of 2013, when the first civilian elected government took over. the first successful civilian transition in pakistan's 65-year history. i think after facing domestic political challenges, the government of prime minister sharif has largely settled those political issues. i think the political situation is stable.
the government has, indeed, focused on several key areas stabilizing the economy. pakistan, the coffers were empty at the time the government took over. there was the potential of a balance of payments crisis. pakistan is on an imf program. longer than any previous imf program in history. there are still important structural reforms to be undertaken, especially in the energy sector, but they are diversifying their energy supply. they are importing liquefied natural gas from a company in houston, the company is helping out in that process. which, we are happy to promote successfully.
and, they have also focused on infrastructure. the prime minister has committed to increasing the proportion of spending on education. it is worth noting that the prime minister's daughter signed on with the first lady, mrs. obama, for the let girls learn initiative during the prime minister's visit. expressing seriousness of addressing issues of education, particularly for adolescent girls. we encourage them to increase their funding on education. >> thank you for your service. thank you, chairman, ranking member, will your courtesy. >> eliot engel from new york. >> thank you very much. we had a good meeting yesterday in my office.
i was debating the bill on the house floor and in the new york delegation. i apologize for missing the first part of the hearing. we discussed many of the issues, and i am delighted with your appointment. we are going to make a statement and ask you to comment. this week, five years since the passing of ambassador holbrooke, the first special representative for afghanistan and pakistan. he left a legacy. his final act was laying groundwork for resolving the conflict in afghanistan and pakistan, and i hope we can take advantage of that. i've confident with your previous experience in afghanistan and pakistan that this is in the right hands. i was encouraged by the bipartisan support on military, and to renew our partnership
with the civilian leadership of pakistan. it was reflected in the bill passed by congress in 2009, but that authorization expired. it is a good time to take stock of the status of the u.s.-pakistan relationship. we are used to hearing bad news, but the pakistani people have achieved accomplishments. the transfer of power from one democratically elected government to another, a historic moment for the country. thanks to collaboration with our own, they have added electricity, new jobs, schools, and more than 18,000 newly trained teachers. let me commend experts for their hard work and a challenging environment. on the security side, we have
seen more modest progress. terrorist groups pose threats to americans. pakistanis and our partners, where pakistan has provided extremist groups safe haven and a permissive environment allowing the ideology to spread. the hardest hit have been the pakistani people. terrorism has killed more than 50,000 people since 2003. a year ago today, terrorists affiliated with the pakistani taliban massacred more than 140 teachers and students at the army school in peshawar. the government finally took military action against ttp in north waziristan.
i had high hopes for those efforts. i was hopeful when the pakistani parliament to a leading role in establishing an action plan to address terrorism in the aftermath of the peshawar attacks. they decided they would no longer differentiate between good and bad terrorists, reflecting a change, a positive change, to addressing terrorism. we have seen little evidence the government has followed through. so, violent groups continue to operate with impunity, including the haqqani network, responsible for the deaths of hundreds of americans in afghanistan. and let, the group responsible for the 2008 mumbai attacks, they believe that they can manage these groups, yet they end up fighting our troops in
afghanistan, and the haqqani network has pledged allegiance to al qaeda. pakistan is a long way from solving their problem. i hope that we can focus on a few key areas. what will it take for pakistan to stop differentiating between good and bad terrorists, and treating them all as bad and as the threat that they are. it is our policy to convey that the harm from these relationships outweigh any benefit. i am curious how pakistani acquiescence in support for terrorism groups is affecting its neighbors. can afghanistan stabilize while pakistan hosts terrorist networks? can pakistan and india have a relationship with pakistan continues to support lashkar-e-taiba? we need to be clear eyed about
the pakistani antiterrorism efforts. i believe the united states and pakistan should work together, but i think the question about terrorism is a very important question. it has not been satisfactorily met by the pakistani government. i hope we can see a country strategy for pakistan and afghanistan from usaid to maximize foreign assistance for both countries. we need to encourage energy sector and tax reforms. we want to see a peaceful, stable, and prosperous pakistan that is part of a central and southern asia. it cannot happen with the instability in pakistan and
afghanistan. i wonder if you could answer some of these questions. if you have already, we can do it in writing afterwards. i also wish you good the. as i said before, i think you are the right man for the job. mr. olson: thank you. ...that means a great deal to me. i enjoy your confidence, and thank you for your support. you started by mentioning it is five years since the death of richard holbrooke. i was in his outer office waiting to see him today he collapsed. all of us that are working on this account greatly miss him. i'm well aware that i am filling big shoes. thank you for your statement.
let me say with regard to the issue of terrorism, we appreciate the statements pakistan has made at the level of the prime minister and army chief of not differentiating between good and bad terrorists. we think there is to be done in this area. we think pakistan has moved decisively against terrorists that threaten pakistan internally, but still needs to devote attention to those that represent a threat to their neighbors. you asked about particularly the effect on afghanistan. i would note that we had a constructive week last week with the heart of asia conference which president ghani attended. it was important for the afghan side. they committed to renewing and
reinvigorating a peace process. pakistan did host talks between the taliban and the afghan government. the first talk was last summer in july. we agree it is important to get a political settlement going. we look to pakistan to bring, to help bring, the taliban to the table. at the same time, we raise concerns about the threat the haqqani network represents to us and to our forces, and the sea, and civilians in afghanistan, as well as the taliban more generally.
finally, we have the same view as regard to lashkar-e-taiba and the need to ban them, and to take action with regard to prosecuting them as perpetrators of mumbai. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i just keep going back to the double game that is being played by pakistan. you had said that pakistan expressed a seriousness in addressing the education needs of its country. pakistan spends 3% of its budget on education. 3%.
