tv Center for Jewish History Discussion on Combating Terrorism CSPAN January 2, 2016 5:55am-7:01am EST
focus on the criminal justice system and race tonight here on c-span starting at 8:00 p.m. eastern . in october of 1985, in new york was-- a new york man killed and pushed overboard by terrorists. on the 30th anniversary have his death the center for jewish history host a forum on combating u.s. terrorism under -- terrorism under u.s. law.
>> good morning, everybody. good morning and on behalf of the center for jewish history and our partner organization, the american jewish historical society, i welcome you to our course on combating terrorism through american laws. this is a historic moment for us. this is our first ever continuing legal education course. to all of you who are attorneys here, a very warm welcome. we are delighted to service the site for advancing your education. to our general audience, we are happy to have you here as auditors today. why here and why today? today, we are marking the 30th anniversary of the 1985 takeover of the crew ship achille lauro and the murder of leon klinghoffer. the ensuing legal case against the terrorist group and the
families ensuing an unprecedented settlement award opened the door to litigation against foreign terrorist organizations in the federal courts of the united states. it had a profound impact in prosecuting terrorism against american citizens at home and abroad through criminal and civil law and it is the jumping off point for our discussion today. not so much the focus, but where we go from here. mr. klinghoffer's daughters are here with us today. for them, it is a moment not only to commemorate these events but with purpose to donate their family papers to the american jewish historical society. we are very grateful to them and acknowledge their generosity. if you would just stand. [applause] we only have one hour so let us
begin. i will briefly introduce the panel. we don't normally do programs with so many cameras and lights. c-span is here recording the program. towards the end when we do q&a, if you would wait until the mic comes around to you that would be helpful. i'm going to start not directly to my right, but one over. let me introduce first professor lawrence douglas. you all have programs, i hope, see you have the full bios, but i will let you know who everybody is.
lawrence douglas is the james grossfeld professor of law at amherst college. he has co-edited 12 books on contemporary legal issues and has lectured in many countries, including addresses to the international criminal tribunal for the former yugoslavia and the international criminal court. juliette, there she is. next to lawrence is michael farbiarz. he is a professor at the center of administration for criminal law and the center for law and security. he has served as an assistant u.s. attorney for more than 10 years and from 2009 to 2014, he supervised the country's preeminent team of national security prosecutors as the co-chief of the terrorism and international narcotics unit at the united states attorney's office for the southern district of new york. juliette kayyem has spent 15 years managing complex policy initiatives and organizing
government responses the major crises in both state and federal government. currently, she teaches emergency management and homeland security as a faculty member at harvard. she is a founder of a business providing strategic advice to a range of companies in technology, risk management, venture-capital and more. and the last -- the panelist is oren segal who is the director of the research center. he is an expert on the radicalization process and criminal activity associated with homegrown extremists motivated by radical interpretations of islam. immediately to my right is my
great pleasure to introduce ruth edgewood who is our moderator. she is a professor of international law and diplomacy at johns hopkins university and chairs the international law program at the johns hopkins school of advanced international studies in washington, d.c. she is a former federal prosecutor in the southern district of new york who investigated and tried acts of terrorism and has served as a member of the united nations human rights committee and the pentagon defense policy board, as well as the u.s. secretary of state's advisory committee on private and public international law. i turn this over to ruth and i wish you a good morning. [applause] ruth: thank you all for coming out this beautiful morning.
