tv Tonight From Washington CSPAN November 19, 2010 8:00pm-11:00pm EST
.. currently, a foreign-born child of an unwed american mother is a u.s. citizen if the mother has lived in the u.s. for at least one year. but an unwed american father cannot pass citizenship to the child unless he has lived in the u.s. for at least 10 years. either them after the the age of 14. the court heard oral arguments in the case of flores-villar v.
united states on november 10th this is an hour. >> your argument this morning in case 09581, flores-villar v. united states. >> mr. chief justice, may it please the court? when the court-approved imposition of legitimation requirement only upon fathers of nonmarital children born abroad. that was based on biological differences between men and women. it provided proof of parentage and proof of opportunity to make relationship for the child to be jeered and booed after the mother. but here, the residential requirements that are issue here have no biological basis for this set up barriers to the transmission of citizenship by younger fathers, but not younger mothers and their based upon gender stereotypes that women, not men would care for nonmarital children. that scheme has been tried -- it has been attempted to be concerned, but the record
doesn't support that claim. both the 1935 law review article -- >> what separates the stereotype from reality? did you say it is not true that if there is a legitimate -- billeted manchild, it is much more likely that the women will end up caring for it and that the father will? >> what i was -- >> that's not true? >> i think it is more likely. empirical has not carried the date in the cases. >> it is true in general, but there are people who don't think the morals. so he stereotype is true for babies and a majority of cases. it just means that you cite, this is the way women are. this is the way men are. >> absolutely. this is beyond just an empirical stereotype. at the congressional hearings,
it was said that the woman is the sole legal parent of this child, fully excluding demand, which is basically dates back to the notion of covert sure, women were completely out of the picture and women were the ones responsible. so addition to the fact that the empirical portion of it, there's also just the notion that the legal. was the woman and that was specific -- >> but wasn't i said in relation to the principle that only -- that where paternity was not established that the child would be regarded as having the citizenship of the mother under the law of virtually every country if not every country at that time? >> well, the lot of many countries that citizenship did go through the mother. but with respect to legitimation and the statute, congress or a distinction between all parents -- all fathers of nonmarital children and those who are legitimate. the statute applies only to those who legitimate the very
sentence -- the very law of the article congress relied upon according to the general process in the case of legitimation in the citizenship goes to the father. so the bottom line is that the very -- the very article they relied upon said in one instance it goes to the mother, but in the instance of the people affected by the statute come of those who legitimate goes to the father. there were also a number of situations under which -- >> until there's legitimation it goes to the mother. under the law virtually in every country. >> i'd respectfully disagree. at the time, 1940 when the statue is testament to remember situations where women go through the mother. in china and japan as the father was barely known it would not go through the mother. there were three dozen countries at this time, including the english countries and those who followed, in which if they're female citizen gave birth to a child somewhere other than in their country, citizenship would not travel through that -- that father because of the laws of
those particular countries. they're also stateless women. and although situations, the citizenship would not go through the mother. it would have to go through the father and the statutory scheme doesn't in any way provide for that. this game also revised their risks of the statelessness scholars brief for married fathers. a married father who is married to an alien in those situations there a number of countries that would not allow the woman to transmit citizenship. so the father was precluded by law such as it were the the united states, that child would end up stateless as well. there is substantial risk and it continues today. there are numerous countries that have basically reinstituted bible that if the father is merely known, citizenship would not transmit through the mother and those are primarily in the middle east and some in africa and those are also detailed in the stateless scholars brief. >> how do you deal with the argument that really this is a classification where the
unmarried woman is being favored because the unmarried father is being bracketed with the married couple. so, it's kind of like not see a current, the woman is getting favored in the unwed father is like most people who marry couples who have children. >> this is not a case where congress is seeking to remedy any discrimination against women as is the case in/under versus ballard. there was no discrimination against women because up until very shortly before the statute was passed, it was clear under the state department practices that the children of nonmarital children of women could get women's citizenship. it was also true in demand. there was no discrimination that was being remedied in that situation. >> but that doesn't answer i don't think, justice ginsburg cb
question, that this appears to be a subscription to a non-generalized, non-gender-based requirement. couples, male or female and fathers, unmarried fathers are subject to five years, only unmarried mothers give the largest of one year. why isn't -- why shouldn't everybody just be put into the broader category rather than extending the largess to a greater number of people? >> the reason is, justice sotomayor, that was the standard prior to the 1940 legislation. there was no significant residence requirement. congress imposed the residence requirements because it was concerned about the foreign influence in mixed marriages. meaning someone who is married to an alien. in those situations, the congress on the record they were
concerned that when most children were born abroad, that they would have foreign influence that they would be more foreign than they were american. >> does that not apply to the residency requirement, address that if we play generally, when the five-year residency requirement honor congress is concerned about there being a substantial tie to the states? >> absolutely would. but that concern is not applicable when you're talking about two u.s. citizen parents who in the extended president requirements and apply. nonmarital mothers who are the ones who will be raising the children without the influence of an alien father. nonmarital fathers are in the same categories of those too. those nonmarital fathers who raise their children on their own as the petitioners father did in this case are not subject to that type of foreign influence, so they should be grouped together with the women and with the two citizen families because they have the lack of foreign influence. so it's only as to the mixed marriage couples who are
married, where there's a foreign influence problem and they are the ones to whom the expanded residence required and was applied. now, with respect to -- the solicitor general has raised concerns about the power doctor and. and i would argue that doesn't apply here for a couple of reasons. first is we're not talking about the admission of aliens. the second is that the court has made clear that even when exercising that power, that congressional -- congress' power is limited by constitutional litigation. with respect to the entry of aliens, congress may declare impasse in passing this very statute that they consider those people who came citizenship as a berth to be differently situated in aliens. that was a tradition that dated back to 1350. in 1790, congress passed a statute than children born abroad to citizens -- >> is this your -- are you taking us in the direction of an
argument that congress gives less deference in determining nationalities than it does with admission? >> what i'm saying, your honor, as if were talking about the ability of the petitioner's father to transmit citizenship and that is a traditional interest. citizenship is extremely important and is a tradition that citizens have been able to do so for years. so yes, constitutional limitations should apply when congress is drawing distinctions between men and women. >> so you want us to write an opinion that says congress has less deference when considered -- one that determines who should be national in this country than when it determines who should be admitted as an alien? >> well, there is no tradition dating back to 1350 for the admission of aliens. >> are you asking us to write that formulation in the opinion? >> what i'm saying is the due process will guarantee equal protection is applicable in this
context because the citizens -- >> if i take that as a yes answer, what is your authority for that answer? it seems to me that to be just the other way around. >> will your honor, my answer to that question is congress itself in 1940 considered people who drink citizenship by birth abroad has been differently situated from aliens. aliens who naturalize. in fact, it was universally bashed >> it was congress that made the distinction. which are asking us to say that congress has less authority over this essential issue as to who should be national to the united states. that's a -- maybe there's some authority for that. you have any authority? is there something i can read that tom is that? >> was that even though congress has plenary power over the immigration power, when it exercises that power it has to apply with constitutional limitations. this is the first one of the court cases were --
>> that wasn't elite admissions case. you're talking about nationality. >> integument citizenship being transmitted by united states citizens. what we're saying is petitioner's father as a united states citizens as equal protection, equal protection clause, protection against the discrimination here because the similarly situated women were built to transmit citizenship. >> sorry, finish. are you finished? >> yes, sir. >> i didn't quite follow this. as i understand it, what remedy would there be? this is what i don't understand, a child is born abroad. one parent is american. the other is foreign. if the two were married, that child is american only as the father or the mother, one or the other, has lived in the united states for now at least two years, used to be more. okay, now it's five years.
now suppose they're not married and supposed the americans is the father. same rule. now suppose they're not married and the american is the mother. now it's not five years or two years. you only have to have lived here for one year. suppose i agree with you. i just don't see any sense to that whatsoever. i can't figure it out. they made a mistake about the immigration month. suppose i agree with you. why doesn't the remedies they okay, whether it is the father or the mother. the general rule of law applies to you live in the united states for five years or for two years. now two years. >> are a couple of reasons at least for that, your honor. first is very structural limitation to imposing a leveling down tape remedy because citizenship cannot be taken away once it is granted. so the court can't remedy the problem. >> some people were lucky and they are already citizens under this.
and there we are because their mother lived in the united states or when you. those artier citizens. nobody is going to take that away. looking at a statute and the first part of statute they have, in section g of 1401, the first ruler told you about. in 14098, the second rule. 1409 t., the third world. they say okay, if you're right about this, if totally unfair and there's no good reason whatsoever for distinction on the basis of gender, we strike g. okay? now, that would seem to be normal, but that isn't going to help your client. how do you get to some other things instead of striking g? what we do is strike all of na. and then strike all things before and shove them into g, which isn't so easy to do with this language. how do you get there? >> well, the first thing is the statute contains a severability cause that is very similar --
>> what i'm worried about is what we do strike any. sorry, we strike see. if you want me to strike 14098 and 1401 g and shove the people who were there into g, which is a little tough to do in the english language. but i want to know how you get there. >> by extension, your honor. >> first thing to be clear about what you were saying. i thought your argument was you're not touching the married couples. >> that's correct. >> you're talking about deflating the unmarried father to the unmarried mother? is there any notion of how many people we're talking about? and mean, and these extensions first invalidation, and as the generally expand when there is a small class to be covered -- a small class with less. in the large class of 30 covered. and the reason has been the one she did take care of that logic. it would be most instructive if
we said you can't cover that larger class. so to the degree of unmarried mothers, as against unmarried fathers, do you have any notion of what the numbers would be? >> justice ginsburg, i don't have any statistics to provide the court. >> maybe they transit justice breyer's question. >> yes, justice breyer. anyway, the remedy were discussing is an wescott and hitler, the court looked at language and a severability cause that was similar to this and also in justice harlan's concurring opinion in welsh and said that that type of language in a severability cause gives the courts power to grant an extension remedy. so that's what we're requesting. >> now, there's another slight problem. reading this carefully, which i hope i've done, it seems to me and they also discriminates
against fathers. and that's because c. says that the woman has to have been physically present for a continuous period of one year. i've read at least one article that says that word continuous doesn't appear with the fathers and that they really mean it, that if somebody is living down in texas and they have to go visit on christmas, their father or their grandmother or cousin or something who is across the border for five minutes, that they cannot take advantage of this was the period is that true? >> i don't know to the answer to that, justice breyer. >> if it is true, if it is true, then i would think that the father is really worse off. i don't know if that helps you. maybe it could turn out that's really a problem. if it is really a problem, then the father is worse off. does that help you with the remedy? >> traditionally an immigration law, when you have continuous requirements, it's a short
trip -- casual trip, then the requirement is not considered to have been violated. it's -- i have to admit i'm having a hard time following the question. >> question is i'm looking for a way, i'm trying to be helpful in my question. and looking for a way that you could get to your result. i'm not saying i do it, but i just want to know what the best way is that getting to that result, where you shove everyone in to see instead of just cutting speed. >> well, the best way is to follow a course tradition in the benefits case such as winkler and wiesenthal, with the court granted an extension remedy and basically treated -- >> is there a reason for doing that? >> the reason for doing that is the language is contained in a severability cause is similar to what the court is already said allows an extension remedy. and the other problem is that the court doesn't grant an extension remedy, it leaves
without a remedy that there will be individuals >> they won't have a remedy. the remedy for equal protection violation is to treat everybody the same. you can do that either by lowering people are given the benefit or increasing people who wanted. so here's the remedy. his objection is my father and my mother are not being treated the same. if all the relief he is entitled to. >> you're absolutely right that is a state of a lot. my point is that structurally that remedy is unavailable here because you can't take away the citizenship from the people who authority got made. and the notion that he can grant a prospective relief as we discussed in the solicitor general's brief, doesn't make any sense either. number one, the one we're talking about today doesn't apply pass people who were born before 1986. but the thing is if somebody were to come into court after an opinion that said just that were issued, if someone were to come into court and say i want to claim citizenship through my mother, that person would still
be entitled to citizenship because it's as if the day of birth aired so this is a ritual act of provision. so the protective relief notion doesn't make any sense in this context because equal protection violations have basically all already occurred at the time that the person who would make a citizenship claim was bored. we would still be left in a situation where the petitioner's father would say that i was unable to transmit citizenship to my son and a woman who was similarly situated was able to. so that type of remedy is unavailable. in the court's decision in iowa versus bennett, the big case, they actually ordered a refund of the taxes that were collected in a discriminatory manner, dating back in time. so if you could factor out -- if he could make a release that would take with the benefit that others have received and i would agree that's available, that's not possible in this situation. >> mr. hubachek, i believe that she faster if it's legal to protect a violation, then the says it protects the violation.