3% of its budget on infrastructure. countries that spend less than 15% on education, health care, and infrastructure, our countries that are susceptible to collapse. you said pakistan is serious about addressing educational needs, one only needs to look at the amount of budgetary resources it is addressing for that need. additionally, pakistan and points the amount it spends on counterterrorism operations to receive more money, particularly from us. it has been stated throughout the hearing, some $30 billion over 15 years has been spent. military and economic development aid for pakistan.
the legitimate costs are only 30%. where is the rest of the money going? it is very significant, and i suspect for nefarious purposes. are we winning the hearts and minds of pakistanis given the aid that we have provided? bp research center said the majority of pakistanis view of americans as the enemy and say that the eight has a negative or no impact. pakistan is one of the most corrupt countries. by any measure, when you look at the extraordinary aid that we have provided, at the very least we have not used that aid package as a basis from which to force very reasonable reforms with respect to helping the
pakistanis hope their own people. if you don't make a commitment to education, to health care, if you are not delving roads and bridges, why are we? we spent $87 billion rebuilding the roads and bridges of afghanistan. $73 billion rebuilding the roads and bridges of iraq, roads and bridges that they blow up to kill our people. if anything, we look at this exercise, this hearing, as underscoring the urgency of better utilizing the leverage that we have with pakistan so to ensure not only is that money more wisely spent, but we, the benefactors of huge amounts of
foreign aid to pakistan, are not viewed by the vast majority of the pakistani people as the enemy, and the money that we give them as ineffective. mr. olson: thank you congressman. i appreciate the thought will comments that you have offered. we agree with you on the need for pakistan to be investing more in education, health, and in its own people. there is no doubt about that. we support the prime minister's stated commitment to devoting 4% to education, 4% of gdp. we would like to see that happen.
it does have to be said that pakistan faces a huge number of challenges now. it faces huge security challenges. we could have a long discussion about how that happened. i think there are domestic, large domestic factors at play. i think pakistan is attempting to turn the security situation around, but it does consume a significant amount of their budget in doing so. on the question of hearts and minds, and the views of americans, it is not a happy story. i agree with you. on the other hand, it is something that is somewhat improving. the numbers have gradually improved on pakistan's perception of americans. from personal experience, i
think there's less of an impression now amongst the political elite that the united states is playing a nefarious role in regard to pakistani domestic politics. we are perceived as not intervening in pakistani politics, and that is because we haven't. we have been careful not to do that. this is something that won't change overnight, but the trends, albeit modest, are in a positive direction, and i think we need to keep working away at that. >> ambassador, i will yield time to mr. brad sherman of california for additional questions. >> pakistan is the only schizophrenic nuclear power. winning over the people of pakistan is one of the most important things we can do.
voice of america spends a lot of money around the world. i would hope that you would be an advocate for making sure that we have a robust program in the other languages. please do not be fooled by them saying that a lot of people have working knowledge of urdu. you are in the marketing business. people in my town spend billions of dollars advertising in spanish to people who prefer to listen in spanish. they don't say -- well, we will test those people to see what their working knowledge is. you reach people in the language they want to listen in. we are talking about $2 billion a year, and not spending $1 million a year to reach people speaking sindhi -- i have tried and have not been successful.
i am counting on you. i was a devil's advocate for a zero-based budget for pakistan. that is not what we are going to do. i do hope you will confer to the pakistanis that if there is a vote ever in the house saying that not one penny could be dispersed until dr. afridi and his family are safe here, it would pose a danger to the congress because we would be stampeding to vote "yes." >> [indiscernible] >> yes, they would get in the way of the stampede. those voting first would be stampeded by those trying to vote first.
the usaid dedicated more than $155 million to improving schools. a 2014 usaid report found three-years in, the program was not achieving goals. it had unrealistic expectations. no schools were built. there was little improvement in early grade reading. that was in 2014. has anything been done to make sure that education aid is more effectively spent? if you do not have that information, you can respond for the record. mr. olson: i hope that you are aware that our consulate general in karachi has started putting out all of the social media work in sindhi, and has received a positive reaction. >> that idea may have come from congress. go on.
mr. olson: we were happy to implement it. i'll take back the message on voice of america. i don't have detailed information, but i can tell you that i have participated in the inauguration of schools. they are being built. they are going up. i will have to get you a detailed status report. >> i would like you to explore with usaid, a chunk of the aid should provide free textbooks. that would allow us to make sure, that while the content of textbooks may not pass a politically correct test in the san bernardino valley, would be consistent with american values. second, every student would see on the front page "provided by the united states," everyday. third, it is very hard to steal a textbook, because if the united states is providing free textbooks, who will you sell to?
fourth, one of the advantages of a madrassa, is that they have free textbooks. we should have free textbooks. what would it take to get pakistan to be a status quo power? to have them generally accepting a kashmir situation? is there any development aid that the world could provide for the kashmiri people? is there any change in the level of local autonomy that india could provide. is there anything, not so pakistan would formally accept the situation, but so that they could calm down and agree to live for a decade or so without
kashmir teeing at the top of their list? >> if i could interject, i am aware that he has to appear on the senate side. >> that is not important. [laughter] >> he might interpret it differently. that is a discussion we could have been writing or have a sit down. we were supposed to meet in my office, i look forward to meeting with you. >> i want to bring up the remarks that mr. engle made about your predecessor, ambassador richard holbrooke -- he was a personal friend myself and eliot engle. from the days that he began engaging with the committee, i remember the courts, and the work that he did on bosnia and
kosovo with those of us here. we counted him as someone who had wise counsel on a lot of issues. we miss him. i cannot help but feel when i reflect upon your predecessor that the stress of the job may have had something to do with his heart giving out. we wish you, ambassador, well in your responsibilities. we appreciate your time and your patience today. i know that you are on your way to the senate. i will just say, what you have heard our deep concerns from both sides of the aisle -- about the direction, the issue of getting more money into public education in pakistan. it is clear to us that this has got to be a priority.