i have not been on the lower east side for a very long time. it's an astonishingly beautiful neighborhood. it was a wonderful place to found the center. i want to give my heartfelt thanks to judy siegel for putting this together. and for giving me the opportunity to see former students, too. i have that one and that one. my grandfather was a tailor in brooklyn way back when. he spoke it is. this is sort of close to gentrified. it feels like a familiar neighborhood. i want to think obviously the klinghoffer family and the two daughters for being here. anybody who is gone to a loss know how tragic it is and how hard it is to assimilate. having a kind of celebration of your parents bravery and courage and what one can do about this
kind of activity -- terrorism, is something we all can relate to. so thank you for being here. do you want to stand up for just one moment. [applause] prof. wedgwood: their father was a klinghoffer. it's a real immigration story. he owned a hardware store. in the lower east side. i wish i had known him. he joined the army air corps which my father belonged to in world war ii. he flew missions as a navigator on a b24. then, i take it he had a kind of a handyman innovative quality. he created something called
roto-broil. when i would not be able to let my stuff, i could have used that. he had a very happy marriage. then, at a certain age, as one is entitled to, he took a vacation, sort of a passive vacation, getting a suntan, and the mediterranean on the achille lauro and sailed to the middle of a terrible war. which, surely her parents did not anticipate. and was made a hostage at a victim by the palestinian liberation fronts and ultimately was killed by being thrown overboard in his wheelchair. i can't think of a more insane kind of attack. not even a fair fight shall we say, a gentle person in a wheelchair, and a bunch of strong armed thugs who chose to make a political point, we think, by engaging in a sadistic act of violence. it is a celebration of the
family and their courage. it is the occasion to think through how one can take steps to make sure that these kinds of acts are either extremely rare. or non existance ent. i think the story today will not only be about the klinghoffer events, but about what kinds of lawyers -- it will be measures one can take to prevent this kind of thing from happening. i have to warn the audience that professor douglas -- i think some of the questions that i might put at his suggestion have more of a kind of ontological, philosophical cast to them.
here's a wonderful question. if you are a lawyer, prosecutor or defense lawyer, you think of law as being founded on the acceptable norm of justice, but the one thing that most challenges the face that one has in law is when when something completely off the books, out of the blue, out of left field, something incredible and inconceivable, happens. whether it was 9/11, which to me was a stunning event as i flew down to washington for my first day at john hobson's. i knew it was the trademark motif of osama bin laden. or something like the event that happens to mr. klinghoffer. the first question -- when you have an active extraordinary violence, sadism,
atrocity -- what does it mean to create a remedy of justice in that case? putting people in jail seems rather banal. what does it mean to have justice in the wake of this kind of atrocity? prof. douglas: it is a pleasure to being here. thank you to the klinghoffer family and judah for organizing this. as ruth mentioned, i wrote this question and was very much hoping that she would not pose it to me. [laughter] prof. douglas: that said, i think it is an extraordinarily difficult question to answer. i think crimes and acts of terrorism create particular challenges. one challenge that i would identify is simply this notion that very often when we talk
about doing justice to the criminal law, we are trying to punish retrospective ask, ask acts that have occurred in the past. very often, when we are trying to address the threat of terrorism, we are trying to eliminate threats in the future. it can be a very tricky business of using a tool, an instrument which is really meant to deal with acts that have occurred in the past as a way of trying to eliminate threats in the future. so, that i think is a very important thing to bear in mind. then, when it comes to this question of what does it mean to do justice using let's say the army criminal law -- and again, criminal law does not have to be the only kind of response. even the klinghoffer case makes clear that you can use civil law responses also to acts of atrocity.