the weather goes up or down, the court has to give a temporary solution because the legislature can't be convened on the spot. and the courts actually did go through that exercise extension of validation most conspicuously in kaukauna wescott -- and the wescott case. he says yes, that's who we been doing in all these cases and fair frontier of case. we didn't say it was discriminated against, congress to fix it. we said you get the court will allow us up until now has been available only to male officers and wiesenthal. the father had the same child in care benefits is another. the court was making a decision for extension. it recognized it had to do be there. >> in many of the benefits case, the same analysis was available and that the analysis that we are asking that the court apply here. >> mr. hubachek, you are asking, i think, that the court
pronounce your client to be united states citizens. isn't that the only pronouncement from a court that is going to be for your clients? [inaudible] >> this is a criminal case, so asking berbers of the judgment an opportunity to present this -- >> reversal of the judgment on the grounds that your client is a united states citizen, right? >> that it would be possible for him on the to become united states citizens, yes. >> ideas. did you have any other case where a court has conferred citizenship on someone who under the statute as written does not have it? >> well, that was one of the issues that was debated in the wind and miller cases and the court has not said it yet.
that's correct. but it can in this case for a number of reasons. number one is about the severability cause is applicable to this claim. the congress actually passed a statute, 1421 d. and missing statutory scheme if it were talking about naturalization, the naturalization of alien scum you cannot get naturalization under those circumstances any other way than what set out in the statute. they didn't say this as the claims of citizenship. so there's a negative implication basically that they were not precluding this type of remedy has to a citizenship claim for claimant equal protection violation. the second point is that if the court is unable to grant the remedy, that would leave equal protection violation in place. and does justice harlan made clear in welsh. >> unless -- unless we solve the violation the other way, by saying that the father gives the shorter. then the mother has.
i'm sorry, the mother the longer period than the father has. >> right, okay, we don't apply for attractive lady. the people that i've citizenship cannot constitutionally be deprived of it. but for everybody else it's okay. >> even prospectively, your honor come the statute says you citizenship as a birth. even the core which render that decision and someone worked to make a claim, they could still say i've citizenship as super whenever i was born, which was before the court's decision. so that would be no remedy at all. >> r. rennie of the remedies are discussing with justice scalia involves this court in a highly intrusive exercise of congressional power, let me just ask you this as an analytic matter or a matter of logical priorities. we usually talk about substance first, remedy second.
teasing is permissible, logically, for us to say the remedies here are so intrusive that bears on our choice of whether or not we use intermediate or rational basis scrutiny and because the remedies are so difficult were going to use rational basis, is that a logical way to proceed? >> i don't think so. the court has traditionally said the questions are right and whether or not there exists an opportunity make a claim and the remedy for it are analytically distinct. >> it also says that the remedy can't be complicated. the court is not set out to do that. therefore, wescott said it could go one way or the other way. you can't do any fine-tuning because it's there as a temporary legislature that all goes back to congress to do what it will be assisting the interim. >> that's correct. certainly congress to do that. the solicitor general's brief made clear what was being balanced here with concerns
about, according to them anyways, concerns about statelessness on the one hand and connections to the united states on the other. if congress hadn't assumed based on gender stereotypes and then went caring for children, then it would've been able to put them in the same category as women because they would understand that both of them would be caring for children. it's not just the situation in 1940 as time has gone on in the national point believes the number of men who are raising children in families have been increasing over time, so the problem if anything is getting worse. >> the congress did make at least some change, right? this is no longer five years, it's only two years. >> current system is five years. two years after the age of 16. i'm sorry, after the age of 14. of course, that age requirements are completely precluded mr.
mr. flores-villar's father from transmitting citizenship. not because of age. that cannot complete preclusion would never apply to women who is similarly situated. >> thank you, counsel. mr. nadler. >> mr. chief justice, may it please the court? congress in deciding who among the various people born abroad should be made citizens of the united states has to take into account various that areas that may bear on the question and it judgment. they include importantly congress is prediction in the case of conference of citizenship that were, what will be that person's likely connection to the united states. congress also has to consider the interaction with the laws of other countries where these people may be born. and they take into account equities, potential statelessness or dual nationality. these are complicated questions to which the courts should defer. now when that --
>> welcome intermediate scrutiny is not without some deference. >> excuse me -- >> unless we apply strict scrutiny, which no one is arguing for. the question is, is a rational basis deference or is it on intermediate scrutiny? >> yeah, and we believe that under this court's decisions, particularly in the case discussed in that case, but it should be rational basis scrutiny. >> well, you can't really mean that because we could put aside a hypothetical that's very simple and manual explains to me why a u.s. citizen should be burdened in this way. and hypothetical is, let's assume congress determines there are too many foreign-born children of u.s. citizens coming into the united states. and that those foreign-born children, those born of women
are placing a greater burden on our economic system. they need more care for reasons that congress determines analytically or statistically. they're spending more money, more government money. and congress passes a rule that says only those foreign-born children of men can come into the country, not of women. wouldn't that be a rational basis? >> i think the answer to that question lies in the courts formulation of the test that is applied in this particular context. that is the formulation drawn from pine-sol versus mindel which is articulated and that has to be officially legitimate and bona fide reason. >> there is officially legitimate -- >> i think the court could have no trouble concluding that an arbitrary choice between men and women, having no bearing -- >> what other -- what is
arbitrary about a government saying i want to spend less money on a new citizen? >> the ultimate reason -- the ultimate reason may be legitimate, but i think it legitimate test also encompass means not just then. and if congress is just arbitrarily choosing between men and women are people of different race, i think given the scores tradition, it could conclude that those would be impermissible bases under the well-established test. but for the reasons we say -- >> which is the well-established test? >> the alber versus style in the cases underline it. >> is not the rational basis you're talking about? >> you could call it that or you could call it -- >> now we're going to just continue sort of tweaking the definitions and creating more. i think the variations on a
claiming in a situation that special privileges for illegitimate children to reunit with the mother was unconstitutional discrimination of the fathers of such children and it was u.s. fathers and children against the plaintiffs and the court nonetheless said there's no constitutional right to pass citizenship. this is a question of congress and whether they should be made citizens and one of the facts u.s. looked at is if they are a u.s. citizen and that is in turn a proxy to what the connection -- >> i understand that, but what you are doing is applying a lesser gender discrimination. now, is there any reason to do that? i think that was the -- >> well, that was the question. >> all right, now fine. if it's the government's
decision, you do. does the same thing apply to racial discrimination? >> again, i think the legitimate standard would render a reliance on race. >> something is cutting a big hole in the 14th amendment. >> no, i don't think so because i think that same principle would be given effect. >> first, we were dealing not with citizens. this is someone, a resident alien, wanting to bring in a parent or a child, so it wasn't -- that case wasn't about who was the citizen at birth. >> it wasn't, but in the eyes of the constitution, anyone board abroad is an alien until and unless the congress passed the statute making them a citizen. it is the same question -- >> but congress has passed the statute making certain people
citizens, and the question is has it done so in a way that is compatible with equal protection, but remind me because in the front of my head i thought the classification that was dealt with in fiallo wasn't it unwed parents rather than gender? >> but the -- but the claims were on illegitimacy and gender, and there were equal protection claims based on both, but if i could move on to the way that statute operates because we think it satisfies either standard of review in this case, and if i could just step back for a moment. as i mentioned, there's a number of factors in crafting a statute like this. 1401 deals with married couples, and when both parents are citizens, all that's required is that one parent resided in the
united states before the birth. you have mixed parents and the reenactment of 1942 and continued up to this present day that congress was concerned that such a child may not have that connection to the united states. they have a connection to the parent, but not to the united states such the congressmented to grant citizenship to that person. what congress did was require prior residency of a parent as as said for a connection to the united states for five or ten years after the age of 14. congress liberalized that, but that was the basic thought. where you have unwed parents, in 1409a is congress followed general prince. s of the law of the legitimacy or a child born out of wedlock if a father legitimates a child, it's like the child was born in
a marriage, and the rule in 1401 with respect to rairnlg -- marriage applies. that is true whether both parents are citizens or in a mixed marriage situation. if a father legitimates a child and both parents are citizens, then the child benefits from the rule if either parent was present in the united states, the child is a citizen. it doesn't have to satisfy the one year or unbroken residency requirement under 1409c. if it's mixed parents and the father legitimates, then the rule applicable to mix parent citizens applies and if the child was married at the outset. it's a perfectly sensible and provisional approach and consistent in the way this has been done. what congress did with respect to the mother of the child born
out of wedlock that may have not been in legitimation is confirm citizenship on the basis of a one year residency. as counter to what the petitioner explains, a mother in that situation who at the moment at birth as this court understood, that mother they be the only either legal parent or the only parent at the moment of birth with the reck sit connection of the child to have the opportunity to have the sort of connection at birth. the mother in that circumstance is very much like the two-citizen parent family. the only parent the are parents with the connection to the united states. >> mr. kneedler, if the classification then were that we want to encourage, because it's good for society, all the child relationships, so we're going to give that advantage that is one year for fathers and we're going
to pit the mothers together with the married couples. would that be compatible with equal protection? >> well, i think that would be -- that would depend upon a different rational. i mean, here -- >> i told you what the rational was. the rational was we have lots of statutes nowadays like the family medical and leave act. it attempts to encourage fathers to have a relationship with their children, to be an equal parent, so that's the rational of this classification. they want to encourage the father-child relationship, therefore, they give this one year for the father, and everything else is the same except the father who gets the one year and the mother who gets the, what is it? ten years in time. >> i think that's it --
a more difficult question because congress is responding based on the expected behaviors and talents maybe of men and women. what's different here is that's not the basis for this classification. >> it would be in fact asking on the basis of what hasn't been the general pattern, but what is becoming a new pattern. >> right, and in that situation, congress, i think could be expected and maybe should be required to do that in a gender neutral basis because it is premsing on the -- premising on the behavior. >> even though we are still dealing with citizenship, you recognize there are cat -- categories running afoul of the suggestion? >> the question is whether that's a legitimate rational. i think i want to know more about what the records for such a justification would be, ect., but i would like --
>> well, same as in the family medical and leave act, but making it a parental leave rather than a historically maternity leave. >> in that situation it's expanding on a gender neutral basis rather than single out one parent over another. there's a critical piece left out, and that is the counsel for petitioner says if a father legitimates an out of wedlock child, he is in the same position, or that child is in the same position as the child of an outside of wedlock mother, and that is not likely to be so, and it's not likely to be so at birth, and this is the reason why. when the child is legit mated, -- legitimated the child has two parents as the court described to that child. the u.s. citizen father, and the alien mother in the other
country. you have two parents whose interest have to be taken into account. in the situation the congress addressed in 1409c the child born out of wedlock where at the moment of birth there was no recognized father, you have only the mother. if we think of this in parallel to the ill legitimates jilt -- illegitimates this court had in domestic context, i think that's instructive. in a case like lare whether the child should have received notice of a perspective adoption, the court said the father did not take the steps necessary to form a relationship with the child, and therefore be a father in the eyes of the law, then the mother alone -- >> and we have the briefs that are filled with, you know, pros and cons about the statelessness
business and whether it was real, and i've read those and want your comments on them, but this may be a minor thing, and i noticed prodded by an article, i have to say, that for the women there's a sense in which it's tougher, and that's because of the continuous period. now, i guess it depends on how that's enforced, but there could be a class of people leaving near the border in canada or mexico where they step across the border on christmas day and saying hello to their cousin. is that enforced? >> it does have to be continued residence. >> it means you can't stop once you're across the border -- >> there may be minor exceptions on -- >> is there or isn't there to your knowledge, is this enforced or enforced that maybe you could go once a month or on your birthday or what is the answer? >> i think in that situation is no.
