tv Public Affairs Events CSPAN December 30, 2016 4:00pm-6:01pm EST
in deali with other kinds of nations is that a tiny fraction is willing to take over, staging the worldthe rest of is disorganized and helpless unless somebody from the outside comes in. to say these people could not move quickly enough to deal with that sort of >> it is an extraordinarily harsh and misguided judgment. if someone could of topped the 1933,hat took place in that would have been wonderful. if taylor had occupied the lerneland and the -- if hit had occupied the rhineland and he had been countered. if the lusitania had not been sunk, thousands of lives would have been saved. the categorical decision is
indefensible. what is defensible is the united states made some harebrained decisions. authoritarian,me so it is not the good places to go in. it is sensible american policy to send some tanks to poland and latvia to stop the russians. i am not prepared to announce that we had a categorical rule that says that we keep our hands clean and hope the direct threat comes. there is too much interdependence in the world to adopt that. now we're going to go to chris. >> there's one thing that
richard said that i heard before and i find hard to believe. why don't you have a wireless mic? just kidding. , at the time of washington's farewell address and the drafting of the it paled in, comparison to the threats that we face in 2016? i fair in saying that -- am fair in saying that? >> i will give my response. me is that the founders were confronted to quite an urgent threat to their
security and liberty. every single day. at the time they were drafting the constitution, british and french are ships would routinely round of american sailors, saying they were deserters from the british navy. and in some cases they were. impress impress met -- americans rubbed us the wrong way and we also had the native americans wearing about the fact that they were fact -- worrying about the they were being run off their land by the american military. that was in 1781. our american military has vast necessarymost is not
to defend this country from harm pts us tois what tem extend our definition of what is required to keep us safe and secure. we don't need that power for ourselves. it is an easy thing to defend our country from foreign troops. we don't need to have that military to defend this country from harm. we have expanded our defensive perimeter as far away as you can possibly get. afghanistan, roughly 8000 miles away, roughly. rationale,se that friendly nation, should that be the rationale guiding u.s. foreign-policy? i don't think richard has
clarified the circumstances of friendly. in fact, he allowed my stipulation that a friendly nation that was once your friend has changed character and maybe they are not a friend anymore. are you obligated to defend them? as long as turkey is a friend of nato, it doesn't matter what it is doing to its own people. i find that problematic. the last point is of this. we should not skip too lightly passed the credential -- to lightly past the credential question of whether our intervention is going to work. ispursued the tory -- can we assumeory --
that sort of action can make a situation better? richard interprets that our that our successes outweigh our failures, that is what we are debating. but it seems to me, the presumption against this course is very high and we should not expanded to include cases that are not in our own self-defense. >> we now go to the question and answer period. that is 30 minutes. there is a mic where people can line up. i'm going to take moderators prerogative. first question for you, richard. all by whatured at
libertarians would be concerned with this moral hazard problem. government tends to screw things up. talked about our disaster in iraq. isn't that business as usual, government screws things up? concerned about the standing army that will pressure us to go to war? if we tell various countries we will defend you and have the power of the united states behind you, those countries might be tempted to misbehave. and,u see those downsides as a libertarian, do they concern you? >> they absolutely concern me.
that is why i'm not saying the rule is categorical where when anyone is in trouble we have to help. line fromhe famous james madison that enlightened states will not always be a beacon. they need someone to check them. to make sure that you have better people and, in fact, this problem exists when there is a case of direct attack just as when there is a case of indirect situation. the reason people should spend so much time in the corporate, academic, and political world in choosing their leaders is it turns out there is nothing you can do to stop them. who is responsible for the decision to disarm in 2003 when
the war was over? get an answer. it was in congress and it wasn't to george bush. this was a terrible lack of presidential leadership. is there, in fact, a kind of difficulty where government always screws things up. yes, but then you have to figure out how you improve governments. you also have problems with your allies. here is the question we have in europe is the one that you mentioned. the united states is a strong and we are down from 6% to 2% in the last 60 years. we need to get them to bring themselves to fulfill their treaty obligations.
to figure out exactly what combination of carrots and sticks we use with people. ourthing libertarians hate discussion and uncertainty. if you are in business, that is all you face. if you are in government and doing these kinds of things, that is all you face. you have to make sure you are doing it well. is last question you asked the key to allies like the turkish. you might want to renegotiate something like article five of the treaty. the more important question to realize is if you really take the categorical position, we don't get ourselves involved in overseas defense, then you can't get involved in any kind of defense treaty that might bind you later on.