you have a difficult job, but you have the full backing from us to weigh in forcibly with the responsibilities you have in your position. that said, we thank you, and we stand adjourned. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]
>> abigail sylmar was the first first lady to work outside of the home, teaching at a private school. she successfully lobby congress for funds to create the first white house library. eisenhower's hairstyle and love of paying created a since nation. it was marketed as a color. jacqueline kennedy was responsible for the creation of the white house historical association. as a youngn, actress, saw her in a mistake of the black list of suspected communist sympathizers in the late 1940's. she appealed to screen actors guild had ronald reagan for help. she later became his wife. these stories and more are featured in sees and book, "first lady's."
the book makes a great gift for the holidays. giving readers a look into the personal lives of every first lady and american has trade. stories of fascinating women and how their legacies resonate today. share the stories of america's first ladies for the holidays grade c-span's book, "first lady's." from your favorite bookstore online bookseller. be sure to order your copy today. all week long we been talking to others as a part of our book series. joining us is the author of battlefield america, the war on the american people. good morning. people". good morning.
>> as i watch the increased violence in the country, police violence surveillance state growing. i work with the former secret service agent. i'm a former military officer. i had top-secret clearance. i have just seen some things that really bothered me. i'm a constitutionalist. i believe in the fourth amendment. it says really clearly that before surveillance is to be done on american citizens there needs to be probable cause. some evidence of wrongdoing. now you have a national security agency downloading 2 million e-mails daily. you have the post office recording all of our mail. , cases that we might want to talk about. watching facebook posts. we have clients that have been arrested for just doing facebook posts. the government is
watching everything we are doing and of the same time they seem to be bumbling. they cannot catch so-called terrorists while watching innocent citizens so that is why it is called battlefield america. i represent the client and see what is happening across the country. to be honest, the subtitled the war on the american people, i am telling people it is time to be accountable and get involved in your government and stop sitting watching and listening all the time and get active. 40 years of experience, i think we are heading down a long train. i have study historical patterns and those that i see with not to germany and stalin russia, in this day, a 32 year veteran visited and said we are following the soviet model and i said what do you mean by that? he said homeland security as a soviet phrase and we are moving into that era where everybody is watched and you can get in trouble for the slightest thing.
we might want to talk about the cases i've been involved in. it is freaky. if you've been on the front line you've seen scary things. i think it is time to raise an alarm. the guy who wrote our bill of rights said to take alarm at the first experiment with liberties. that happened a long time ago. host: our guest will talk about the specifics he writes about in his book. if you want to ask him a question, now is the time. call 202-748-8001 four republicans and 202-748-8000 for democrats and 202-748-8002 four independents. where do you see these infringements on our liberties? guest: i am seeing them everywhere. the government listening in on phone calls, the police are equipped with stingray devices handed out by the dhs. they download your cell phone
information and feed them to fusion centers that are located across america. when you arrive in big cities you are tracked wherever you go. the dhs has been handing out security cameras to local communities and they tap into those. we live in a surveillance society. i'm afraid the fourth of limit no longer works. nobody is enforcing it. you are watched everywhere you go. an example, innocent activity. i defended a marine several years ago, a 26-year-old named brandon rob who was just doing facebook posts about obama. he came back from afghanistan, he was decorated by the way. he took weapons from al qaeda and defused mines. he didn't like the executive orders. he got the president should be arrested for treason. on a saturday morning he hears noise outside his home near
richmond, virginia and walks to his screen door and looks out and vans with swat teams are pulling up. people in black suits. he stepped close to the screen door and says what is up. they said would you step out. he says what if i done? -- what have i done? he had a background check done on him, he owned no guns and was immediately arrested. he argued, he was thrown against the fence, his back was lacerated. his mother called virtually every group and got a hold of me and i called the police chief and asked what he has done. the chief said he is committed no crime. i said wait a minute. this is an american citizen. what is the concern about his facebook post? had a five minute examination by a psychiatrist who said his pauses in answering, he didn't want to answer because he didn't have a lawyer, the fact that he is a 9/11 truther.
he was put in a mental hospital, we filed a lawsuit and got them out of there. if i wasn't involved, research shows 1.5 million of these civil commitments happened across america on an annual basis. this was for a facebook post. this was free expression. we're supposed to have that. today you say the wrong thing and i tell people especially veterans were being watched from the dhs under operation vigilant eagle, be careful what you put on facebook. don't post weapons or things like that. you can get arrested. that is the state of the land. i talked to former secret service agent to say the same thing. these are not made up. i am not a conspiracy theorist. my book has 35 pages of footnotes.
host: one of the topics because of the recent events in san bernardino that came up was about social media. the presidential candidates were asked about it. hillary clinton herself was asked about it recently about what needs to be done in social media and it being pushed back as a recruitment tool. >> to do that we need stronger relationships between washington, silicon valley, and all of our great tech companies and entrepreneurs. american innovation is a powerful force. we have to put it to work to defeat isis. that starts with understanding where and how recruitment happens. our security professionals need to more effectively track and analyze isis'social media posts and map jihadist networks.
they need help from the tech community. companies should redouble their efforts to maintain and enforce their own service agreements. and other necessary policies. to police their networks, identify extremist content, and remove it. host: when you hear that, what goes through your mind? guest: if someone is directly connected to isis and there are facts that pertain to that, that is probable cause. when you track guys like the guy i just talked about and they knew about him, the other people i have felt over the years, but she used the word extremist at the end. listen. if you read what came out of the dhs in 2009, there were three memos under obama. one was right-wing extremism, left-wing extremism, and operation vigilant eagle.