>> in that situation you cannot go across the border? >> in the example i was given is if you have someone living in mexico and commutes to the united states, what, you know, five days a week, you can under 1401 add up each day and get to a total of five to ten years of actual physical presence. that would not satisfy. >> all right, so if it's tough and really is meant to be tough, then there is -- what is the rational for treating women in this respect worse than treating men? >> congress, the one year provision -- >> the one year -- >> i grant you the time one year is treating them better than the time five years, but the word continuous, it's really tough is what your answer leads me to believe, and do they really mean it? i mean, then that's treating
them worse than treating the men, and i'd like to know what is the rational for treating worse? >> congress selected -- because while i said the mothers are like the two-citizen parents in the sense that only u.s. citizens are the parent, and you have some connection, congress was balancing the duration of that connection or taking into account the duration of that direction and chose to make it a little bit tougher, and i think that's perfectly legitimate because you have one parent and congress decided well, if someone had been here for a continue yows period of one year, then there is probably a greater likelihood that that person will have roots here than for example, the other situation where if you had a child born abroad and came home in the summers, that child may not think of himself or regarded as an american in the same way. what congress was focusing on is a period of longer duration which in its judgment could give
rise to, congress believed, a greater connection to the united states. >> counsel, what if the court were to determine that this does violate the equal protection clause and the court were also to determine this is not a case that should be the first one in history in which it grants naturalization. what do you think the court ought to do? >> i think the court ought to strike the eligibility of anyone to get citizenship on the basis of one year. i think it should construct the class to those specifically governed by 1401 on the ground that is violates equal protection. >> what about you know friend's point that that retroactively deprives people of citizenship? we would say they should have gotten if the equal protection clause was enforced. >> i think the court could legitimately take into the account the reliance on that.
i think it's parallelled to hack ler vs. matthews and the court took an interest -- >> right, but here of course under my scenario, we don't have a situation where congress has addressed the problem, so what do we do if somebody under the theory we say this person should not have been denied citizenship because of unequal protection in the law, and he comes in with the same situation going to be deported because he's not a citizen, but he says he's an american citizen. does he get the benefit of that? >> no, he does not. i think the answer for that and part of the reasons you alluded to we do not think that a court can properly grant u.s. citizenship and that should inform the remedy but for the people granted citizenship, i think the solution would be to
validate the one year -- >> grunted that remedy -- why grant that remedy? it's a remedy that doesn't remedy. we're not in the habit of granting something that doesn't provide relief. >> i suppose the court could decide that at the outset it's not appropriate to set that relief and not go any further. >> the reason it didn't grant that relief is unusual nation. it doesn't grant him relief because of the third party standing. he doesn't care if they are treated equally or not, he just wants to climb the benefit of citizenship. the person who would get relief is if it were the father. the relief this person is asking for is not to be deported, and so the problem of the relief being granted is really complicated by the fact that it's the case of third partying standings. >> right, i agree with that as well, all the more reason for
the court to be cautious about entering into this. >> mr. kneedler, in answering the question in that way, i know you're familiar with the case with a question of a father who was denied benefits to take care of a child whose mother died of childbirth, and the court came with a unanimous judgment, but it split three ways on why, and one of the members of the court said, this is discrimination against the child even though the classification was called a mother's benefit. discrimination against the child because it should make no difference at all whether the missing parent is female or male. that was not only rational, that was then justice renquist's
concurring opinion. that leads to think the discrimination was against the child and that counted for equal protection purposes. >> here, the only claim raised as an equal protection violation of the parents -- >> the father was the plaintiff, but the court's -- at least one justice's rational was that the discrimination is really against the child, but the father can raise it. >> insofaras since it's not becaused on the child's gender, it's a legitimate standard and the opinion addressed the rational basis there, and this is not just based on the gender of the parent, but it's based on the complexities and legal histories with respect to illegitimacy and how children
born out of wedlock are dealt with which turns not on just stereotypes of behavior and talents, but on long standing legal regimes not just in this country but in other countries and until the father does something to have a meaningful relationship, the mother is the only legal parent or in the terminology of this court's decision that the parent who is likely to have the meaningful relationship. once the father comes forward, the result is not the father gets a veto power or only the father cease interests are taken into account, the answer is you have -- >> this is a case where it's mother vs. father, but here it's a single parent. this is not a case where the father is doing something that the mother regards as disadd vente gas. >> no -- >> you said this has nothing to
do with stereotypes, but wasn't the law shaped because of the division of the world being divided into married couples where the father is what counted and unwed mothers where she was a both father and mother because the law didn't regard him as having any obligation. >> again, this the what the court addressed when they said there is a difference at the moment of birth of the potential and therefore the likelihood of a connection of child to parent. at the moment of birth, that justified the requirement that the father takes a step to legitimate the child in order to be on an equal footing with the mother with respect to the rights, and here the residents of requirement is what measures the connection of the parent to the united states, and not the child to the parent issue but we think the same plight obtains.
at the moment of birth in another country, for example, the other country may take the same view of cases like that but the father didn't have a meaningful connection to the child in which one would predict citizenship on the basis of until there's some sort of steps happening after birth to establish a relationship with the child. it's constitutional for courts to take into account that other countries might do the same thing p on the. >> there's no questions that this is the natural parent of the child. >> well, yes, but in nuinn they did not look at the particular case. it looked generally to what would have justified congress' acting categorically as we think they have to have the flex the to do, and i think the questions in these statutory revisions
shows there's competing considerations that have to be taken into account, and that is what congress did here with respect to establishing the requiring a close an an nexus. in a father in another country has done the steps, then you have a u.s. citizen mother and a father in another country that is directly parallelled to the married mixed parent marriage and congress was concerned about whether that child was going to be sufficiently affiliated with the united states to confirm citizenship. >> counsel, if we can have the only equal to go up, add to the burden of the mother rather than relieving the father of it. do you have authority that we can address that issue
hypothetically, in other words without making a prediction on the equal protection on the merits? in other words, look ahead, and look the the only remedy we can give the person is a meme discrimination that will not benefit him regardless of the merits, therefore we don't reach the merits. >> i don't have authority from this court, i may not be recalling something, but i don't. i do believe in the context of citizenship there might be a justification of the courts doing that. >> that's in effect saying we have no jurisdiction because there's no standing because there's no remediation that the court can make. >> i suppose that's one way of looking at it. i mean, the court has looked at questions of severability as a question of remedy at not at the outset, but this is to be sure a very peculiar situation. >> you know, i mean, there's a
number of cases raising this extension versus nullification, and in every one of them, the court did make the choice. they didn't say, well, we can't make any choice. one was it matthew steve heckler. it was a rare case in which the court did equalize down, but i don't know any one of them -- >> no, i think that is ordinarily the case, but this is -- this is a difficult context, and just to go back with a complication from the remedial approach that chief justice suggested. if the court declared an expansion of citizenship, and if that was held to apply to everybody similarly situated rather than just the petitioner in this case, it questions whether the court had the freedom of such a diplomatic
expansion under the law to remedy that with respect to the court's decision, at least the logic of the court's decision suggesting they were citizens too. >> is there anything that rings a bell in your mind? the thing that goes the other way is the right of an american citizen to pass his american citizenship on to his children, and when we talk about, when we talk about congress' power over naturalization, is there anything that's drawing a distinction between the general power, people who are not citizens to become citizens, but what it seems to me intuitively a different situation is the right to pass your citizenship on. does that ring a bell? >> there's no such right. >> i'm not saying there's # a right, but does it ring a bell? >> well, the court's decision that the centers discussed this, but we think it's clear that
under mark and rogers that that is equally an compares of congress' naturalization power -- >> just looking into trying to get your memory -- well, does something come to mind the opposite way where the court did go into a long talk about the law including constitutional law, and then says at the end, well, you're not entitled to a remedy. >> this is going back to remedy -- >> thank you, counsel. mr. hubacheck, you have fourmens re-- four minutes remaining. >> the rational the solicitor jj offers today is that after the men do things that the court says were required of them and they have an opportunity to form a relationship with their child, that further gender-based
assumption should be put into place says, well, you're not going to be the real father or the real parent, whereas in the case of women, we assume when they have the nonmarty child, they're going to be in charge, and then when a father legitimates and does what's required and wherever the child is born, we're going to assume the mother is involved still. the very facts of this demonstrate that's not the case. in this case the petitioner's father raised him and petitioner's mother was not involved in his growing up, and they brought him not united states -- sorry, i thought i was getting questioned. so it's basically piling further gender relations on top of the ones already in place to sort of justify this distinction. with respect to the fiallo case, there's a tradition of allowing people to transfer citizenship. there's no tradition back in
1350 where citizens enjoyed rights to bring aliens into the united states, but it dates back to 1850 where you confer citizenship on your foreign-born children. it is situated and it's situated in the statute today. congress very specifically e eliminated the ability to change the rules of aliens. they use language similar to the court's decision and said that you can be naturalized under this provision and no other way. it didn't say that as of citizens as of birth. citizens as of birth are treated differently and there's a severability clause and that applies to them bringing into the play the remedies court granted with extension over the years. >> i'm sorry, you referred to the tradition of passing. you agree with mr. kneedler there's no such right? >> i agree that the constitution doesn't guarantee that right. our point is it's a traditional
right and congress always provided for it even in the period of 1802 and 1805 where the draft oddly and when congress remedied that situation it made it retroactive. basically, it's an unbroken tradition dating back to 1350 which i think this right should be treated differently than the questions of aliens in the case of fiallo. the constitution limits the congress' power even in the context of naturalization. with respect to the third party standing issue, the court granted a third party standing to criminal defendants raising in their criminal cases and same analysis should apply here. we can look at the right from the perspective of the father and if the court brings a leveling down remedy, that doesn't remedy the situation the petitioner's father would be if because before and after the
now a capitol hill conference on u.s. foreign policy and the u.s. response to terrorism. we will hear from a variety of policy experts including its 9/11 commission chairman tom kean and former ambassador to the u.n., zalmay khalilzad. ogle project on security and terrorism and the new america's foundation. [applause] >> thank you very much. now our marathon begins and i would be remiss many of you distinguished people's we don't hold this against you but i want to pay special note to how honored i am that ambassador
thomas pickering leading civil servant in the state department, foreign service has done everything so, it's great to see you with us today, terrific. let me say a few words about, brian baird from the third district of washington state. he sits on the house transportation infrastructure committee, the house science committee, house budget committee. he's on lots of committees. he just published a book entitled character politics and responsibility, restarting the heart of the public. before he came on to take these duties as his constituency represented in washington he chaired the department of psychology at pacific lutheran university and was a practicing clinical near a psychologist and let me tell you the other side of brian baird. brian is -- he is leaving congress. he is here, he's definitely happier than anybody else i've seen in congress, and it's an honor to have him with us.
he's become a free close friend of the new america's foundation and mine worked on it from everything from big questions on what's going on in the economy to help this country needs to rethink or think about its foreign policy portfolio and national security questions and he is a brave person. he's gone to areas of the world that we would say are on the edge. he's one of the first people into gaza after the gaza crisis with a number of other congressmen and women that went with him and he's challenged, tried to bring intellectual challenge to some of the important eletes congress has had. he played a vital role for instance in the health care to date in which he was one of the leading critics for a while and ended up supporting president's plan, but he's used his position i think on a bleak and the way congressmen showed which is to really wrestle with the great ideas and not get swept in one kind or another so without further ado please welcome
congressman brian baird. [applause] >> good morning, everyone. steve, thank you for the kind introduction, and i have to say i think one of the most exciting developments in this city and many years has been the new america foundation. especially on topics relating to middle east, but if you name the topic, some of the most out of the box comprehensive thinking, innovative thinking i think is coming out of new america and steve is at the forefront of much of that. and bob, i think you're right on the money with this effort as a former psychologist, and i will speak a little bit about that today. the idea that we try to understand what motivates people makes a lot of sense. i want to share with you a funny thing that happened, we hear today. really it did. i bumped into my friend don edwards from maryland who detested member of congress
research on the science committee. donna and i traveled a lot with peter welch and my friend keith ellison and i to gaza with new america actually. adana share the following story treat she has been asked to speak to a group that has policy supports on to state solution in israel and palestine but it also said two states don't work maybe we'll look at the viability of the one state solution so donna has been asked to talk to them and she then gets a flurry of e-mails sinking you can't talk to those people come and if you talk to those people we may not be able to support you anymore. and she said wait a second the other group in town does that. what is the street doing saying i can't talk to people? i may be speaking out of school here. this is a conversation in front of starbucks. [laughter] but it is literally ten minutes ago. it is indicative of part of the problem we face.