but when you use the criminal law, as a response to acts of atrocity, i think there are both great opportunities with doing criminal law, but i think there are limitations, as well. one of the limitations that i think immediately comes to mind is, depending on the level of the crime, sometimes there almost seems to be a disproportion between a single individual in the dock or a couple of individuals and the dock and the level of the atrocity that is being considered before the court. i don't know if any of you -- this is a different case of terrorism -- one that is close to me, there's a documentary appearing on frontline about the lockerbie bombing. the filmmakers are very close to me, and his brother who was killed was a very dear friend of mine in college. one thing i thought was interesting about that was, they
were basically two persons who were tried in his extraordinary court. it was a scottish court -- scotch court in the netherlands. there are basically two people who look like to kind of nondescript individuals, answering to this crime of mass atrocity and it seems to be an imbalance between the harm that was inflicted and these people in the dock. the other thing, the limitation, and dealing with the criminal law, there is always the chance of an acquittal. that is, criminal law is as one legal theorist once said, is always an irreducible risk with the criminal trial, and that is the risk of acquittal. for example, in the pan am 103 case of the two people who were prosecuted, one was acquitted. very quickly on the opportunities and the strength of the criminal law, i do think it is very important to demonstrate that even the worst atrocities can be submitted to the rule of law. that is, law is an adequate response to atrocity as opposed to reaching the conclusion that
no, we need to use some kind of extralegal response. the other thing, i think the law creates -- criminal law, creates an opportunity often for the victims or victims families to have a voice heard in a public forum. i think it also supplies, if done properly, a baseline account for the event. it creates a kind of baseline history that can be readily transmitted to it a public. i think criminal trials tend to attract galvanized international attention and can play a very helpful role in clarifying the historical record in the wake of an active mass atrocity. so, i will stop right there. prof. wedgwood: since he is my former student, i am bound to contradict him. [laughter]
prof. wedgwood: a quick question before we go on. if you go to loss go you take a school you take a course in criminal law and they tell you that the purpose of having criminal sanctions are several, rehabilitation, i don't think that would be probably pertinent in the case of most committed ideological terrorists. the other is deterrence, probably not that either, because then we would have to go into an exercise knowing it would in badly in some way. the others incapacitation. send them off someplace where they would be harmless. criminal law is not without its significant risks, one is that a person could be acquitted or a jury will hang because you never know what jurors will think. it is the fundamental premise of bushels case any wish law and american law. you can't query a jury while they reach their verdict and you cannot send them back to think more if you do not like the verdict. it is a huge gamble. what also is discovered, is that the process of gathering proof, really proof, and a
helter-skelter terrorist attack is really awfully hard. the air of mystery that still surrounds lockerbie and who authorize the bombing, was a just libya or libya and friends? it will never be resolved by this kind of criminal investigative process. it requires something much farther to the ground in a way, intelligence sources, people's recollections. prof. douglas: and i can't respond? [laughter] prof. wedgwood: out of time. [laughter] prof. douglas: i'll be extremely brief in the response. obviously there is a risk of acquittal, but i think when ruth is talking about the basic purposes of a criminal trial, deterrence, or taking people out of circulation, i think she is right. it imperfectly applies to these crimes of atrocity but i do
think it overlooks the fact that these trials also have an expressive purpose. that is, they have a kind of symbolic expressive purpose, and i think that is a very critical thing that these trials perform. for example, you could even go back and look at the record of trials involving perpetrators of the holocaust, something that i have written a lot about. you'll find that many of the prosecutors associated with those cases justify those trials not in terms of the law against attorneys, but in terms of the logic of making an expressive statement about rule of law capacity to respond to these types of acts. prof. wedgwood: one last irony. then we really will go on. if you look at the nuremberg statutes from the nuremberg trials, which was the international military tribunal for those crimes, it has a
wonderful role of evidence, anything stated in the u.n. document is taken to be true. it is not just hearsay, but it is quadruple hearsay. let me ask my policy oriented people. as a practical tool, one of the greatest challenges you have is using criminal law as a way of either deterring or incapacitating people who are involved in terrorist action. prof. kayyem: i have been in the field before 9/11 as a lawyer at one stage. first i want to thank judy and the klinghoffer family. i don't want you to leave this room without knowing the significance that the klinghoffer family has for the world that we live in now. it is hard to imagine now, after 9/11, but the idea that victims of terrorism or some political gesture would have a voice about
what their father meant what their family meant and get some remedy did not exist, essentially, before. that this idea that they could go somewhere to express, not a larger policy issue about the rule of law, but for a remedy was just not a part of how people thought about terrorism. this was the plo and israel and there were these big geopolitical issues. so, the klinghoffer family and you guys brought it down to earth. these are human beings who have left families. the push that you did go through the courts, even some of the failures, but also getting eventually legislation passed in the united states that gave voice to the victims. what i think is interesting that has happened since then, is that notion of voice through this sort of post-9/11 world has actually changed a little bit.