that seems to be a indefensible position. is, youestion to you make a distinction between wars of choice and worse of necessity. which is the last war the united states fought that you would have supported? >> the afghan intervention after the 9/11 attacks. with a cleared military objective. that war was justifiable as a matter of self-defense and retaliation to punish the taliban. madereat error that was was redefining the mission six months after it started. we are now many years into a war with no end in sight. that i wouldsts
reject the concept of alliances under any circumstance and that is not true. temporary alliances, put together to advance a common interest, make absolute sense. what the founders warned against was permanent alliance. alliances not directed at dealing with a specific threat. even the nato alliance was developed to deal with a particular threat. now that threat has gone away and changed radically. please ask a question as a question and you'll get a chance to smooze it up with these guys later. >> for richard and chris both, at yalta at the end of world war ii where he had a meeting of churchill, stalin, and truman.
should harry truman have a demanded that the russians and stalin remove their troops from eastern europe and we go to the aid of these innocent people after world war ii? >> the answer is a no, i think truman did the right thing. this was the man who was repaired -- was prepared to use nuclear force. the right thing to do was what they did. you fortify the west, have the marshall plan and put pressure in places where you can make a difference, which are places where itria and greece was not clear.
you have the nato arrangement. the difference between permanent and temporary sounds great, but no one knows where this line is. the principle is, the longer the but there is no per se rule. with yourbled rhetorical ability, but going back to your point. feelsttacking b and a some sense of morality and needs to step in. i would go into the issue of it is not clearly cut. we go in with selfless ideals
about helping somebody. owing back the last 30 or 40 last, -- going back to the 30 or 40 years, i would say military actions were not done uisticltra stick -- altr reason. people are moral, countries are not moral. >> how do you respond to those objections? >> it is easy if you know that a is a good guy and b is a bad guy. prevent thervene to bloodshed but may not take the side of one person or another. the thing you do is understand
that no one in the history of western civilization has been somethingme up with reasonable under the circumstances. when you entered into the international arena, i think you gave away the game. i agree there is uncertainty, but he said there will be mixed becausein another sense your idea is we are not helping out of the benevolence of our oilt, but to keep an reserves or a military base or what ever. if you keep the rule that you can go in when there is an invasion of a third-party and you can't defend yourself, that says you don't want the line between the two to be divisive, but you take the facts and on both ends of the problem and see how it comes together. >> richard raised the issue of
interest. when the united states intervened to advance its thatests, at least let intervention be justified on the grounds that the united states is trying to advance american and safety. 80 -- a persone upon drowning in the water, are we obligated to throw them a life ring? obligated,e are not but we feel a strong presumption to do so. what is the person is drowning because someone else is a drowning? is drowninglse them. behold we have become
involved in a dispute that we don't understand very well. i'm not accusing richard of saying it is simple, but i'm saying that there are a number of instances in retrospect, had we known of those things, we would have done something differently. >> it is a question of, how you under these circumstances try to deal with uncertainty. the moment you have high levels of uncertainty in both directions, that's when the categorical rules become more dangerous. there was a study on the number people don'te intervene and to intervene. the number of people who intervene and up drowning
up drowning- end themselves. look longu have to and hard before you get in there. there is no way you can get with discretion.d of bes is something that cannot delegated to the private sector. excepto not disagree there are two types of errors. notrvening too often and intervening often enough. >> next question. >> question for chris, a special case of the good samaritan. i'm walking down the street and there is an old woman being beat up by a bug -- by a thug. win, so should i
intervene as a matter of rentable -- principal? you,ur conscience is on where as actions of the u.s. government are borne by everyone. >> this is true in every single case where the united states has intervened, whether it is in defense of itself were not. the united states to get involved in a case of direct force and there are huge numbers of dissenters. to go back to the question of representative government is just a copout. we picked to them. it is always more difficult and the international arena because you have to figure out how you organize yourself. you are the representative of a corporation, but one of your shareholders disagree with you.