it is a town that imposes group thinks with a ferocity that i think was urging janice who wrote the book if i'm not mistaken could not have imagined it imposes it through actions through financial contribution, a host of ways that limits how we think and i want to challenge that today and hopefully have a bit of q&a. one of the fundamental problems seems to me how we define the problem at hand. terrorism i think in most of our minds in congress is often implicitly -- interestingly enough we don't actually stop oftentimes and say what exactly is it we me about this phenomenon that we are waging the war upon? but the implicit assumed definition i think is something horrific and unjustified that happens to less for no good
reason. there are some limitations in the definition that prevent us from solving the problem. something horrific is valid. something i'm justified is questionable. now you cannot say that. you cannot say that it is worth asking is there ever justification for a terrorist act. i do not think is the justification for a terrorist act, but the people who engage in them certainly do and it is worth asking why they do that. it happens to us but what about the things that happen to others including some of the things we do? we are not allowed to ask that in this town either. six years ago or more than that senator patty murray of for reelection this year was talking with a bunch of schoolchildren post september 11, not long after september 11th, and they asked her why do people do this to us? and she said well, here are some
of the differences. and she tried to get those young people in perspective from the oversight. what happened? somebody had a video camera and patty murray was an apologist for terrorists. it became a major issue because she was trying to help school children understand issues in a different way. we will not solve this problem if we continue that way. the challenges members of congress again have the group think enforced. if you go to the countries to get demerits. if you say certain things, you get demerits. if you meet with other groups to get demerits. the idea will have a rational, thoughtful intellectual discussion is prescribed in said we are supposed to march lockstep with administration policy received audiology or something else and it's not going to work. there is a canadian of arab
descent who witold has a joke and is asked so where do you get suicide bombers? i'm sure you know this, bob. he says the suicide hot line. it's pretty funny actually if you think about it. you call up and say i'm thinking of killing myself. that's not such a bad idea, but let us recommend the methodology. [laughter] now it's funny accept that as in so many good jokes there's a grain of truth to it and here is the grain of truth. as the circle was a sticking to understand that behavior makes sense. i may not always agree. it may not have desirable consequences, but in some ways it makes sense to the person engaging. part of the job is ecologist and i think part of the job of the foreign policy must be to help create conditions in which alternative peter makes more sense. there's a famous psychologist named michael like a mom who reversed direction how we look
at child abuse and as the parent of five-year-old boys, boys understand this very well. the premise is look at child abuse as the anomaly. if you think about it anyone who has had children has at least more than once wanted to throw them down the stairs. now of course you can't say that because they are always in love with our children and always angels and we never get upset. his point was the amazing thing is not that there is child abuse. the amazing thing is it's not rampant and anybody who's had young children gets it at about 3:00 in the morning when they get up and you're just flat exhaustive if you have to occasionally had the desire, you are either far better than me which i would grant is likely or maybe you're not also be fully honest. it's difficult. that is a mild attempt and terrorism here is something you can never say. in some instances, and some conditions we contribute to the
creation of, the fair question is what other response would you expect? what other response would you expect? when we engage in activities, that create indignity that impose suffering on civilian population that deprives people of freedom that support totalitarian regimes, some response will occur. terrorism is one manifestation of that. now ironically, we often say there ought to be an alternative we ought to promote non-violent activity and indeed, we should take palestine which i'm very familiar with if you look at the environment committee what to talking a lot, terrorism. steve was kind enough to mention i spent an awful lot of time in gaza and palestine in fact to my knowledge more than any american
official, and what else would you expect to see the conditions on the ground? the amazing thing to me when i visit gaza and some of the town's encircled by walls and the west bank is the dignity and the integrity and passion for compassion that many of the palestinians manifest. they are dead set against allowing their children to fall into the trap of desperation that can lead to terrorism. they are courageous, heroic people. you need this ecologist, the teachers, doctors, the political social leaders, business people, working their hearts out to try to say we've got to give these kids and other alternative. i talked a clinical psychologist who was driving with his 8-year-old son on the road when the car in front of them was a price and the passengers of the car spilled all on fire and died before his trial spies. a few weeks later the sun looks
despondent, not surprisingly i suppose, and the psychologist, palestinians ecologist asks what's going on? and he said daddy, i want to be a suicide bomber. and he said why? because we are going to get killed anyway, i want to take someone with me. now this was a child raised in a cult of death except that was imposed upon him, but it wasn't a child that was raised in a radical madrassa in a school that he was going to go to. this was a child whose life experience had given him a sense of desperation of hopelessness this seemed to be one of his most voluble alternatives. now again, we say you should look and nonviolence. a month ago i met with a palestinian leader is an advocate for nonviolence and four or five individual leaders who champion on violence.
what's happening to people engaged in on violence they're being imprisoned without trial, they are being beaten and the world is largely ignoring it. if you want to change behavior, you have to have a viable alternative. if you oppress the viable alternative what else would you expect? what i would suggest is we need to make sure that we first address the conditions that can contribute to the desperation, second, that we support alternatives, and feared, on the other side i think a cold hard reality is also necessary. white said so far may sound like what he would expect from a psychologist and a democrat. there are also really horrible people in the world who ideologically, pathologically enjoy killing other human beings. they have to be killed.
i'm sorry. but i think it's true. we probably have to be prepared to cope with both realities, and we are terrible in congress and i think as a public in this country in dealing with those realities. it's much easier to say everybody who engages in terrorism is of the latter sort, or they are only fighting us because we are all bad. no, there are some people that are terrific human beings with district of tautological ideology as we see it. the c2 in pos that around us and the rest of the world and we have to stop them. and they don't mind terrorism because they think it's part of some personal define or political mission and we have to come from that reality as well. it to the degree that we can address the first set of issues i was describing, we will be much, much more effective addressing the second because far fewer people will fall victim to the second.
let me close and open up some questions by referring it back to the institution by serve in the congress. increasingly, i'm afraid, it is harder and harder and harder in the political life to engage in this kind of dialogue. those of you with a flip phones and a sink full not to see any, but i think c-span's covering it so i am toast any way and if you read my book you will see the donato list any way because the stuff that i say in there is way out. but it just -- you have to be able to look at things objectively and there has to be a constituency that values that in the media, a constituency in the public who says i may or may not agree with this person but i'm glad they are asking the questions and they are not afraid to make me think and new ways instead what happens is people pander incessantly and
the best way to get the media is to pander more than the other guy. i think newt gingrich is engaged in that to name names in the mosque issue. i think it is a perfectly fair question to ask if we are to allow moscow which the first amendment says we should, is it not fair to ask other countries would the allows an blogs or christian churches or of the high face of that is a perfectly fair question is essential but how and why mass it is important and so too i think it's silly and counterproductive to ban the recovery. but at the same time is it not fair to ask why can my wife not walked on the streets of this, but without being spat upon. those are fair and responsible questions. we need to ask both sides.
the political pressures to only go to one side or the other side can. on the left is great to scream about how all of this to ban via hajab or fight against the mosques but it's only fair to say this and there are other countries that are more intolerant to be perfectly honest and we need to confront that even when we confront our own. and so the challenge is the last thing is terror is not something just that happens to us because of external people in pos at pattara at the end of the day is a psychological response. back to the palestinians and then what astonishes me is how the refuse to be terrorized. they just won't let it happen by and large, the leaders. they've been through hell, the of bombs dropped on them, all
sorts of things and they are hanging in there. we need, i believe, will we ever as the other issues to internal we adjust our mind set to this reality for some time to come in spite of the efforts to all the rest of us here despite the massive defense capabilities we are going to get hit from time to time. the city will get hit again. some of us may, dalia. whether that creates terror is up to us and we have to address that. we have to not promise people that under no circumstances whatsoever will somebody ever slipped through because they will and they will kill some people. but how it affects us is under our control, and we need to think very soberly about that and maturely because otherwise the terrorists will not win but they will succeed in disrupting
our way of life and the very values we hold most dear and distinguish us from them in the most constructive way possible. with that -- >> thank you very much for your candor. [applause] i would say that you're toast if he would run again but it's nice to get a dose of candor and hear someone talk of resilience. i would like to open the floor but let me ask one thing and i know is a tendency in the blogosphere of late with their your writing in the middle of the left for folks to engage in something that has bothered me a lot as i've traveled through the middle east and legacy in the middle east is a kind of cernansky conspiracy theories and use of conspiracy theory is to rationalize what people may see to explain what going on and an awful lot of effort in some places in the middle east to
research or organize or filter what they see through this, and i see this coming to this country in part becoming a part of our own dialogue of discourse and a way that is almost a rejection of sort of an enlightened approach to looking at things, and i'm wondering if you felt about that as a politician who's written about you been knocked around a lot and for some of the things that you've done, but maybe we need another book for somebody to study government talking about it, but i am writing about this now conspiracy in the united states and others become such a feature of how we report or filter no matter where to are on the political spectrum, you see people associated, people who may speak of a podium with someone and how that is beginning to dominate more and more of our political discourse and if you have any comment on that and then i will open to the floor. >> i think you hit on a real problem especially but it's true on both of the left and the
right on the extreme. lilos of the comments that president obama as a fascist but let's be serious, people said the same thing about president bush on the left and admittedly in a different way and i've been on the receiving end of both and there is a qualitative difference with the whole business of is he secretly trying to turn america into a muslim socialist nation why can't we does tv could just say i disagree with the man's policy. there has to be something more pernicious in part because that justifies the craziness itself. if you just so they disagree with this man's policy is fine, engage in political activism. you don't have to call it in washington this year is this fundamental if a fundamental human need, and many of us to be gerlach. you want to be a hero. you watch movies, movies are not above average guys, they are of
helos and there is the desire to be a hero and to say something. a desire to be something big. terrorism is a good way to do that. if that's your desire. if it fulfills that need to can put it on the line literally and blow yourself up as bald studied. but it's even better if it's a big evil conspiracy you're fighting. if it's just a guy you disagree with, blowing up over this kind of harsh, but if there's a big conspiracy now you're fighting for the truth, the way, the life against dark forces of evil and that is a bitter fight. >> let me open the floor. this gentleman right here. we are going to run a microphone over to you. >> by the way, i will say that group think i talked about reinforces the paranoia. the idea you would look at the other side and see what they have to say, that is an excellent sort of definition of -- >> if you will identify yourself, please. >> good morning, sir, and
founding and editor of a new publication that intends to have multidisciplinary and international debates and donald. it's being set up by a bunch of us and we hope to bring the the dialogue you talked about. now before i ask my questions very quickly i did against 9/11 and i really appreciate the comments that you made. my question to you is from an international perspective a lot of fun patent that is spoken in america i see it as represented of america. and the question from me to do is how do you mitigate that considering its international ramifications especially to people who do propagate the conspiracy theories. >> right, thank you. >> a couple ways. first we don't get enough credit for the good things we've done and i would use this as a
personal look simple. during the balkans where my wife and i have a young bosnian student whose leg had been blown off lived with us for three years. i will say that for personal appreciation, but the fact is the united states stopped the genocide wild europe looked on and was a genocide director but muslims and we get almost no appreciation for that and we did at the marginal loss of u.s. lives or civilian lives on the ground there and the work that came up in indonesia, the united states and the amount of effort, the pakistan of clich, etc., etc., and the list goes on. in afghanistan the amount of effort the u.s. soldiers and leaders put into trying to avoid civilian casualties is astonishing. i've seen classified images of syndrome strikes where the had the guy and they are psyched a really bad actor and they didn't pull the trigger because the
child was somewhere in possible range. we didn't do it. a guy that killed hundreds and hundreds of people. we don't get credit for that. contrast that to the soviets, deliberately targeted civilians. with the soviets during? come on, so on the one hand of the media doesn't give enough credit for the good we do, the overemphasize the of mistakes and they don't look at the contrasting the conditions about the world. having said that, there is no question in my mind our engagement in the middle east, israel, palestine and i see this as a friend of israel, proud friend of israel is, now national security and harming israel's security in the long run. unless we reconcile that in a constructive and just way we are going to be continually -- that will continue to be the focus for many people. i was in the slot fell in pakistan right after the clear about how come and we were meeting with people and i was asking if people would -- what their thought was about going into waziristan and baluchistan.