when i read them, what it said was these were extremists, by the way, environmental groups like peta. people who believe in state rights over in the right-wing category, they believed in fema camps, they were extremists. operation vigilant eagle, all returning veterans were watched. when she uses the word extremist, who is she talking about? isis, a terrorist, sure. law-enforcement should be doing their job. if they are watching everything. when you have huge departments like dhs which i am told by people inside the government they are bumbling. tsa to give you an example. tsa, they did a mock test. and the different groups would sneak weapons in an so-called explosives. in 90% of the cases, those went through. we are dealing with a government, and i was told, they
are watching everybody. you, your neighbor, innocent people. all returning veterans, we are going to miss this person because we don't follow up on leads. the computers are doing the job. if there are facts leading to that, follow up on it. someone saying i'm a member of isis and they want to blow someone up? those these should be followed. tracking american citizens like i am seeing, if people want to live in a surveillance state that is fine. people have to realize there are 5000 federal crimes, over 400,000 regulatory crimes that you can get indicted on. a man spends 18 days in jail for overgrown grass. we help kids around the country in several cases where they were having the police shutting down their lemonade stands. there are a lot of laws i can be enforced if you live in a surveillance state. what i am saying is, and i back law-enforcement, follow the law.
you have facts, do check those people out, they are dangerous, you round them up. but if you watch everybody, the san bernardino so-called terrorists, the fbi had vetted them. again, they are watching everybody. if you watch everybody you cannot get the real criminals. host: this is david from dayton, ohio. john whitehead, author of the book belfield america. caller: good morning and i will be buying your book. while ago i bought a book, rise of the warrior cop. and i really, i knew this was going on until i saw what was going on in ferguson. the sniper troops, cops, taking aim at people.
from tanks. these were literally tanks. these cops were going to shoot innocent protesters from. it was in this book. it just told how all of this, everything in the police force being militarized. it is shocking what's going on in the country. i will be buying your book, sir. thank you very much and i will take your comments on tv. have a merry christmas. guest: under president bush, george w. bush, military equipment was handed out under different programs by the pentagon. that surge under president obama were now they are having mine resistant armor protection vehicles that were used in afghanistan, sniper rifles,
everything you see policeman having today. with all the surveillance devices. these are all being handed out by the dhs. what the amazing thing was when i did my research is we were told that was all used equipment. we can to find out almost 60% was new. corporate america is pushing these. also psychologists are saying there is a weapons affect. when a police officer walks up and there is a protester and they have guns and stuff like that, the weapons effect means citizens are reacting. they see that and it makes citizens more aggressive. you saw in ferguson the end of the protests, there was solid law-enforcement officers that got out there and shook hands,, moved with the peoplem, talk to them and simmered down the protests. in the police academies i have been told by people who teach
them, it is 721 on militarization, aggression, and how to defuse a situation. if you reverse that which i am told by officers that work in academies, they think what we see today with people reacting to officers, i am here in new york city. i saw policeman driving by shaking hands with citizens, letting people take pictures with the horses. good idea. we have to realize this. the policeman out there are one of us. i don't like the term civilian. the say he's an officer and i'm a civilian. we are both civilians. the problem is and george washington and james madison and the founding fathers that put our constitution together warned saying ever have a standing army. we have experienced that. today we are creating a standing
army with local police who are armed to the hill. i don't see many local police. they work heavily with the fbi and federal agencies. the fbi has moved into some local police agencies now and recently opened with 10 fbi agents and they are watching social media and feeding it to the police and their watching. should they be doing that? again, in violation of the fourth amendment. some viewers out there may want it but i don't. that is what our constitution guarantees. i don't think it will be pushed back because there is too much money being made by a large corporate entities that are pushing it. you are going to see this increase. however your local communities can change that. you get your city council and i am advocating this with people creating several liberties -- civil liberties oversight boards where they were to defuse these situations.
we really need 80,000 swat team raids across america annually? where people are getting shot, little kids, dogs, old people. host: let's hear from another viewer, bob in utah on the democrats line. caller: good morning. your guest, mr. whitehead covered heart of what i will say about the police. i would like you to know how i felt about the policeman in nevada being shot by, i guess they are tea party because they waved at the tea party flag over their bodies or hung it there. that really bothered me to think something like this could go on in our country when these policeman are just having a piece. i will let you go ahead and answer that because our country is going downhill because we are
staging a war between the people in it. we have trumped out there hollering, politicians that lie, we need somebody who cares. there's a guide by the name of huntsman and i'm a democrat and he wasn't excellent cup -- he was an excellent governor. anyway, i had to let some steam off. host: that's jon huntsman, the former governor of utah. possibly an independent candidate mr. whitehead, go ahead. guest: i see that, i don't like the us versus them. i'm watching the debates and i don't like that. what we need is to bring our people together and our communities together. we are not doing that. as a look at our communities today, traveling by the way, walking through local communities, everybody is inside and no one knows who their neighbor is. we have lost our communities. when you get that you will get
schisms and hate. when i hear hate rolling from politicians' mouth, i don't like that. if this country is going to make it, we have to get back to our roots. one is we have to get back to the sense and i say this in my book, we don't teach the golden rule. that we should treat others decently. i've had police officers, to me and these are older policeman saying i don't like the way you are police officers walk up to american citizens these days. i don't like the reverse reaction were they automatically hate everybody in a uniform. that can be defused by our politicians, it can be worked through in schools. and getting back into community relations. we need to be involved in our government. how does the constitution start? what is the first three words? we the people. what does that mean.