the law has always taken the position that even in cases of either the rescue, we don't compel you. not only the aspirations of individual on tommy -- individual autonomy. my question is, principally, for chris. should britain and france have declared war on nazi germany after czechoslovakia in 1938? should have they -- should they have waited until poland? >> in 1938, the decision was a credential one. the british did not think of
themselves ready to wage war with nazi germany and not all by themselves. nature but -- the they recognize that there was danger. they realized the decision the french maid was a foolish one -- made was a foolish one. no two cases are identical. that does not mean it is always wise to wage war because you are not ready to do so. >> the french were prepared to go after hitler's army, and the british were not.
everyone who look at what happened in the case of germany understands that this was one thing about the heart of the beast of this man. his instructions were be nice to the germans on anti-semitism so maybe they will repay the war debt. if that is the way you are running your foreign policy, the law has to protect us all. >> next question. >> the conspiracy is that fdr and his cohorts manipulated japan to attack america so they could declare war on japan and
germany would follow suit. treaty betweenon japan and germany that they would defend each other when one was attacked. japan was clearly not attacked. why did germany get into the war ? diaries kept in japan glorying peddler -- hite ler-- hitler? >> i find the historical scholarship on the back door to war unconvincing. i would also point out that by the summer of 1941, the united providing already arms and assistance. >> you think that was right or wrong?
threat.s no direct >> that is not true. we have framed this question over whether or not there is a threat. justification for the united states to become involved in these disputes is the nature of the threat presented. aidingstion is are we friendly nations when the united states is not under a threat. an attack of direct force is an attack on the united states or its citizens at home or abroad. view, either one of these is fine and the german one is better because they are going to keep you out.
and they are saying they are not coming across. washington was right. we have a billion direct threats and no ability to help anyone at home. at that time, you want to make sure you defend yourself. , there's something known as the republican form of government calls -- clause. there is a huge amount of thermation about circumstances of being attacked by another state. have freet that you energy to go 4000 miles away, he was right. my view was that roosevelt was an excellent were president -- war president. i don't want to talk about the new deal.
question. over the last 200 years, we have gone from a population of one billion people to 7.5 billion people. we have plenty of resources and we have the technological capacity to meet our human needs. rather than limiting ourselves , which is what we are doing here. let's think about how we can go hownd gain theory and think we can include everyone and not go to war over resources. itit takes to not to play -- takes two not to play.
attacked, it will be enforced by the allies. if not more sensible that if your sovereignty is attacked unfairly, there will be repercussions whether it is from the united states or global allies. knower than saying, you what, if you are attacked, we are not going to do anything. what kind of president does that set for russia. precedent does that set for russia coming into lithuania? >> the situation that the united states has created for the world americana. the united states will be the defective guarantor for states unable to defend themselves.
i think that is a fundamental vulnerability in the current international system. the international system has grown too dependent on the power of a single state. a single state that is 5% of the ourlation of the planet and economic output is shrinking. both of those are shrinking. we havee, the message sent to our allies is, don't defend yourself or don't feel a primary obligation to defend yourself because of the united states will do it for you. an interesting thing has occurred in europe over the last 6-8 months. on the mere suggestion on the part of mr. trump that he will , the mereticle five
possibility that donald trump will become president of the united states has invoked a measure of caution and hedging on the part of other countries. they are thinking seriously about defending themselves. i would never have recommended this process to arrive at that end state. if the average military spending 2% gdp, iis closer to ask you, is that a bad thing? pax americana,- it was meant to discourage that kind of behavior. americana usepax that leadership role to encourage people to protect themselves by a constant caret
-- carrot and stick negotiation. rump's behavior towards china is good. risk, high return man. we are going to be on a roller coaster for the next year. there's nothing about the pax americana that says it don't do anything. when we did the first invasion ofiraq, it was a coalition many nations. you could not liberate kuwait and then the united states fought another war, which it had to do alone. >> the use of force is always a
justified by any country in self-defense. why would the united states even imply that it was better for us and them, other countries, to rely on the united states primarily for their defense? the way this was negotiated in the wake of world war ii both in europe and in asia, it made perfect sense. these countries were broken and broke. they cannot defend themselves and we did not want them to. the question is, when are we going to revisit this argument? when are we going to say to countries around the world that your primary duty is to self-defense? the primary obligation of this country -- of any country is self-defense. that is a core principle of
international relations. how do you think our policy towards allowing or not allowing were refugees to immigrate -- war refugees to immigrate or not immigrate to the united states. how will that affect future intervention? >> if this results in activity to intervention, it creates an impossible situation. it is a huge concern of trying to put people in refugee camps without any visible economy to support and so forth. the reason we have not gone out i --the reason we have not gone and wiped out isis
is someone says red lines in the fans don't matter. i would have determined a policy to find a way to not drive millions of people from their homes. you have conflated two related, but not identical issues. there has been a civil war waste in serious is the arab spring. notassad government is strong enough to win or weak enough to be defeated. i struggle to identify a military mission of the united states could undertaken in syria that would have brought this conflict to a conflict in -- this conflict to a swift end. >> just one final question.