first thing is whoa, that is a different kettle of fish because those guys down there are attacking you. these guys up here were attacking us. the other reason one guy said wait a second why should we fight against other muslims given what you do and how this kind. this was the swa valley of pakistan. it's a long way from palestine but on the minds of people because it is perceived to be in a just and it is counterproductive from the security perspective. other questions? let me get you one more question, brian. you talked about the indonesia and the tsunami general john allen who's a centcom commander ran the operation. and he ran it extremely competently flooding today and i miss the department and see all of the things hillary clinton and her team are trying to do but frankly it isn't breaking
out and when i look at the amount of resources we are spending and afghanistan about $100 billion a year right now but for a billion dollars or so you could completely change the infrastructure to could create a possibility for of least a partial retro representative roche -- i sampras myself and i know their must be another side to the story that someone like john allen who has done this hasn't been tasked -- it's not his option but hasn't been tasked with dealing with the flooding what he did for incompetently and say the tsunami aftereffect. >> i don't know the inside of that. usaid under bush made an effort to bring in everything on down. the little strike on dependent said a gift to the american people which i support but interestingly enough in the most controversial regions we actually pulled our usaid stickers off, the goal being to give the credit to the local
government to empower the local government. so we, ourselves, have been downplaying what we've done. the second issue is in pakistan there is so much corruption and questionable use of funds, and so i'm not sure why more hasn't been done but we have done quite a bit in pakistan with the flooding as well. right here. >> thanks, steve, thank you, congressman. my name is ra, a security adviser and couldn't sit still when you talked of using both realities of the bad men to shoot in the face when they are walking up with a suicide is a storm approaching my enter control point and giving candy to. the reality behind that, it is very sensitive, there's a lot of things we can't say on the group think of d.c. and america in general, the word of evidence comes to mind and is used a lot of times by writers who try to address how we are affecting other cultures. when you spoke to to read you said what to do we expect them
to do when we support these behaviors, the indignity and so forth. so the previous question came from a special operator. i have been overseas in iraq and afghanistan more than i've been home in the last decade. but i also write on powerful piece, and address the reality that the more we use the hard power the more we bring of the hostility in return we invite the negative energy. how do you see it as the base level working up because we have information operation, strategic communications working down but we need to engage people like us that of the double perspective all across the world. >> two things. one, strategically in the field, tactically we are using teams and finally getting a concept. ironically some of you know the academic community has criticized teams, these are of religious, religious scholars who go into the field with the troops to understand the humans
rain. it's been extraordinarily effective and saved a lot of u.s., civilian and enemy lives and brought people from the other side over so in the field we are finally getting that general petraeus is a huge ad ticket of that and the had the first joint science committee and special ops subcommittee test together on the team because i think it's essential. that however to fill up to the congress of large the issue of our power, soft power. it's easy to attack somebody. here's the attack and by the way when i finish this job i will do for peace overwork it goes like this with our soldiers need is better vests to protect from artillery, congressman brian baird wanted to spend the moy on anthropologist's. [laughter] you are a seal, you get it.
you have to medical and said i don't know who to shoot. >> there are a lot of political consultants -- >> i don't know who to shoot and i don't want to shoot anybody to reply would rather talk to somebody if i could. [laughter] we haven't done that well at the higher levels and one of the paradoxes, too, is the other thing that has to happen and colleagues have to not only have the courage to look to the different sides to open their eyes. when i was in iraq and 07 and came back i opposed the invasion and father was a terrible mistake but once you, are there you have a moral obligation to not just leave children to get your heads cut off by the al qaeda butchers which is what was happening in a candid and said we are making progress and would be a mistake to pull out. it was the right thing to do that wasn't easy. is the democrats to vote against the consulate but you have colleagues that going to the theater, knowing what they want to see. sotho people see the exact same thing and come back and report exact opposite things and i think it's because how we go in.
we go in with a preset and then we have the political -- and his colleagues say to me you may be right but i don't want to say it. but if it's true in its national security and lives are on a line, suck it up. people are dalia over there. the least you could do is have integrity to look at things with objective eyes and tell the truth as best you understand. this gentleman over here. >> my name is tony berman, i am of the a al jazeera base in washington. i was the managing director of al jazeera english based and i've been back in north america located here for about a month and my first week back was the week of the florida pastor who was the aftershock of the so-called ground zero mosque. my question monday night and as somebody who's kind of lee engaged now in north america particularly the u.s. is the
incredible shrill level of the debate, and i guess i find your theme about is the environment here open to a rational, to alternative approaches, a serious one. what is you're i guess your own thinking as to what is driving it, and are you hopeful or confident that when this congressional election is over with in november that temperature lower and that there will be more openness to looking at alternative approaches to the problems that we all face? >> thank you, tony. i'm not super optimistic and the reason is there are a number of factors contributing to the upset. we got it tacked on 9/11 by muslim extremists. you've got to acknowledge that, not the that represents all of islam, but that was at least part of the motivation of the
people who attacked us and that resonates still and to have to be honest about that, not you but one has to. second come on top of that, we have a terribly faltering economy, a lot of unemployed people, 20% in my district uncertain towns and they don't know what's happened to them. it's a global environment and the have seen their sons and daughters and mothers and fathers get shipped off to a faraway place to fight a warmac isn't clear to many people what it's all about. and they won the world to be what it was. it's not just what it was before president obama. it's what it was before september 11th. and why can't you make a go back there. why can't make the economy be when it was when we had gone from a couple hundred billion dollar deficit to a surplus? why can't you makeyou go backe
fight, 7% unemployment, etc? all of those things are deeply distressing for understandable reasons and there's an undercurrent of anger that kits targeted in a convenient place to target is out so you out members of your own country wizards as president, cony de fellows tecum somebody else but then you out to the foreigners and the most obvious case or islam because they talk different, worse a different, talk different, and there's the link to the attack and all of that is hard to turn around. from an earlier onset we've got to get the alternative nonviolent. when is the last time you saw a major western news story on the nonviolent resistance? nonviolent resistance? during the civil rights era my good friend, john lewis, was getting pounded across from the bridge. the was national news and a
troubled of the american people. we do not come at our own country, see that there are extraordinarily courageous people on the ground through the middle east and that's not just palestine and israel with the other countries that have to tell the tyrian regimes to bring about change in a non-violent way. that would create i think better empathy especially if you tie it to the islamic scripture that is part of the motivation and again model of the nonviolent activists are muslim got there are many christian activists as well and many jewish activists as well so getting different perspective and then i think -- i think needs to be a lot of voice among moderate muslims in the united states of america. i really believe that. i think there has to be a greater global condemnation of extremism and they are out there doing great work on the front, jim and many others of the american arab american institute
but it's not getting the kind of coverage, so the american people don't have a person to identify with. if you to ask the american people need a one muslim anywhere who advocates non-violence, couldn't do with. >> we of the chief of naval operations still coming down he went into long entrance of the capitol city of time for one more question. there was another question over here that i missed. >> yes, right here if we could run the microphone. this lady in the center. the lady not inlet. >> retired general from illinois. my concern is we haven't done the lebanese american who wanted to bomb the wrigley really that night. no motivation. it was an antichristian or anything like that. he has his own screwed up reasons and brought an excellent point, how are we going to counter terrorism without causing our own terror against
our population and that does concern me. i'm hoping to hear ideas today that anything how do we prepare the public so we don't turn on our neighbors? >> excellent. thank you very much. >> the short answer is you need political leaders to douse the flames and the reverse is happening right now. for political opportunistic reasons if i can be more extreme than you and condemn the a bursitis somehow being soft and thereby make you feel good by association with me and more powerful, it is pretty age-old tactic, and it works. and we have to call those people on it in some of them are not callable because their agenda is different, as personal power. some people have a difference of opinion, but there is a subset of people who are pretty darned cynical in their use of this issue, and i and you needed that
moderate sensible, rational voice, and i think the media needs to do it. i think in fact al jazeera, the need to do it more in the arab world because they will put a church of what was it, 12 or something, nobody down in florida, and suddenly this becomes international news they're burning koran. that is a not job, he isn't worthy of international news from his truly not representative of the bulk of americans. but he's easy to stand on the other side is also what has to happen is a loud voice, not loud in terms of volume but in presence from the people in this room and from our political leaders and we need to call them on it. i mean, we need to have people who vote at town halls and say to the demagogues on either side look, you know, it's not just what you're saying i disagree with, it's why you're saying it. and how you're saying it and
what its impact is. have you thought about what you're doing to the problem, and that's a tall order. we have to somehow communicate that that's actually a better approach. that's actually the fundamental approach of a space constitutional republic, and we have to communicate that, but it is extremely difficult. i personally believe that i -- and i made a student of the founders. my one son is william washington and the other is walter franklin, and i can't tell you how many biographies -- i don't think any of them could get elected today. franklin was a vegetarian out illusionist -- abolitionist and he enjoyed pursued in france. [laughter] washington didn't want to get engaged in foreign military entanglements, etc., etc. but we need statesman again and i hope we can achieve that or we are in big trouble and we won't cut this not unless we have them. thank you peace benet we're
having fun, you're not going yet. our naval chief went to the cannon house office building so that is why -- >> the navy guy went to tannin -- >> [inaudible] >> what we ask the media other questions, but i want to go to -- we will go to tom pickering but i also want you to reflect upon the congress's relationship with the executive branch. can we get a mic over to investor pickering. one of , has become the national security adviser, and i wrote a piece this week saying that one of the characteristics that i see in this administration on the executive branch and i want to ask before tom because he may reflect on it as well as how the white house is to some degree competing with other branches of government when it ought to actually be running in other words i said in anticipating is the pentagon and shirley works for the white house, but the national security council staff often feels as if it is competing with strategists in
the capacity that exists in the pentagon and i'm wondering from the congressional perspective how did you see your branch surviving are floundering if compaq or not domingo in the executive branch but before you answer me let me ask ambassador thomas pickering. estimate your kind enough to refer to me in the hyperbolic fashion so i will leave it at that. congressman, thank you for your frankness and directness and willingness to let most of it hang out for can use that perverse expression. my question is a companion question. one that you, perhaps, for good reasons, steered away from. we are depressed and that by partisanship is that unknown science and the forgotten history, appear in particular. what could be done to resurrect it or are we in the hopeless process of having partisanship being of the watchword for the internal future? >> thank you. tom, by the way, has been a champion of something i also think that could be helpful on
this and that is selling its diplomacy, the use of science, and tom and i talk about about this and i champion on the science committee. if you look worldwide, one of the things we are most respected for is our scientific and technical progress and the openness of to happen, and i believe that bringing scientists together internationally -- you can go to iran and say you've got something in effect there are u.s. physicians and researchers there as we speak i believe working on that. so those kind of things, tom, thank you for your work on that and many other issues. on bipartisanship, to things: the first would be non-partisan commission to establish the boundaries. gerrymandering is tremendously destructive to the system. it creates secure district on both sides, and frankly in general secure districts in my experience are less able -- or less able to work with some of pandering to the extreme and they will get knocked out in the
middle. or because they're just so i absolutely convinced their ideology is 100% right. now that is problematic in the house and its lethal in the senate, because an ideologue who is certain that he or she speaks with some divine inspiration and is more pure than anybody else with a fellows tannin hold can gum things up, and then creates a lot of tension. the issue is i want you to come my way a little bit. it's my way or the highway and highway and its grid locked. the second thing i believe is campaign finance reform event struggled with this forever. if i can do one thing in life it would be to say we will establish public funding. we will then be and all independent expenditures by individual candidates and in the independent expenditure above that gets matched. no candidate can spend or raise money themselves because it cannot see. it takes away your time, takes away your sole and raises conflicts the largest
unattainable. and other independent expenditures come, then public money goes against them and there would be instant public acknowledgement of who is funding the ad. free speech is a cherished value but it's not free if you have to sell your soul to engage in it. >> any quick reflections on how congress is doing with the exhibit branch -- >> oh, yeah. i will be absolutely frank and think congress is undermined president obama's efforts to move forward on peace in the middle east. i think i don't believe that we are going to successfully deal with the settlement issue between israel and palestine, as there is a serious pressure coming from the white house and the congress and i think the congressional picture is either overtly and or covertly meeting in backdoor conversations said to people don't worry, we are not going to do anything of substance if they don't stop the settlement. and if you don't stop the
satellite, you do stop the two-stage solution geographically it can't work of the settlements continue to expand your not going to have a valuable to state solution if you don't have a valuable to state solution, this is ehud barak, a nondemocratic state. yesterday israel and mcvail all you have to take a both that says that your loyal to israel as a jewish state. there is a lot of christians and israel and a lot of palestinian muslims and others living in israel but denounce to take a loyalty oath not just because i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, but to a particular religious ideology, which is prescribed in the first line of the first amendment of the united states constitution bill of rights. but now our number one ally in the region is saying you have to adhere to israel as a jewish state. i think it's going to be counterproductive, and i personally believe president obama came in, gave one of the best speeches the president has ever given, and then created a
high expectation, most of which has been unfulfilled. and i will finish with this story. and gaza we reached the peak reached three children, boys. we wanted to just beat people, and pleases blown up, people buy all here, a couple of 13-year-old boys. they have their arms around each other, they are pals. the first in broken english introduces himself and where did you learn to speak english? from school? millo. television? no. weare? shakespeare. the truth is a true story. shakespeare? i love shakespeare. reed and all the time. let me introduce you to my friends. english broken. first friend just had a new nephew bourn, gets to the name of the net you this is three weeks after. barack obama. search friend, a wonderful boy takes care of his family, attends mosques.