it is less legal that maybe it is in terms of going to court. one of the transformations is this idea of these funds. that we are not the 9/11 funds, the boston marathon funds, the idea that families have voice but we are not going to put them through this sort of horror of litigation. requiring them each, or as a class action, to determine what their family was worth or whether these terrorists are guilty or getting into geopolitics in a courtroom. but actually creating different systems in which their voice is heard. what they went through has some sort of remedy. while that may seem not legal, it actually is quite consistent with what was launched in sort of the aftermath of klinghoffer which is we cannot abandon the
victims, we can talk about -- it has a different form now. which is these well-known funds which occur after various terrorist incidents. to me, that is the legacy and also the transformation in terms of forum that has occurred over the years. prof. wedgwood: let me ask one question though which may be for all four of you. when a jury comes back with a verdict, all they say is guilty, not guilty. they are not allowed to include any expression of horror and chagrin or tragedy, they just give the judge a response to his query that we find the defendant guilty or not guilty. it is not a very elaborate literary act. there is no real expiation in the course of that moment other
than -- it is hard to really -- somebody who sits there through a trial, patiently can experience the horror of the events that are being narrated by the witnesses. but, there is nothing anymore -- there is no icon for really characterizing what the nature of the event is. how does criminal law work in that? i used to worry that there were unjustified acquittals. i worry when the proposal was to try people here after 9/11 that if you can follow a juror home on the subway and know where she
lives, it would be a very intimidated juror much less witness. the very publicity that makes a trial and attractive modality also makes it very vulnerable to interventions that will prevent it from ever proceeding to the verdict one wishes to hear. [indiscernible] michael: i think that it is true that that is a disappointment. that at the end of returning a verdict, the jury does not speak any kind of expressive pain about the moral balance of what has happened. i think it is important to know that that is only one of many disappointments that the criminal law brings. making a person whole. you get hit by a car, then you get paid back. if a contract is broken, you will get exactly what you would have had otherwise. that does
not happen in criminal law. if somebody loses their father to an active terrorist violence or to a mugging, or if your house is burglarized and you use your sense of security, we had a secular system. and, ultimately justice is not provided in the courts and ultimate closure and the ultimate making of whole is not going to come in the courts. so there are a series of disappointments that the criminal law entails not just at the level of her midi, but also yes, the level of deterrence and the forward-looking capacity of the criminal law to deter. we have, as a society, i think many of us agree, overcorrected after 9/11 away from criminal justice toward more exclusively military responses to violence. in response to that overcorrection, many of us, i think, cleaned a little too much to the loss and have made claims to what the criminal law can do as a provider of ultimate justice, as a provider of a forum for incredible expression that is a little bit oversold. what is at stake in these conversations is not is the law a wonderful thing? the lies a wonderful thing. i was a criminal prosecutor for
decades. i believe it in my bones. we must also understand what is at stake in waving the flag of criminal justice is a choice to displace another possibility. when we get down to it, i think some of the talk about the virtues of the law is really talk that is designed to stay no to george bush in 2002, but maybe is not something we really want to take seriously with respect to how to deal with isis and syria and iraq today. some of the over inflation of criminal justice seems to apply that the alternative course is much rougher and is terribly violent and is inappropriate, but i think with respect to isis abroad, we want to go back to where we were to an exclusively criminal justice conception of the world. prof. wedgwood: the white house recent held a conference on violent extremism. we did not want to talk about islam has been peculiarly tied to terrorism because -- lots of groups have used violence over the -- american revolutionaries were not
entirely nice. they tarred and feathered tories. i would have been a canadian. there was a lot about tea, by the way. in very practical terms, what is it that one can do to try to cut young men for the most part feel between violence and ideological dedication? why is it that the champion what should be, equal rights of muslims around the world and major societies are forthcoming and solicitous of their talents, why has it taken this form and
how you actually reach the next generation of people? >> for full disclosure i think i am the only nonlawyer here. i will talk about nonlegal issues. i am comfortable with that. oren: i was part of the cd summit at the white house and the take away that i had from that -- there are a lot of people with different opinions about that. the take away that i think is probably the most useful for me is that what ways can we mitigate the threat of terrorism today? criminal law is one way. but, i think as you were alluding to, michael, we have to think of different strategies, as well. that includes communicating with various communities about what their role is in trying to combat that threat. that means working with the tech industry. listen, today people are getting radicalized and their parents basement in the back of their
computers. you don't have to travel abroad to become a terrorist. you can sort of gain all of the ideological justifications, the bomb making materials, the motivation, all of that from the comfort of your own home. how do we deal with those threats? some of that, somebody mentioned preemptive. this is where it gets a little bit risky. you don't want -- there are issues of entrapment that may or may not come up in this panel that need to be discussed. at the end of the day, as we have said, there are young people who are specifically being appealed to and targeted and recruited by people in different parts of the world, across oceans, because the access that they have to these ideologies and these networks is something that we have never seen before in human history. so what can we do, creatively, beyond just arresting people to try to mitigate that threat? part of it requires some thought of the law. when you're dealing with the tech industry, whether it is twitter or facebook or google or whatever the flavor of the month is, what responsibility do these companies have? is a legal responsibility?