we the people are the government. president obama isn't, he represents us. the policeman isn't, he represents us. we the people. when you go back and say what is the cause of our problems, we the people are not involved. i'm telling people get down the street and bring back community get-togethers. get to know your local policeman. make sure that when things are happening in your community, you know about it and are not oblivious. you shouldn't be shocked by some of the things you're hearing, you should know what's going on. folks, get involved. i think we can see a lot of the stuff we're seeing cap down but the government and police, government agents, dhs walking through with their uniforms, fbi, all those things. we can correct that but we have to do it ourselves. host: our guest is john whitehead, author of battlefield america: the war on american
people. he's joining us as part of our author series. if you want to ask questions, 202-748-8001 four republicans, 202-748-8000 democrats, 202-748-8002 independent. caller from the independent line. caller: good morning. rand paul with his filibuster, the senator from vermont, patrick leahy, was being interviewed. he addressed section 215. he said, i am paraphrasing, lives are being ruined, education is destroyed. careers are destroyed. because people are being put on these watch lists and have no idea. they cannot defend themselves. they have no recourse whatsoever. a lot of these people that are on the watchlist have nothing to
do with terrorism. i found a pretty interesting. also, people really cannot take action. you cannot sue anybody because the minute you try, the first thing they start screaming is national security. you can't say anything. the country is in danger. really? i just don't buy that for a second. that's my first part. my second is if you can address a bit on civil asset forfeiture. i would really like your take on that. thank you and i will take your response on the other side. guest: that's a big question. terrorist watch lists do exist. government admits they have a database called main core. they use the word extremist again which bothers me. all the people i've seen out there like martin luther king,
who is labeled an extremist and he reacted to that. there is a system they called main core, a government system. they claim this is fact. they claim to have 8 million names on that list. people that would be in times of emergency, might be rounded up. those of the terms they use. i would say if we live and a democracy, it is supposed to be transparent. if i am on a terrorist watch list i should know. the government should at least send me a note to say you're on a list so i can react and defend myself. but they don't do that. i talked with a client this week who was pulled over who was on the watchlist and went to the police department. he hadn't done anything wrong. that secret government stuff is the stuff i talk about in the book, stuff former regimes have stuff. stuff we should not put up with. if the average american is on a
terrorist watch list, we should know. obviously so we can defend ourselves. as far as asset forfeiture, it is a huge program that police used to rake in millions of dollars to share with the department of justice. if you're pulled over with cash, they are taking cars homes, stuff like that. it funds many police programs. i looked up some local police using the money for, carnivals, fairs. getting the property back if you are found not guilty will cost so much money that people give up. there are some communities reacting against it. i keep emphasizing it, some local communities have skill that back and some have done away with it and said we don't want asset forfeiture schemes in our community where police are grabbing cars and whatever because somebody's arrested. to me, that is egregious and it
goes back to whether or not we have private property. that is some thing i want to talk about before we get off the air. i see private property as going away. something the fourth amendment protects. if police enter your home without a warrant and a swat team raids, crashing through your door, people getting shot, we don't have private property. we are moving in that direction. the problems as i see it, they are so don't overwhelming that sitting and talking about it is not going to change much. in my book i argue that community action may change these things. there's a lot of things many americans don't know about because we are not checking into it. democracy starts with the individual. it is self-government. it spreads out and if you are self-governing, you can have tremendous impact. host: eight from toledo, ohio,
republican line. caller: bless you, gentlemen. the reason i'm calling is i'm a 1787 republican. in 1787, two documents were written. the constitution and the northwest ordinance. nowhere in those documents do you find the word democracy or democratic. the government formed by us was formed on morality and on religion, the religion of jesus christ. this is defined by our founders. my first question is, when everybody calls us a democracy, they are found calling our founders a liar. i am wondering why this is so ingrained in our people. my second question is in the northwest ordinance, it demanded
that ohio, michigan, etc. not only have a republican constitution, they have a republican government. stating again what a republican government is. by last question for mr. whitehead since you mentioned democracy, is what does the liberty bell mean? i think you jim mentioned have a blessed day in the on united socialist states of america. spelt with a k and run by the republicans and the democrats, the parties of the rich and the famous. guest: benjamin franklin was asked when he walked out of the constitutional convention what kind of government we had. he said a republic if you can keep it. i don't think we kept it. the word democracy, the way people use it today and white people want to use it is they want to participate in the government -- why people want to use it is they want to produce a and the government.
i talk about in my book. voting is the illusion of participation. you are putting this down here. jimmy carter recently said it takes 200 to $300 million just to run for president. whoever you are electing for president, i'm sorry, you will probably get disagreement. you are electing a corporate entity to a certain degree because they have tremendous influence in funding over who is elected. and 2000 14, princeton university in conjunction with northwestern university issued a report where they studied at 20 years of policies and laws passed from washington, d.c. at the end of their study and this was one of the best things i've ever read, they concluded that we live in an oligarchy funded by a moneyed elite. the average citizen has virtually no input in what happens in washington, d c
if that doesn't freak you out, it should. in other words you, the so-called citizen have no input in what happens. the guest asked a good question. do we have a republic? not in my opinion. eyesight that study that we live in an oligarchy. listen, the people who wrote the constitution, thomas jefferson, today he would be on the extremist list. madison would be on the list, patrick henry who said give me liberty or give me death and thought the constitution was too cumbersome. you go down the list, what is the liberty bell mean? freedom. they wanted freedom. the freedom to be not watched, not touched by government agents, unless that agent has probable cause. freedom means to be left alone
in your country. to be able to walk down your street without getting patted down or as in milwaukee, they are doing in a probes on citizens while they stand and watch. they have been sued and people have been awarded. the right to travel along the highway without being pulled over in the middle of the night and women having their vaginas probed. these are happening on a daily basis. we've allowed this to happen. what does liberty mean? it means me saying i will not put up with this anymore. i will stand up for my rights. i want to change this thing. that's what freedom and liberty is all about and what the liberty bell stands for. the people who started this country today would be on a terrorist watch list. they gave us freedom. host: our guest is john whitehead of the rutherford
institute, author of "battlefield america: the war over the american people. you say the average american commits three felonies of a without knowing it. guest: oh yeah. there are 5000 crimes, over 4000 regulatory crimes. the cases of the rutherford institute, we handle legal cases. i find lawyers. an old lady called me, the police were at her door as she has a chicken. it's against the law in her community to have a chicken in your backyard. she wanted it for eggs. a veteran calls who was pulled over on his front porch and questioned. a pastor we defended in phoenix, arizona had 10 people in his living room and was told that was against the law. there are meeting for bible study.