why do you build rockets? because people come and dropped bombs on our village. what else am i going to do. what you want to do with your lives? terse i want to be a teacher. secondly, i want to be a physician. the one who had the net and barack obama. the third, i want to be an engineer. none of them said terrorists. the question for all of us is how to get those kids to be teachers, doctors and engineers when so much of your surroundings pushing them in opposite directions and i hope we can get that answer in the discussion today. >> brian, if you very much. [applause] i also want to thank the chief of mittal operations we sent to the wrong building and we apologize in advance for that but we are going to move immediately to bob pape and the chief. thank you very much. >> it is a great honor to introduce our next speaker. you're going to your through today a new policy called offshore balancing. you're going to hear myself and other speakers referred to this
policy as the key viable alternative to our current course. well it's one thing to have that policy connected to the social science evidence and it's another to have that policy and action in washington. and the next speaker you're about to hear is probably the most pivotal speaker on this amendment today. admiral garrey roughead is the current chief of naval operations. the highest ranking officer in the navy and the principal advisor to president secretary of defense and secretary of the navy on the conduct of naval warfare. a graduate of the u.s. naval academy, admiral roughead is one of only two officers to command the fleet in both of the pacific and the atlantic where he earned numerous awards including the defense distinguished service medal, the highest joint service declaration in the u.s. military
among other highly prestigious awards as well. with his global experience and global responsibilities, there is no person better to articulate the strategic option for the united states and the navy's role in offshore balancing. please join me in welcoming admiral gary roughead. [applause] >> thank you very much related good to see familiar faces and the audience. thanks, bob, for the introduction. i appreciate it is also for pulling together the discussion in the panel's that you have to investigate what i consider to be a topic a significant interest to us in uniform and to those of us interested in
national security. i look forward to the opportunity to share my experiences and my all, where the navy can contribute going forward. even if the topic at hand does not immediately summon up images of 80 ships and navy airplanes and navy submarines. as i will address and one of the reasons i believe this conference is some important is that the phenomenon on global terrorism has had such an immense impact on our national security planning and the international retirement we operate that it is kind of shifted the discussion, india, shifted in terms of conditions of global security. and long after the ongoing operations in iraq and of can stand have subsided, the nation's experience with this phenomenon and quite critically those of the international partners will continue to weigh heavily. but to be clear from the outset of my remarks, since i'm going
to discuss what the navy has been doing outside of our current conflicts and with the navy will do after these conflicts are over i want to be very, very clear that we in the united states navy every sailor is fully committed to the operations and the fights that are being undertaken in iraq and afghanistan. it may come as a surprise to many that the united states navy has 15,000 sailors on the ground in iraq and afghanistan and in the horn of africa. that is 3,000 more sailors them are serving on our ships in the middle east. in fact, when you combine the 15,000 shore and the roughly 12 or so thousand at sea, our presence in the middle east is about the same as the united states marine corps. has been that way for some time and it will continue along those
lines. even though the forces at see me not to be viewed as contributing toward the operations about 30% of fixed-wing aircraft that fly over the troops in afghanistan or fleeing from the decks of the united states aircraft carriers to support the ongoing operations there. but we also believe that our nation's interest extend far beyond iraq and afghanistan and so does the navy. when it comes time for the other services to redeploy the return to the major bases in the united states, the navy will continue to reset in stride as we have for centuries and we will continue carrying on as before. today, 46,000 sailors and about 40% of the navy ships and submarines are ron deployment delivering maritime security across the globe and providing the president with offshore options. we continue to prove ourselves
to be formidable, flexible and fast to respond and we are seeing more demand for naval forces than ever before. if we did maintain our global interest, if we were only present and engaged in those places where we had significant ground force commitments, some nations would aim to impose through intimidation excess of claims on natural resources and common areas, drug-traffickers would face no obstacles and perfecting just-in-time delivery system for a list of products and pirates will exercise free rein keep shipping lanes and the nation's prospects for a voluble ballistic missile defense capability in the western pacific, the police and in europe would be in hand. for the the steps the gulf cooperation council countries have taken to recognize the importance of maritime security in their own region would likely you lose traction if the u.s. navy wasn't present. this would be a development we
could ill afford when the operating environment and the arabian gulf is increasingly influenced by a more active and unpredictable iranian revolutionary guard corps. perhaps of the greatest strategic importance over time, american military power without united states for fit the upper ten ttp favorable security environment and the western pacific and the indian ocean. that is the landscape upon which we will act for the foreseeable future. the reality of the surroundings may not be evident to many americans given the immediacy of the grout campaigns in iraq and afghanistan and the specter of international terrorism. but the issues should not be alien to us, just as america's requirement for her naval forces contribute across the range of potential threats is not alien to those of us in the united states navy. and baum's book putting diffuse there's a compelling case made for what has become known as offshore balancing.
military capabilities delivered from over the horizon by arguing that sustained foreign military occupations are the predominant cause of suicide terrorism. i think this is fertile ground for the discussion because the political impact of terrorism on the current security environment will color our access and range of options will into the future. we often look back on the cold war era and certainly the post cold war era with the sense there was relative peace. there were several conflicts over the span of time, major and protracted, but they were exceptions to the normal operating stand and have been eclipsed in length by the war and iraq and afghanistan. in fact secretary gates reminded an audience of college students just the other week that we are now engaged in the longest sustained combat in american history. ..
today in many ways the united states faces a new global order, one that has been shaped by the events of september 11th and its aftermath whose political asp to her math will only become clear in the post-drawdown in the middle east. however, it is quite inherent will expect to broad developments to take place. the sovereignty concerns come either where we are operating or where we are operating from the limit are outright conclude the involvement of land-based forces in the future, making offshore options for deterrence at the
end power projection from the sea of the more essential. and this will be accompanied by a corresponding reawakening at the naval dimension of american power and influence, capable of ensuring the mechanisms of global prosperity and peace and countering anti-access for area denial in times of conflict. an important part of the president's national security strategy is to promote a national order is the indispensable fact are in greater and prosperity. i feel strongly for reasons of global economics, demographics, resource constraints and climate change at the origin global order will in large part be influenced by strong american navy, working closely with american partners. the productive economic force of globalization depends on the uninhibited international exchange of resources, goods and ideas, activities that have been predominately at sea. commercial ships carry about 90%
of all goods and resources that move on the planet. $40 billion worth of oil passed through the world's geographic chokepoint on a daily basis. i discuss in seconds come not to mention the $3.2 trillion in commerce that lives underwater on transoceanic cables. that activity that fuels the global economy, regardless of disorder ashore will continue. and so, the stability and predictability of the maritime domain must be assured. naval file or popular tool in influencing international players in this emerging global order with its capacity for targeted rapid response to developments in the maritime domain, which stands in the deep oceans to the key areas of short that can be influenced from the fee. most of the world's 26 megacities are in this zone. urban populations in 2050 will be the same as the global
population in 2004. resources will only become more dear than those resources will increasingly be found in the lit world as we have witnessed in our own waters at greater depths. in fact, 65% of the world's oil and 35% of gas reserves are in the select world band around the continents. the order and stability of the maritime comments can be disrupted by man, but surely can also be disrupted by climate change or natural disasters. the long-term trends in climate changes are becoming more apparent to some nations are planning accordingly. the impact of climate change and the migration of fishing stocks will likely send commercial fishing for the poulsen for deeper water, raising the cost of a dietary staple for many of the world societies. in the opening of the fifth ocean, the art day, for longer periods of time will provide new access to resources, migration fishing stocks and eventually
new trade routes. that can't be overstated. it represents the first change of that magnitude since the end of the ach. and i don't find it coincidental that china, a nation that previously had no claims in the equation has called for universal access rights to increasingly inhospitable waters. add to this younger and effort to expand the panama canal that becomes clear the trade routes in our own hemisphere will change with an inevitable impact on the total volume of activity in and around america's western approaches and the gulf of mexico. the expanded box will double the canal's capacity and support passage for 90% of the world's commercial vessels. including 86% of liquefied natural gas ships for instance, with the current canal can only support 6%. in this emerging security environment, as before, credible seapower can persist up short with an operational reach and inform the foundation upon which other forms of national power
can converge toward a common goal. some observers credit the international political acceptability of naval forces to the idea that naval powers typically demonstrate neither interesting nor capability for affecting outcomes assure. others go further to suggest that offshore balancing of the neglected duty is inherently anti-engagement, even isolationists. but beyond misunderstanding the close linkages with an abc between developments in c. and events ashore, such arguments miss out on the work we are doing right now to provide resources for a range of options from the sea while empowering local authorities and areas of instability who strive for their own governments, the kind of measures that bob called for in his book. the multimission and break a war for capabilities to deliver and support of joint task forces in the philippines in the horn of africa, for example, directly
support antiterrorism efforts or counter piracy operations in the gulf of aden have engendered unprecedented international cooperation at sea, our demonstrated ability to partner with other agencies as well as public and private international organizations have proven crucial in most effectively building partner capacity in africa, south america and the pacific rim. it's worth noting that the most recent africa partnership station, an activity that's based on one of our amphibious ships, and the most recent planning conference that was held in italy, 25 nations came together to participate in that endeavor in preventive security and the rule of law. and since 2005, from our ships alone, we are treated over half a million patients in africa, asia, central and south america. across such day-to-day engagement efforts to challenge irregular challenges, naval
forces reserve but the option in the capability to deliver decisive force in the event and stability becomes disorderly come up with the punitive way to establish global relationships and political legitimacy in our favor. by doing so, i'm not sure balancing approach can afford our forces protection in the fullest sense of the term as they execute the engagement in the security assistance missions are nations ask of them. regardless, the characteristics of dispersion, flexibility and mobility, which huntington observed in u.s. naval forces 56 years ago remain today and will prove critical in ensuring the access we have come to expect in the pursuit of our national interest. thank you and i look forward to your questions. [applause] >> thank you, terrific, terrific. questions, questions? can we have a microphone come
down here. while we're waiting, sir, you are distinguished not just in the navy, but also for dragons, which means reaching out to other services. what do you see as the key to taking the concept of offshore balancing and extending it in the joint environment? >> i think what we have been able to do with the positioning of our forces in various places around the world is to have those forces be the catalyst, the facilitator and indeed the platform from which other forces can operate. it is not uncommon, for example, for special operations forces to operate from our ships and submarines, as they work around the world. as we pursue addressing some of the irregular challenges, and i talked for some of the humanitarian assistance work we do. we come together with the other services and nongovernmental organizations to be able to
bring those capabilities ensure to address the needs of those populations that quite frankly, in their wildest dreams, would never see that type of medical or humanitarian assistance be brought into their areas. and this is all done in a joint context. so i think it's a pretty rich joint environment. but what we are able to provide is that he is, if you will, that facility offshore that does not infringe on sovereignty, but yet has the ability to interact with local populations in pretty significant ways. and one could say well, that's just on the beach. but most recently, we have had an amphibious ready group, a group comprised of our amphibious ships and marines delivering humanitarian assistance into pakistan. is the second time we've done not about the last 10 years or
so. the first response to haiti, the earthquake in haiti was a pacific fleet guided missile destroyer whose last mission was what they missile defense in the mediterranean and she was going on the long wait and happen to be passing by a.d., where she was able to put in place the air control mechanisms that enable the relief effort to comment. and in my own personal experience, having been in the pacific during the synonymy of 2004, that became the genesis for much of our humanitarian assistance disaster response work that we've undertaken because the first forces to arrive on scene with the united states navy off the coast of indonesia. >> thank you. most helpful. yes, sir.