when isis supporters are using twitter to try to recruit young people in boston or california, is twitter providing communication equipment, is that providing material support to terror? or, do we say that is an unrealistic approach to this and maybe we need to get the tech industry to say, we recognize that they are exploiting our services and we need to come up with creative ways to mitigate that threat. these are questions that i don't think anybody has answered yet, but the people are tackling. there is no sort of magic bullet. so, i would just say, as we discussed legal remedies here, i do not think that those things can exist in a vacuum. i think we need to have the law-enforcement, we need to have the prosecutors, a good criminal justice system, but we need to have good creative people were coming up with ways to identify
people at risk and give them alternatives. and maybe we can start spearing some people away before they actually commit an act. that is the hard part. prof. wedgwood: to just put a question in response to that particular intervention. what would you do -- have a 10 second delay before things are posted? if you have a sequence of particularly meretricious comments or vulgar -- oren: i think time to take things off-line is not an effective approach. that has been proven. there are some studies out there that show if you take former extremist, people who have not maybe committed a murder but who were going down that path of radicalization who then changed their mind at the last minute, or those 14, 15-year-old, 16-year-old girls in denver who were trying to join isis, they are not charged with anything. do take people like that with no mental health issues and to our reliable and have them interact with people who are online who seem to be getting radicalized, that can be a really powerful mitigating force. you have people who have the
same experiences who can be a voice of reason so it is not an issue of removing something off-line, and then there is the free speech issue. it is the question of giving people alternative narratives and finding ways to get access to them. maybe you change a couple of mines. prof. wedgwood: the one thing i've not heard much of in public in the period since 9/11 which i wish was present, has to do with the law of war. we used to have a johns hopkins iraqi scholar who is really -- he spoke arabic. he wrote about the islamic law of war which was not particularly congenial back then. to me, i wonder when the white house convenes a conference on violent extremism, and assumes that the remedy is having better jobs, better health care, better access to i don't know alternative forms of amusement, said ironically, why not just
address it on its face and say under islam, under any coherence at least moderate account of islam, why not have a very serious colloquy among scholars of islamic law and say this stuff is illegal under any coherence account of islam? so that nobody can use religion as an excuse for violence. just like i would like to be able to say to jewish extremists just because they think they are remitting something they cannot be violent. either know people who can do that? prof. kayyem: i think the debate going on within the islamic community as you can say that is
monolithic in the same way that is tremendously vocal and challenging internally about going on and whether -- and naming it rirkts? calling it cve, but fd something -- it lammic radical violence in extremism. but that's assuming the people on-line atching actually care about the authority figures in these communities, whether they're the the imams. so i want to add two things. michael posed at about the criminal justice -- i don't eing think anyone who is critical of the criminal justice system or using the tactics bush administration is on the no
war side. the tools available for counterterrorism law, intelligence, diplomacy, law nforcement, war, countering violent extremism, all of the different tools, the debate is out in ol should be front at what moment and when. so i think that's the debate. the -- on the countering violent extremism thing, the like to remind people is it is scary. scary abroad. america's success story when it see right e world we now is integration. it's that milation, immigrant children of arab americans and immigrant children jewish americans are all feel committed to america's security. million muslims in america right now, maybe three -- three etty scarily or four dozen pretty scary response if our
underminds the sense of assimilation and immigration community, right now it's obviously the muslim we may community feel, actually turn into europe or turn into these countries that actually integrated their immigrant communities and have seeing not four dozen cases, know, 22% ofg, you their muslim population pulling jihad or violent gyp had is a legitimate form of expression. dichotomy to think it's scary here, and i was in homeland security. is.ow what the threat but also that our response can't undermind our total success story as a country, which is american communities actually feel part of this country in ways that's not true in europe and the radicalization sealing there.