>> a question to mr. richard. you are talking necessity versus choice. i want to ask you about the practical application of that theory. what richard just said about regarding leadership roles. being a leader, you have to defend when you are not attacked. you either don't want any more bloodshed or you want to preserve your image as a superpower. what are the consequences of staying passive and taking no syria?r >> the passive role to which you refer involved with the obama administration arming individuals and groups and organizations that they somehow determined were the good guys in
syria. the moderate opposition, so to speak. i think that did not work. in the region are fueling the -- our allies in the region are fueling civil war. richard is now going to summarize for five minutes and think crystal summarize -- and then chris will summarize. what is theion is proposition on the table about what america can do. you do not take the passive strategy under -- strategy of only intervene under direct circumstances where a threat is defined. i'm saying there is a
dynamically -- i'm saying there are many strategies that you can adopt. you have to think about strategic alliances you have to make. these alliances are going to have some assistance on the one hand and then trying to control people. if you are engaged in a serious international negotiation, there will be all sorts of issues involving trade and international cooperation that will matter. when it comes to running these things, there are no rules that tell you when you do it and when you don't. but you can do is be aware of the following proposition. i think the syrian illustration -- syrian situation illustrate that. the russians have moved in there -- airrted an arizona zone.
the syrian government has taken over places like on the air -- like palmyra. you ask me if there is anything we can do directly in i would deal with this, say it is a situation we have created. it is very clear that the united date is already in iraq. measures go in by half and that is exactly what the president has a done. he decided ultimately we will win and in the meantime there will be confusion and so forth. if he had sent in a fourth to wipe out isis, he would have one. -- he would have won.
there is brutality taking place and it turns out the sanctions are not working because oil and money can always get in. the question is whether or not there is any per se rule that you can do. the two rules that we said, never get involved and never commit yourself to the use of ground forces in any theater has created the situation. see into the bottom of the well today. our president does not want to take any particular position, what he does is try to temporize in ways that are designed to compromise. one of the failures in international affairs has to do with the question between interventional -- individual
interventions on the one hand and collective intervention. the great problem we have in american foreign policy is we hawks in mywlks -- nor -- in majority and it does inminority -- and doves minority. position we should of taken is if you cannot do it right, don't do it. x americanaa of pa does not just mean force. for those of you who would like to the a model account of how the iraq thing was one between
2007 and 2008, read the story of what general pretorius wrote on what he did on all fronts. this is not some kind of mindless situation. you had a man of extraordinary confidence. in international affairs, there is no way you can delete the authority -- dilute the authority. here is christopher preble speaking for the negative. >> thank you for coming. i had a lot of fun. i hope you guys it did to. let me end with a story. i knew this guy in college he was one of my dearest friends. a great guy, told stories, we bob.oust -- everyone knew
he had his moments of embarrassment and he would drink too much. i never stop thinking of him as my friend. after we graduated, we stayed in touch. i built and out of the jail one time after a night of barhopping panettang -- i bailed jail one time after a night of barhopping gone wrong. he asked me to borrow money one-time and i handed over without hesitation. he was my friend. friends to do good deeds for friends all the time. i did not memorize this, but there was a case back in 1367.