and the potential that imposes same time you have fully endorse the wars in iraq and afghanistan. and pakistan, yemen, somalia and would like to ask you to be specific about whether in fact you do see an ongoing problem that is related to the issues that he is addressed in his work of u.s. military david is solution. >> i think, you know, to the point, as you said, i do endorse
the liberties that we have underway. that said, as i look to the future, based largely on my experiences over the years, is that i do believe in the future that the sensitivities associated with sovereignty will become more acute. candidates and the form of the offshore options in the capabilities that we bring that back can be mitigated. and so, that's how i would see the future unfolding. yes, sir. >> my name is steve heisenberg and let me say thank you very much for making time to give your comments today. i'm very pleased that the next decades to have a chance to hear your remarks. i think at least part of your comments illustrated disconnect between what we are doing and perhaps what we should be doing.
you mentioned our operations in the gulf of aden. most analyses that i have read over the years and on most all of the military journal suggests that even with orders of magnitude, more effort by regular military naval force and not just u.s., whatever countries, it would not appreciably present or deter ongoing piracy by the somalis. given that, is it not conceivable at least that ultimately the solution lies in the restoration of a politically economically, socially viable government of somalia, which we currently don't have. if that's the case, then perhaps more effort, more money ought to be donated to agencies other than dod and services, is it
conceivable that you and your joint chiefs and may be politically you can answer this, but at least consider taking some money out of the dod budget and giving it to other departments and agencies. i know that your boss, secretary gates in the past has been very articulate in the point and said look, we can't do it all. and it's not our job. you have to turn to stage another agency, so i know previous to somalia, which you go over there? >> i think secretary gates on several occasions has been clear about the cooperation and the desire, and indeed the need, for other agencies to have solutions that you address. and i've been very clear as i've talked about the issue of piracy, that ultimately the solution will be found ashore in a rule of law and enforcement of
laws that get to the heart of what is basically a criminal business. to say that coalition forces -- and i refer to it as the strange bedfellows, simply because five years ago, if you would have said that the u.s. and nato and the e.u. would be conducting piracy operations, everybody would've said fine. but then we have russia and we have china and malaysia and india, iran shows up occasionally. so, the fact of the matter is that to do nothing at sea, it would be unfettered. right now, with work that the partners are doing in the somali basin, the gulf of aden and the best practices that shipping companies have now put in place, at least that is making it harder for the pirates to do their work. but i don't disagree at all but the solution is one of getting
ashore and stopping the problem issuer, much as the streets around the locker did a few years ago. significant problem. they put in place the maritime security structure. they worked together. they cooperated. they have the benefit of rule of law a short and you could squeeze the pirates both from the shore in the sea and we have do. >> thank you for your service. my name is alan bock, i'm a journalist. my son is a young officer on the uss cole. today in fact is the 10th anniversary of the blowing up of the uss cole by suicide bombers. and in fact, right now the service is going on in norfolk for the 17 who died in the 39 who were wounded. my son is working right now for that service. he has just returned for seven months off of somalia and yemen. and they did apprehend pirates.
they didn't kill any. they took weapons away. they turned them over. they are doing remarkable work. they also -- they also found refugees and helped refugees who are floating around on the ships. and zero, i appreciate the work that they're doing. and his roommate went to haiti and is in pakistan right now. so i'm a biased mother. >> and you should be. >> thank you for your work. >> thank you. and i had the pleasure of visiting cole in djibouti on a recent visit while the ship was deployed. and i made a comment at the time, you know, we in the military often hearken back to work traditions and experiences that we've had. and one of the great famous one that exists in our navy and is probably even been heard in american households from time to
time is don't give up the ship. and we seem to think of that is a bit of our heritage from the past. but if you ever want to see and hear a story of heroism and that embodied, don't give up the ship, the saving of coal in the harbor 10 years ago. reinforced every import tens of that passion, that commitment and that determination that could make a difference. >> good morning, admiral. i'm david shore up the sale of foundation. thank you for your remarks. i was especially glad to hear you talk about the idea of a just and sustainable order, something i think a lot about. and i should mention that the talk about global public goods and prominent in my list is always the freelance security not sure balancing. i want to ask you about china, both in the glass half-empty and the glass half full way.
first, you know, immediately can you give us your on the south china seas in the korean peninsula and where the pla is and where the relationship can get to be. and then, looking down the road more intended as a gimmick class gets more than half full way? in terms of the provision of global public goods, looking down the road is free ceilinged communication, something for a time immemorial, the united states needs to provide or could we imagine that said just as sustainable international order, which after all is safe lyrical evolution in china and elsewhere goes in the good direction, could that be a shared global public goods sunday? >> thank you. and thanks for the question.
i've got an opportunity to see the pla navy of all of from a fairly unique live since the early 90s as a result of some assignments that ipod, opportunities that i have had to visit with the pla, to spend time with my counterpart and the pla name. and what is happening in china and the pla navy, in particular, is not unusual. this has happened throughout history as the nation's economy rises and as the economy as a stun the flow of resources coming in and goods going out. there is a tendency that that nation will build a navy to assure those flows. the portuguese did it, the dutch did itcome in the did it. we did it and now we see china doing that. the desires that we have
obviously is to have relationship with the pla navy that is more transparent than it is today. but i would say that we have been able to do some things with the pla navy. i mentioned counter piracy. we have worked through the ability to communicate better with one another at sea. as we speak, a pla navy hospital ship is in africa, not unlike what we have been doing for the past few years. when a hospital ship was fun mission in south america last year, i invited my pla counterpart 2 cents and doctors to that ship, which he did. and so, i do believe that there were some opportunities. the desire for transparency and inherent international law is what we seek in the south china sea and east china sea. and for the ability for those
nations to short out the competing maritime claims that exists and i'm confident that as we go forward, working with their friends and partners in the region, we will avoid any significant friction that can develop from the sorts of claims. so i think there are some opportunities. i would like to see greater transparency on the part of the pla navy, but is it maybe that's following a contract or that is not unique in history. the admiral really does maybe all over the world. and i'm told it's time for him to go back to work. we can take one more. can we get the closest microphone to jeff. yes, sir, we'll do one last question. >> good morning, sir. in a very good question you
mention china. what do you think will be the biggest challenge for the navy adjusting the terms of its relationship with the chinese navy as it rises? and changes the equation actually? >> you know, i believe when you say readjusting our relationship at the pla navy, i believe that we have been on a modest trajectory to work cooperatively in areas. i think that what we have been able to do in the gulf of aden is a very positive step. i would like to see that translated into other geographic areas where we enjoy the same level of cooperation and communication and mutual support. and so, i don't see a readjustment. i see us continuing to move forward to work with the pla navy in a cooperative way and in a way that provides for the free
unencumbered and predictable use of the sea lanes and appropriate access to the resources that may be on the bottom or simply may be swimming in the oceans. and not what i focus on in developing a relationship with them. thank you very much. >> in closing, just before you go, i want to say that truly great leaders don't just listen, they act. and what were seen today, the man who is really acting to build a better future and just tell me thank them for coming today. [applause] >> thank you very much, admiral and bob. and again, i want to thank all of you for being with us and also say a special greeting to our c-span viewers. i'm steve clemons at the new america foundation. as he went on a little bit to accommodate the admiral, and i
should say at the outside, we're putting provocative ideas on the table. i think bob spoke challenges to some of the orthodoxies about the way in which we look at the deployment of power in dealing with some of these terrorist questions. and it has been heartening to see the support. we've had a feast engagement for the administration. were during a private dinner tonight. but the inverse lottery and samantha powers of the national security council and state department participating with the department of defense, this is a sign of engagement with ideas. and it's something i take a stab and more. so bob was allowed to let the last session runover because he was taking time away from itself. bob pape is the author of cutting the views. i've already got the boat and found it very important. recently as i mentioned, the lodge at the university of chicago -- of the chicago
project on u.s. terrorism website which i encourage you to look at. how does a political science at the university of chicago who is also author of dying to win and bombing to win. he spends a lot of time talking to military officials about their strategies. so my partner in this conference, robert pape will now share the core parts of his work. these welcomes pape. >> thank you very much, everyone. in 2004, donald rumsfeld asked what i think was the pivotal question about the war on terrorism. are we producing more terrorists than we're killing? well, i study suicide terrorism. suicide terrorism is the most early form of terrorism, killing more people by far than all the other forms. over 10 times per attack -- excuse me, into the details, but it's the lung cancer of terrorism. if we could stop lung cancer, we would save lots of people's
lives. the same of suicide terrorism. so let's apply the rumsfeld standard to suicide terrorism. in 2000, the year 2000, there were 20 suicide attacks around the world. one was anti-american. as a mother just told us, the call. and the last 12 months, there have been over 300 suicide attacks around the world, over 270 anti-american inspired. by the corvette chick that matters, we are producing more terrorists than we're killing. the warrants are has simply been an abysmal failure. why? why? what's underneath that? were surely go, how should we move beyond the war on terror? as i said, i spent my life almost collecting information on suicide attacks. you now know i'm the director of the chicago project on security and terrorism.
i have a research team of 10 people, many of them are here, that collect information on suicide terrorist attacks all around the world, not just in english, but the key native languages associated with the phenomenon arab, hebrew, russian. what is the if he is coming to see reflected all hundred suicide attacks around the world in the last 30 years. every single one we could find. i just want to show you a little bit about the data that this is built on. if you go to our seatpost website, which puts a phenomenal amount of data on the web for free for you to search and for you to export. and this may be especially helpful for journalists, people doing research to generate reports on suicide terrorism. i want to show you a little bit about what's on the website. see the matrox website. you go to search database and you can find very nicely the research with great variables for you to search from 19822010.