>> let me add something, when you talk about it sort of naming it islamic extremism. >> or jewish extremism. >> or jewish extremism. diversity lg at the of backgrounds of people who are actually attracted to causes today, it's not as if the threat as minor as it is in the u.s. is the hat's coming from muslim community, necessarily. suburban white kids, ispanic kids, raised jewish, catholic, atheist who are responding to al qaeda and call.s much of the prop gan doesn't even use the religious to try to attract people. gang.
>> the gang. isis says look at the utopia. things are different. hen they use americans to try to recruit other americans. they speak english, a language they can understand. it's good marketing but not else inially built on some steep, deep knowledge of this of the religion. sexy, come, we're trying to get to it.ple to messages we have to challenge, not the message extremism is bad nd we're not going to be that effective. all of the ideological terrorism that we have in this country, is a day we focus pecifically on the extremist threat. every day, at a jewish community and others don't have the luxury ignoring the white supremacist and the extremism that's
responsible probably by the data murders on ths and behalf of ideologies. we have to have a broader discussion of what is terrorism well. eon holing it as >> when we use the term adjective," its's the islamic.sociated with for example, if you think about the killing in the church by dylann roof, we immediately hate crime hat as a rather than an act of terror. to could have easily, going our point, we could designate that as an act of terror. europe as thetake paradigm case. german is it where the community was separate. the germans did not try to encourage the turks to assimilate. issues that you could have voting at if turks could take part.
the christian -- in a world turned its back on islam and tried to keep it second. me t's less surprising to that people who happen to be muslim therefore feel they were own remedy. -- a is a kind of a predictable curb of climax and abatement. as -- like s not french report for the human rights kmeep, i was alstonished how tough it is a muslim in paris, of eing hired, to have access, of chances of a government job when there was a muslim in the in france, it was big news. woman.tive so there's a kind of, i don't
call, arrogance or the part of on nonmuslim communities who don't them to rden upon integrate muslims. >> that's the refugee thing, so on numbers. germany gets this many, what's the long-time strategy? it has to be better integration in the communities. will return. but we're so focused on the numbers right now. these are human beings who might these countries for long periods of time and have to put on whether they have great immigration, assimilation, job training, integration program. lest you have 20 years from now come hese kids you see over are 25-year-old men. to the sense we're talking about law here. it's interesting we can identify socioeconomic barriers which make integration difficult, but
germany, talking about the case of germany, what was nteresting is for many, many ears, germany had the ethnic designation of citizenship. n the case of the turkish ommunity there, by definition these people were not eligible for german citizenship. that changed 15 years ago. and so that itself played a role of excluding people from the body politic. at some point i've been maestro that we should go to questions from our wave our nd we can thoughts into the questions, i'm sure. but who would like to put a question? do we have a mic for folks? if you want to, stand up and give your name so you are immortalized. >> i have a question.
wondering for a long time arrived from muslim majority countries, some are given all , shelter, and of possibles, opportunities to succeed in the societies but they never some need to have their own, ties of this is understand that society where other people live, where these people were be ing them should
respected. it's shyness on the leanof many governments to on the spirit chill leaders, leaders of this immigrants and to you -- o ask them, are is your silence -- what does it mean? and they're -- so, lot of ately, there's a soul searching as stated briefly. on our soul searching sort of free world part or society's part. from body asks questions so-to-speak, the other side. so why is that? that's my question? >> i'm not sure who wants to take this question.