the police arrested him and he spent 60 days in jail. that's the kind of cases that are spreading across the country because there's so many laws. national groups that write the laws, and local communities in them. walking down the street you can be accused of any crime. here's the other thing i don't like. neighbors, most of these cases, it is neighbors calling the police. they don't walk to the neighbor and say anything. this is what i say with community relations. they don't say hey, could you move your chicken? no, they call the police. they are not working with their community. we go back to the question asked earlier. do we live in a republic? no. not if you are participating in your government and are not working with your fellow citizens.
that is the place to start. host: next is from pennsylvania, democrat line. caller: i want to talk about something very small. nobody talks about it because it is humiliating. i was taking medication, a non-psychotropic medication by a psychiatrist. i had one of the known side effects. the presence of mind to realize i needed medical advice to find out what was causing the problem. and to cover her malpractice, she called the suicide police on may. most people think that when you call the suicide hotline or somebody calls it on you, that some nice mental health worker comes and reassures you.
no, they send the police. they put me in handcuffs. i have osteoporosis, a gave me compression fractures. i was thrown into a county crisis center. i was put on other drugs and i tried to call the lawyer that i had from my estate planning, he was disgusted with me and hung up the phone. i had no one to call. that put me on a list. not a terror list but another list. it means having had an involuntary commitment for a side effect of a medication for which i was asking help, i am never allowed to work with the elderly or children again. it has wiped out the last 15 years of my working life. i am 65. my masters was in special education and social work.
that pretty much wiped out my ability to work and gave me six at least years of ptsd. it is different from combat, i am not a danger of anyone. i have never been suicidal. because i am on this list, every time i have reached out for help for being anxious, somebody calls the police again. host: thank you for the call. i will let our guest respond. guest: i have worked on a number of cases. we have several going on, with what they called welfare checks. we had a case recently where a fellow argued with his wife and said he was going on a trip. the employer called the police and said you need to do a welfare check. the police, the fellow was getting ready to leave and the police sent a swat team out and surrounded the car. we have the police on tape after
they talk to the guy through the window of his car saying we shouldn't be here, this doesn't work. eventually, they smashed out the guys window, dragged him out, to him face down, and we filed a lawsuit against them. this is happening across the country. it shows you, again, what is happening. pulleys, but her how good they are, are not trained in how to deal with somebody who may have a mental problem. they know that in most instances. i've seen that happen over and over again. again, we need some kind of government protection. this is an area that is emerging with so called checks and people getting arrested. people getting their lives destroyed and put on lists. it would seem to me there should be a headline you call where you can talk to a lawyer or an attorney who will give you advice immediately before you are arrested.
we dealt with an old guy not too long ago who said somebody was tapping into his cable. the police came to check it out. because he slurred his words a few times, they were handcuffing him behind his back and took him to a mental institution, put him against the wall, and that a strip search. nothing was wrong with them. but he went through all this and is suffering from ptsd himself. this goes back and shows you what i am illustrating in my book. how the government views us is different than they viewed us 30 years ago and maybe 20 years ago. for some reason, the average american i am seeing more and more seems to be the enemy or the one we worry about when you have crazies running around getting guns and wanting to shoot people in groups. again, not focusing on the real problem. host: next up is eric from daytona beach, republican line.
caller: good morning, it is a pleasure to speak to you. i am a student of history and i'm wondering when did this happen? when did this start? i will take your call off-line. guest: i would say that as far as what we are seeing with the police, if you want to talk about that, that started in the 1980's with the emergence of swat teams. there were 3000 swat team raids in 1985 to give you a figure. they were used against hostage situations, high tense situations. today there are over 80,000 happening across the united states on a daily basis -- i mean a yearly basis. that is increasing. 85% of those are from lawrence where police used to come -- warrants were people used to come and knock on your door. today that has changed. you have the change now where they smashed on your door.
police were doing a sweep of this man's neighborhood, they crashed through his door in the middle of the night and took his wife and child and put them in a closet. the only weapon he had was a hunting rifle. the police saw him, he got it was burglars. they fired over 70 times and hit was a 50 some times. police said he fired at them but the investigation showed the safety was never off the weapon. they entered his home and killed him. we are seeing this happen daily. children are getting killed. one thing i am seeing, people who work in the academy's who teach say the intense militarization process the young policeman are going through, they are being trained militarily and oppressing militarily. the pentagon under the bush of administration handed out this equipment. what you put on as i show in the
book, when you put combat outfits on anybody, a local policeman or whatever, their view changes. the person they are looking at becomes an enemy combatant. we can change that and scale it back because here's the key. the fbi statistics show crime in america is at a 40 year low. this is citizen per citizen crime. officers getting shot on duty is at a 50 year low. people are making a lot of money off of this. shame on them. you can change it, local communities are sending back the local equipment. a don't want a grenade launcher in their community or a tank. i don't blame them. if you have high crime or whatever, you may need that situation.