i just in a quick one here for you on lebanon because most of you are familiar with hezbollah, the famous suicide. so the total lebanon, you'll end up with the next chart, which is a summary that there were 38 attacks during -- since 1980. but what's really important is how good is this data? how good is this data? why our government officials paying attention to this? not because of the summary, because what i'm about to show you now. for each one of those tax, you'll see few details. welcome you can then go into the information on the attacks. and this is not just the number killed, location. we often have names of the suicide attackers. we often have socioeconomic information about the attackers. but you still ask, how good is this data? every bit of data here's collaborated. no anonymous internet chat room. look at the source of underneath this. and this is just the nose. because you can go to these
sources and see the actual hard tax verification of each and every bit of data. that is we have put over 10,000 core documents on the web. about four for each of those attacks. and if you find a problem, you can just bring it to our attention. this is very reliable data and it's something that the government has been getting actually for some time. certain parts of the government. and it's now available for free on the web and of course it has the book, laying out free patterns of what you see in the data. so what do you see in the data? what i want to do is talk about suicide terrorism around the world in two parts. first from 1980 to 2003. the thing about that is suicide terrorism before iraq. and then from 2004 on. from 19,822,003, there were 343
completed suicide terrorist attacks to find in classic sense of an individual killing himself, himself or herself from herself on a mission to kill others. the world leader in that period is not an islamic group. they are the tamil tigers in sri lanka, a marxist group, a secular group, a hindu group. the topmost in more suicide attacks and hamas. think about that for a moment. further, over a third of all muslim suicide attacks were by purely secular groups such as the pkk in turkey, which is another marxist anti-religion suicide terrorist group. over half were not connected with islamic fundamentalism. instead, with over 95% of all suicide attacks since 1980 a patent, and is not religion, but a specific, strategic object is
to compel a democratic state to withdraw combat forces. i don't mean advisors for sidearms. i mean fighter aircraft and armor unit from territory that terrorists consider their homeland or prize greatly from lebanon to the west bank, to chechnya and now it's iraq and afghanistan. every suicide terrorist campaign since 1980 has been waged by terrorist groups around this central object is related to ground forces threatening territory. this chart takes this 95% of the suicide attack that fit that pattern. not quite 100%. and shows you the man disputes that produce. and as you can see, territory, important to terrorists is central to each and every one of these disputes.
moneyback lebanon, the famous example. because many of you know hezbollah. in june 1982, hezbollah did not exist. in june 1982, israel invaded southern lebanon with 78,000 combat soldiers, 3000 tanks and armored vehicles, one month later hezbollah was born. then over the next year, for reasons were still not sure why, hezbollah began to experiment with suicide attacks. and the fourth attack was the famous suicide trust are made of our marines in beirut in october 83, killing 241 of our marines. the same day they did a suicide attack against the french killing the french soldiers. ronald reagan, certainly no power to this a few months later decides to withdraw all american combat forces from the country rather than face another suicide attack. the french left we did. and then israel left, first in 8626-mile security zones in the southern part of the country.
and in may 2000, the israeli army left altogether. what's important about the withdrawals is that hezbollah suicide attackers did not follow the americans to new york or the french to paris or even the israelis to tel aviv. since may 2000, there has been zero lebanese suicide attacks. even during the summer of 2006 when we have this three-week war between hezbollah and israel. my goodness, if this was just about islamic radicals looking for a quick trip to heaven, we would have expected hundreds of suicide attackers by hezbollah and that 2006. and yes, we get zero. so what i'm saying is there's powerful additive that foreign occupation is the trigger for both secular and religious suicide attackers, much like the way smoking triggers lung cancer. but let's go further and examine
9/11. this research is the first to collect the complete set of the 71 individuals from 1995 to 2004 who actually killed themselves carrying out attacks for osama. of the 71, we don't have names, nationality and other socioeconomic data is 67. as you can see, the largest number come from saudi arabia. the vast majority from the arabian peninsula where the united states first began to station combat forces in 1990. you see, 1990 was a watershed year in our military deployment to the arabian peninsula. yes, before 1990 we had a few advisors for sidearms, mostly marines and pistol stood in front of embassy. but now, fighter aircraft, no armor unit, going all the way back to world war ii. 1990 we went in to get saddam out of kuwait, which we did by march 91.
we never made a decision to stay. we just never last. and the al qaeda attacks start five years later. but those are just statistics so far. what about the al qaeda attackers themselves? i want to show you martyr videos from six of the most notorious al qaeda suicide attackers. i want to show you four of the 9/11 hijackers. they are going to speech you in arabic as other subtitles underneath so you can read them, so you can understand them. i'm also going to shoot the martyr videos from two of the london bombers from july 2005. they will speak to you in english. and let me just let you listen to that. will book in english. bomber.
that of course can produce revenge. occupations can also create the environment in which people can become heroes for their community by throwing off the occupation. occupations can also encourage people to become religious, even more villages perhaps as a way to deal with this newfound environment suddenly oppressing them. it's not that there is one specific -- specific micro motives. it said all those notice are linked to the occupation. and why the occupation in general is because when there are foreign ground forces on territory overseas, especially a powerful country like the united states, local communities often believe -- not always, but often believe they lost control of their government.
many people in saudi arabia believe that if the american relationship, which is the only thing keeping the house in power and that that government will be gone were it not for that relationship with the united states. i'm not trying to tell you they're always right. but what i am trying to tell you is imagine if you would at there was the chinese army 15,000 strong in maryland. imagine that chinese army had to deal with the white house to be in maryland. does that mean that everybody in the united states would accept that? does that mean -- would you be surprised that there would be people who would question that relationship? i wouldn't be surprised for a moment. and it's not because i think that we are somehow more radical. i think it's because the occupation, that is a foreign military presence can create the environment triggering all of those symptoms we so often
associate with suicide terrorism. now if this is right, if this argument is right -- and i've only told you about after 2003, what should we expect if there is more occupation? well, a lot like smoking and lung cancer. if there's more smoking, lung cancer. and what we see is there's more occupation, we get more suicide terrorism. you see since 2004, there've been over 1800 suicide attacks around the world. many times more than from 1980 to 2003. and they're not scattered around the world as they would be if they were merely a product of religious fanaticism for any ideology independent of a certain stamp. they're concentrated. they're concentrated tightly around occupations. now through this pattern between the empirical connection between suicide terrorism and foreign
occupation to be wrong, with 2200 attacks now, we would have to have missed now just five suicide attacks around the world, not even 50. they would literally have to be hundreds of suicide attacks occurring somewhere around the world, not on this chart. i don't mean over undercutting iraq. i mean in mozambique, in south africa, somewhere else on this chart. and i don't think i can credibly tell you is that every single suicide attack on the world, although i don't if we've missed even five. i'm sure we have witnessed 200 in the last five or six years. you would know that. this is powerful evidence for the logic that's driving suicide terrorism against us. moreover, notice again how many now are anti-american inspired. for me just a few words about the specific cases, especially the ones most prominent, iraq. iraq is the core example of this
logic before our invasion in march 2003, iraq never experienced the suicide attack in its history. and as you can see, the suicide attacks mount up until 2007 and then they come down into big steps. first in 27,208 and then again from a weight on down. why? why did they come down in this way? and let me explain each of the two steps. first, from 2007 and 2008, most people would instinctively say the surge, we put in more troops and putting in more troops is what brought down. well, let's take a look at that. these are the numbers of troops in iraq or the pentagon bb numbers and looking in september of six to september await. look at the total number of u.s. and coalition troops in iraq. they actually go down during the surge.
why? because while we were putting in 20,000 troops, our allies were leaving faster. were essentially for the country as a whole backfilling for our allies leaving. today seem i say wait a minute, maybe they were distributed in a certain way. the key thing is to know about suicide terrorism is that all the suicide terrorism in iraq was sunni. none from shia, none from kurds. we did have ordinary violence and a three sided ordinary civil war happening side-by-side with the suicide attacks. but all the sunni -- all the suicide terrorism was sunni. why is that? remember, it was america that toppled the previous government and saddam has sunni and is replacing it with the the government with the sunnis who feel most oppressed by the toppling of that government. they live in an bar, the sunni
shine gold. so if that was the case, then we look at the number of troops. and notice that we do put up a few more troops in and barred. but nowhere near what would be needed to suppress the insurgency, the sunni part of according to general petraeus's manual. we did kneaded over 100,000 troops. what really mattered from 2007 until 2008 was the growth of the sons of iraq comedy and by weakening. what happened is we paid 100,000 terrorists who are killing us $300 a month to basically do one thing. we want to do some other things, too. the surgery went think in a $300 a month check. don't tell us. they could buy guns. we want them to buy food you want them to have jobs. but don't kill us. well, they took the deal. 100,000.
and what does that matter? with 100,000 self empowered local groups -- a local group of that size can't they can now feel confident about their way of life against the americans, against the shiite dominated government against the terrorists. so they can to sit this one out. that's why so much suicide terrorism came down in that period. and further of course n-november 22,008, that's when we signed the agreements to withdraw. and by the way, just look at how successful we have been in the last two years, suicide terrorism is down over 85% in the country as we pulled out over 100,000 troops. what about iraq -- afghanistan? this is merely the opposite story. in afghanistan, before 2001, there were again zero in this country to recall history. they start in 2001.
and for the first two years, there were only teeny tiny numbers of suicide attacks. and in 2006, suddenly there's a spike and it stays high. why? y 2006? well, first the target, who's been striped? degree in our and nato troops, which killing -- getting the lion's share of the suicide attacks, why suddenly our suicide attacks in such large numbers occurring against u.s. and nato troops in 2006? well, who's doing this. we can identify and collaborate the identity of 93 of the afghan suicide attackers. 90% are afghan nationals. a few% are from the border region. only 5% are from outside the region of conflict. this is not some global jihad swirling around the world. this is vocal opposition to u.s.
and western military presence. but still, y 2006? maybe there's something to do with grand forces, but not simply. here is the curve of us putting ground forces in the country. and first thing you notice in 2010, this is the obama surge, as we've actually been surging 20,000 troops, u.s. and western troops each of the last four years. obama surge for the last round of this. but why 2006? has had a steady flow. the key thing you need to know it is in those early years, when we only had a few thousand troops in the country, they were occupying kabul, not spread around the country. basically defending karzai and talk over 2003 when the u.n. gave us a mandate to spread about the rest of the country. and then, like a good military
staff, isaf developed a plan. and this is iss actual planned. the map of isaf for spreading our forces. our forces around the rest of the country. first we went north. our friends, northern alliance. and midwest, more friends. and starting in 2006, the south and east. that's when the suicide attacks explode against our troops in the south. the suicide attackers are not just afghan nationals. their pashtuns from the south and east. and by the way, six months later, we have an explosion of suicide terrorism in pakistan in the western regions of pakistan, which are also pashtuns. because while we're directly occupying the past year and homeland in afghanistan, the same time we put pressure on musharraf to take 100,000 pakistani afghan troops, moved
them from the eastern part of the country and put them on the western part of the country to essentially and directly occupy the other half of the passion homelands. and over 75% of all those hundreds of suicide attacks in pakistan have been against the pakistani army in western pakistan, part of our indirect occupation of that part of the posh to homeland. now, this is just not about the suicide terrorism over there. i want to talk to you about how al qaeda recruit attackers here, homegrown terrorist. i want show you adam khaddam. adam khaddam is the poster child for recruiting homegrown suicide terrorists. he is an american citizen. he is about 33 years old. he was born in riverside, california. his name is adam.
his father is jewish. when he was young, the family converts to christianity and as a teenager he converted to islam. well, in 2006, this was a coming-out video. the first time his face was shown. and i just want you to see his pitch for recruiting homegrown terrorists to kill us. and by the way, about two thirds of the way through, remember the fort hood shooting spree. >> is important to keep in mind that the american, the british and the other culture of tears had intentionally comforted as a civilian target. [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible]
>> so no 72 versions. from beginning to land, this is the call to respond to the plight of a kindred population under a foreign occupation. it's terribly important to understand how al qaeda thinks it can best recruit if were going to develop policy to stop that process, cutting the fuse, getting them before they start. so what policies should we pursue? i don't believe we should simply cut and run. we pulled our ground forces out of regions abruptly over six months because we do have important interests overseas. we have important obligations overseas. nor do i think we should simply stay indict because we're producing more anti-american terrorists than we're killing.
rather, the alternative is below ground approach is offshore balancing. is the use of air power and naval power and economic and political tools and alliances with local groups to sit here are interests overseas. this policy of offshore balancing, we pursued for decades in the persian gulf in the 1970s and 80s and it worked splendidly. the policy of offshore balancing is what allowed us to rapidly deploy forces to the persian gulf ground forces to kick it on out of kuwait. that's policy of offshore balancing is what allowed us to topple the taliban in 2001. in 2001, the taliban controlled 90% of the country. what did we do in the fall? we put in 50 guys on the ground. we used airpower and then we used economic and political alols to empower the northern