i'll just observe. we don't have the capacity or that.ility to say if there are imams preaching violence, one wouldn't know about it unless you're going on-line. known. s little >> there are voices in the community decry this kind bottlerization and the story of islam to say it's a religion of jihad. >> i think that says it all. next question. we'll come back to you. but i -- i do agree with you, message more than the against violence can come from stature in the target audience, the more effective it will be. >> good morning, thank you for your comments. i've got a question about the -- who are you, by the way? >> jeff cooper.
with the clinghoppers and proud to be here to support them. regard to the use of criminal law and you commented on the mechanism of a criminal the ultimate result, but in terms of the mechanism to of ally attack the sources some of these influence, we the session efore about using a mechanism to try to attack the financial groups, ies of these either kwauz si criminally or civilly or otherwise. and essentially trying to cut them off at the head. the fact that you only need a computer it's hard o attack that when hitting the capabilities of these groups. what about using the government mechanisms so they'll lose their financial act.ty to >> i'll ask my panelists to knows o what anybody about the arab bank case and
new that clear through york because dollars always clear through new york. >> you're right. would be many tools as i was following up on michael's to combat terrorism and financial is one of them. you won't drain it because the monetary system in the middle east tends not to be transactional through computers black market is never touched by statutes, it will be almost impossible to touch the black market. but it's a tool and actually one of the major changes after 9/11 particular is having offices in the treasury focus solely on countertism financing. it to terms of stopping the point that the limitations allow it, you hear from two lawyers, isis is winning because its's geographically winning and o this narrative, they're the cool kids, right? people want to join the organization that looks like it's winning. for women joining, what
call jihaddy ple shift. they promise the rolls royces obviously it's not that. so part of it is a counternarrative. but this is where a lawyer like me says if you control the and they stop being winners, recruitment falters. why isis is doing the horrible videos. -- they're masochistic, they're the cool kids and they're winning. if it means a commitment of u.s. are not there yet, but obviously we have to win the ground game first. >> i take the point that the banking -- every immigrant group has an informal system of taxation. fingers of the host state. whether it's the rothschild
days you could ake it private but repliable through confidence, it works. in the gulf se it of aden when rewards were to pirates who have take cargo vessels. by kept quiet and discrete the london lawyers who attempt to free the vessel. other world out there not subject to the the u.s. treasury that does not clear through new york. what other remedies? any other questions from the audience about how to approach in the attempt to change hearts and minds. sir? balance ng in this between legal and nonlegal approaches to terrorism and would you compare the obama and bush administrations and why is it is.way it whether you think it's changed a lot or not changed a lot, why?
we're going to hit on michael first. >> i want to step back for a moment and echo some things that were said a moment ago and then respond. a few things, first of all, the financing is exactly right. it's something that we all want of ave a set -- a pallet remedies, financing terrorist attacks doesn't take too much. the aspiration is to choke off a terror group like plf that hasike the aspirations to hold territory, armies andarge scale missiles, that declares a lot of can bend financial tools effective against those entities. about a u're worried person with a box cutter or the who's inspire bid isis going to god forbid shoot up a chool in boston or new york, the money is just a transference of government resources to place
it doesn't matter. second of all, on the causes of all do wellon, we'd to be skeptical of our confidence here. be the answer. it may not be. there's a real debate to be had. don't read arabic. i'm no student of this. that ideologies come and go. if they look like winner, all they're moreequal, popular. i don't know why they're fop ullr. why anyone would become a communist 1925. it's more attractive if is winning. for all of the things to be equal. integration or is it not? if it's integration, why are to isis in cted muslim american countries. winning normatively. >> winning, winning. ground?he >> retaking territory. hat's how the soviet union is
then president bush is. another of my former yale students would say overaggressive. sometimes very poor target identification. >> the initiatives that he was putting a lot of people to gitmo iowa and massachusetts and president obama reached out by means of yria the criminal justice system. neither part of it is true. had to administration be both rightly or wrongly terrorism, those who act in the united states not justice o the american system, the obama administration has none. not been using criminal justice techniques abroad. so if we look back from a lit a distance and get out of some of the daning daly political that candidates generate more than anything else, there's a