what i'm seeing is the history started after 9/11. people got freaked out. book, here does lead to authoritarian government. it always does. quote,makes a great violence increases power. it works. people get fearful. listen here. you are 17,000 times more likely to die of a heart attack been killed by terrorists. and eight more to be killed by a policeman. host: there is a german named david who writes for a blog called rational consent. he referenced -- there is a gentleman named david who writes for a blog called rational consent. he says a police state is not a state with a powerful police force, it is when police forces are not covered by law or when the government wields police power arbitrarily. examples include soc r -- soviet russia, not to germany.
the u.s. is not a police state, this rhetoric needs to stop. how do respond -- how would you respond? guest: it is characterized by massive surveillance. hyper violence against citizens is increasing. all the signs are there. when i look at history, the government agents, the policeman i talked to tell me this thing. they are nervous about where we are heading. we can say it is not a police state but listen. everything you are doing is being watched. they round up x marines because they are doing facebook posts and crashing through doors. at the rutherford institute i work with students. i had a group of students from the university of virginia. a couple of years ago i had someone say they're working on a project and they would like to determine swat team raids.
they came back and said we couldn't find a log of this in not to germany -- nazi germany or stalinist russia. they didn't see a lot of the aggression. it was toward certain groups like the jewish people, but we are not seeing swat raids. we are seeing over 1000 people being killed i police this year, many unarmed. you are seeing every action like an ferguson, missouri. do i think we are moving into a police state? history shows that and current fact. we are moving to a police state. it is time to stop it. host: devin from johnston city, tennessee. independent line. caller: good morning fellows.
the country is in danger. you are 100% right when you talk about all the laws and regulations we have. we can't even collect rainwater. blueberry tax, fishing license, cannabis, milk. we can go on and on. it's ridiculous. guest: swat team raids against farmers for goat milk. that is right. caller: john mccain was on tv a few years ago. he talked about how he and hillary clinton both voted to arm isis to take out bashar al-assad. and obama didn't put forth. that he got on their -- and obama didn't vote for it. just type in john mccain voted for isis and he was on fox news talking about he and hillary
clinton voted to arm isis. it was my mind. -- blew my mind. it was true, they both voted in 2012. and tell the government know, say we are not going to listen to you anymore. we do people have a choice. guest: i read that we funded isis with weapons. there are brand-new toyota trucks, supposedly they tack -- trackback to this country. i don't know if that is true. as far as export it weapons, the united states is a big exporter of weapons and bombs.
many of the weapons being used by former marines i talked to in afghanistan when they capture weapons, they are american. some of our former colleagues were talking about morality. that they were saying at some point, let's be careful where we are handing out bombs. you mentioned a obama not voting for something. one thing that bothers me about him is he decides supposedly, who he will kill with a drone. so far, almost 2500 civilians have been killed. one was a 16-year-old kid. we have seemed to lack empathy for other countries and each other. that is something that i have seen with so-called, some that he mentioned us versus them. we are losing empathy and what
that means to me is care for other human beings. and handing out weapons all across the world. that should stop. the drones that will be proliferating across this country armed with their weapons will be all over the world. i see a future if you look at technology. i talk about it clearly in the book where drones are heading and robotics is heading. warfare will become the permanent state. the great russian dissonance said a state of perpetual war is an excuse for domestic tyranny. that is an exact quote. what happens is when you have a warring empire and history shows us with the roman empire being one good example, is that when you have a warring empire it comes back and starts imploding.
all the weapons used in afghanistan and what we are seeing with local policeman that started overseas, tasers started being overseas. sound cannons they are using to disperse free-speech protesters. all of that is coming home. we have a lot of decisions. the comes a time when the average american has to say i'm not taking this anymore and will stand up for freedom. not violently, martin luther king give us the model and said militant nonviolent resistance to oppression. he was labeled an extremist in his day and not well-liked. he was my hero at that time. he said i see this happening, he said we are living in a police state and that was 1968 before he got shot. host: melvin from fort lauderdale, florida. john whitehead is our guest and
on the line for you. caller: i think the whole problem is changing the actual meaning of what happened and what the facts were at the time. if you look at the constitution and it says we the people, the first thing you have to look at is the people that wrote that. what were we the people at the time? the only people at the time who could vote were rich white men. and you had to own property. therefore women couldn't vote. blacks couldn't vote. indentured servants couldn't vote and neither could indians. it was an oligarchy because the only people capable of voting who had the means to vote were rich white men and that went on for years. to set up and say we are people meant everybody is absolutely wrong because it only meant those people who could actually determine what the law was and
what could go on at that point in time. thank you. guest: that's a good comment. again, we the people at that time, you are right. it was rich white aristocrats. they ran it but they give us a basis and we saw that with the civil war. african-americans finally rose up and said that's enough. martin luther king extended it. what i am arguing in my book is let's extend it further. let's get active. let's take what they've given us. they gave us the bill of rights. if you read it, and here's the amazing thing. the average american can't tell me what's in it. i have talked to 150 lawyers not to long ago and in the middle of my speech i asked i do a civics lesson? they look at me like i was not. can any lawyer in this room, this was harvard, berkeley, those types. can any lawyer in this room give me the defined freedom and the
first amendment? raise your hand in our call on you. one guy went up and put his hand down. my wife was in the back and said they were arguing at the table. they gave us defined freedoms in the first amendment. the right to assemble in protest. you have those rights. we have the right to keep the army and police out of our homes. we have the right in the fourth amendment against the police state. folks, let's take it. we can complain about it, let's take it and run with it. let's create a new civil rights law. it expands this and gives the government off our backs and out of our homes and off our cell phones and computers. it keeps the police from smashing through our doors and killing someone. she was asleep on her couch with her princess blanket and she got shot by a swat team and guess what, they were in the wrong apartment. they didn't follow the fourth
amendment. i think we the people are the government. it has been changed over the years, there are more of us. i agree with the caller. host: republican line, this is buzz from maryland. caller: i agree with most of what you're saying but i take exception with the ferguson thing. he went for the cops gun but other than that i'm with you. i've been having a theory going through my head that sounds crazy. when i think about some of the really bad neighborhoods around the country and what you were talking about where police are heavily militarized and are not really engaging with the community, i started thinking about special forces and what they do. they go into villages that invite them in and even though they are obviously able to take care of business on the military
end of the gun, their deal is to work with the villagers and to do counterinsurgency. you bring them around and these villagers end up becomg pro-government, people. they stopped doing the bad stuff. host: i'm sorry we lost the call. do you want to respond to anything he said? guest: listen, when the baltimore riots were going on, i was talking to some african-americans in the inner-city and i talked to one lady who said she had two teenage sons. she said they called the neighborhood they would -- beirut. they said it's because of the arrests by the policeman and the way they treat the kids. that is happening in the inner cities. that could change.
policeman have to move away from militarism asian and moved to community support. working with the community. from militarism and move into midi support. in early america, police are seen as citizens. they did not wear uniforms. you can order them off of your porch. you have the forth in the main your back pocket and you do what it said. community relations can change that. felicia worked toward it. i work with good cops to say they're taking their philosophy. town, during the talked toituation, i my local policeman and said there will be a march downtown and they said we know. i said whether you guys just not ,how up in full combat gear just regular uniforms and a watch and let people walk by. shake their hands and say we encourage free speech. you know what? they did it. it was very peaceful. people came to me later and said, hey, this works.
the policeman were friendly. why not be friendly? the policeman our citizens and we are citizens, let's work together as a community and get freedom back in this country. then we can start running about what they're doing and washington, d.c., which by the way, i worked in and out of there for 40 years, it is very correct. we can change that. let's get our community relationships back together again. >> a caller from wyoming. >> mr. whitehead, you are spot on and thank you. i have a quick comment and a question. i am a lowly activist and i have fought the dmv regarding the real id act. because of the excessive documentation that they require as to provide just to get a drivers license. also the post office used a lame excuse with homeland security reasons, they won more documentation just to get a po box. my son, who as a teenager,
wanted to be a marching band so we had to give up his fourth minute right for him because of random drug testing policies. i do fight these things as much as i can, but of course i get resistance from everybody because of national security or blah, blah, blah. my question is, how true is it or can you elaborate on -- i think it is the ncaa or the patriot act that says that citizens can be held in custody without charge indefinitely? how true is that? >> the national defense authorization act which has in re-signed by president obama does allow the military, if you are a terrorist, but also the word extremist is you, it does allow the military to come to your door, arrest you and take you away. we had that with a case they talk earlier about with the marine that was taken away from the store. again, by the way, that was spearheaded by the permit, and security. they spearhead these raids. yes, in this country if you're
labeled an extremist, maybe if you are on the main core list, you can be rounded up. i will go back to earlier. someone said that they don't believe that this is a police state. what this woman is talking about is happening across the country. documentation, the slightest mistake, you become a sort of outcast in your community. have trouble getting credit cards, getting loans,, those kinds of things. for what? not doing anything wrong. sometimes in the wrong thing on facebook. is this after? it is true. it is all documented in the book. i don't blame you. most people out there are very lonely. many people have bought into the idea that we need all of this to but as san bernardino showed us, it does not really make you safe. by the way, the average terror shooting attack has happened in this country takes two minutes or less. let me ask you this -- is the government training is how to react to that?
what is the first thing you're supposed to do when you are into a building right now if you write about something like that happening? get anybody out there tommy? know where the exit doors. there are other steps that you can take. the government should be training for that. if they really care for us. you can do it very effectively. but we are not being told. if they wanted to do surveillance on us, then they should give us programs and show us how we can stop getting killed when they bumbled the trick. like the tsa who cannot get bombs and weapons going through. >> we have only about a minute, but i'm sure he the argument to the last point -- i got nothing to hide, if you want to do my face or manage my phone calls, what is the big deal? are we hope are hyping this? >> the big deal is our constitution. either you want freedom or you don't. the constitution requires probable cause. it requires the government having a reason to do it. if you want to hold a surveillance state which we are moving into -- i did not mention
the x-ray vans that police have that drive by your home. the drones that will have x-ray scanners going over your house, watching everything you're doing. you either want freedom or you don't. that is the choice you have to make. let me tell you it's an important choice and the future of the country hangs on the average american making the right choice. as for me and my house -- give me liberty or give me death. our guests establish the rutherford institute and charlotte, virginia, and is the author of the book "battlefield america." don whitehead, thank you for your time this morning. >> thank you, sir. >> tonight on c-span, a discussion about the red state -- wednesday divide in american politics. then, a look at the prospects for a two state solution to the israeli/palestinian conflict. and our conversation with john whitehead, author of "battlefield america." it is about police power and civil rights. author and journalist colin woodward spoke to students at
iowa university about the history of regionalism in the united states. he argues against the notion of a red state/blue state political divide. >> it is my special honor to introduce our speaker who is an award-winning journalist and author. a book that has been described as a history of north america, and explodes the red state blue statement -- state myth. he is also the state and national affairs writer at the portland press herald and