the tools about how have been use in the administrations with the of guantanamo and coercive interrogation which is question. 50 let me ask you about drone i've been ce another yale student. you saw it on the "homeland" series. when you see ale village as a beep on the radar screen. here are the consequences of your pushed buttons. do you think from the point of winning hearts and one-sided risk in are where the operators safe, there's no fellow in arms,
that in itself could be radicalizing, could be in the applied a , wrongly radical stimulus? out of the sky comes a missile a village winning, killing 13 members and the or may not rs may get some recompense for their loss? >> one thing about the drone strikes, you have to think about the perverse system of that the politics of the nsion have created to having detainees in guantanamo is a political hot button. one way not to detain people in the first place is to take them drone strikes.or the other point is i'm not sure about the ultimate danger of the drone strikes as you point out of accurate e
intelligence with respect to argeting and respect to collateral damage. seems like a powerful recruiting tool. out people who are innocent someone who is arguably a terrorism and you're doing so position of invincibility. >> one comment i heard from is that unless there's a method of giving victimstion to innocent and their families, then the is sent is one of callous disregard. hit your mother. sorry, won't happen again until the next time. so if you want to use so crude a as drone strike, one ought to have a system where some, if ot apology, at least the
acknowledgment of the burden of tos is part of the follow up the mistaken drone strikes. weare almost out of time, so one more question? lady in blond. here in st wondering, new york, they say if you see something, say something, what you're travelling in europe and you believe you saw something or overheard something? where do you go? >> i'd go to the american embassy and report it to the staff member. countries have fbi legal ttaches accessible through the embassies. i would go through the u.s. system. >> the u.s. embassy. system rather than maneuver a criminal system through local. ut every your paean country is
goi going toean country is have a rigorous footprint. >> i would say one thing, immaterial behooves us all to a scaled and honest sense f what the dangers from terrorism is. thanks in part to law enforcement, it's a much, much danger in being robbed or shot in a drive accidental, at's being hit in a car accident. if you see something, say something. that's a valuable thing. that is f the costs of it stokes up in all of us a disproportional sense of this threat. it's an important issue, an mportant problem, it's not in the top ten in terms of causes our ath or injury in country. a guardedness. law enforcement does a good job.
little llow ourselves a more breath. >> it should be noted the is ons they do a good job because of the work of the organizations.l this is to speak to elsa and adl, they ork with have been leaders of the clinghopper family. so to go back to the original what do you do if you don't have a voice necessarily in a courtroom. here are two daughters through work with adl turned this strategy -- this tragedy to years and making sure that law enforcement is able to mitigate this threat moving forward. so, thank you, guy, if doing that. [ applause ] >> i wanted to tell sort of one closing whiching is when i served on the u.n. sit rights committee, we in geneva twice and year and new
year.nce a i had a lovely colleague named r. halid who had been the ambassador for egypt. i had always taken him to lunch. lovelies along, my interns. teasing windsome voice asked if arriage or they might be interested. he would point out in islam, holy men.nize prior they recognize moses, jesus, as well as muhammed. in a proper interpretation, i ethical islam is a measure of all of the. lesson has to be for us as well as others that one should seek to capture in each religion deeply ethical. what's sort of natural law as normal human instinct. judy, and the
they have and start using to with our hemselves community. 6:30, a y evening at discussion on media coverage of muslims and how american muslims national he conversations. at 9:00, young people across the dom gather in the house of common sense. shy is so much more. it leaves people feeling deprived, and disillusioned. not experience it. wipers orward to wishing, children giggling, drivers talking. grow up, we forget to notice the swishing and the we can wondering if enjoy the school tomorrow. >> go to c-span.org. >> coming up a little later they morning, michael ruben with the american enterprise
the u.s. strategy against isis. author of nickel and dimed and editor of the hardship reporting project she'll discuss a story for death rates for middle age white americans. washington journal and your phone calls is next. it is ood morning, saturday, january 2, 2016, welcome to "washington journal." president obama and the first family return to washington tomorrow from their holiday in hawaii and one of the first items of business for the resident next week will be a monday meeting with the attorney eneral, loretta lynch to talk about executive actions on gun control. that's where we'll start the this 45 minutes of morning's program asking you your ideas for reducing gun violence in the u.s. this is how to be part of the