edward of woodstock, also known as the black prince. he went to war in castile for his friend pedro, who was also known as pedro the cruel. pedro had been involved in a long-running feud with his brother henry. by a man prevented nicknamed the like don't of -- nicknamed the black dog of recellontt. war and there were about 7000 killed in a battle where the black dog with captured. he was ransomed by charles the
fifth. he was thought to be a great general. 14thears later, louis the waged wars on behalf of his friends. dog, did not black care who suffered on behalf of his foreign adventures. because he said, in the immortal words of mel brooks, it is good to be the king. somewhere along the way between the black dog and the sun king and today, we adopted a different approach. not expected to
wage war of the half -- on the half of their allies. they be tempted by ties of friendship or kinship. we have created institutions that restrict their power. has writtenein extensively on this document. this document includes these enumerated powers. i can point to them. i find no enumerated power in talks aboutt that the united states waging war on behalf of our friends. i submit that we can choose and should choose more widely,
guided by our interests. that is consistent with the wishes of the american people and is consistent with our founding principles. >> please take out your cell phones. states should be prepared to use force against friendly nations -- use force in the defense of friendly nations? vote yes, no, and if you are still undecided, but undecided. havefeel like we should jeopardy music playing right now.
if you vote for both times, your vote will be counted. if you did not vote the first time, but voted the second time, it will be counted. and vice versa. this program is so brilliant that you can only vote once each time. the results are in. those who voted yes on the proposition were initially %.most 30% -- 38 those who voted yes on the proposition after the bait work 45%. richard picked up about seven
percentage point. those who voted no on the proposition work 32%, those of voted no afterwards work 37%. richard takes the to the role by about a percentage point -- by about tootsie roll a percentage point. >> what is interesting is the number of undecideds. >> it was one third on each case. couple moreed up a points than did chris. richard went to the debate -- richard wins the debate. thank you very much.
sunday on c-span, emergency theger grateful gate -- former fema administrator. that is on 6:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. ♪ >> the presidential inauguration is friday,rump january 20. c-span will have coverage of all the days ceremony. watch live on c-span or c-span.org or listen live on the c-span radio app. the muslim public affairs
council met in long beach earlier this month. california'se was new appointed attorney general. also there were representatives from the white house and the new york city mayor. >> good evening to everyone in the room. thank you so much to everyone at impact. thank you for believing, for always working, for always being there for so many people who believe in the u.s. constitution, believe in this country's motto, that if you work hard and play by the rules, ahead. you will get
i want to congratulate the honorees for tonight. i want to thank some of the people that will speak here like my colleague from congress. you are going to have some very distinguished speakers like mr. kazeer kahn. himself intoetched the hearts and minds of so many americans. i want to say a few things to you as you prepare for 2017. you are important. you are important for the things that you do together, but you are also important in ways that you would not recognize. you make it possible for many of us to not only be friend and colleague, but you also give us
the talents of tomorrow. i want to thank everyone who made it possible for me to have my staff. and that's importantly, i want you to know, and i expect many of you can say this, i know you. i know you much better than you know. i know you because i suspect you work hard and you live by your values and you play by the rules. i know you because you build bridges, not walls. i know you because you believe and fight for our constitution. i know you because you want essentially what my parents wanted when they came to this country.
childrene to tell our that they own their own home, we and bend you to college able to retire indignity after the hard work we get to this country. because i know you, because i am the son of immigrants, because i love america, my country, so -- becausese i might i am a member of congress and because i have been tapped to be the next attorney general for the state of california, i want you to know i stand with you. i want to make sure you can take -- you can say with pride that i have your back. i want you to know, after all is probably stand here, willie fight together -- when we fight together, i want you to know it is because i know you better
than you think. we will work together to make this country prosperous and strong. [applause] >> i have the honor to introduce another friend of impact, and advocate for the muslim community. lou who said he is a donating to impact because of the divisive rhetoric of the campaign season. congressman lou. [applause] >> good evening, it is my honor to be here. let me first thanked and recognize my great colleague
javier geither -- javier. he is going to be a great attorney general for the state of california. before i give remarks, i want to recognize your co-founder and his many salam for years of dedication serving the community. i would like to call salam up. i have a statement of congressional recognition and it reads, sincere appreciation for your work upholding core american values and preserving constitutionally protected freedoms for all americans. [applause]
>> i want to talk about two issues. the first is the discrimination that you and i have based and will likely continue to face and how we can fight against the -- against that. this is not the first time i spoke at impact. i had the honor speaking here four years ago after you recognize me for being the first lowesal to challenge after their advertisement during the show "american muslim." i challenged that company and now we see echoes of that starting to happen. the reason i reacted so strongly to that incident is that it
reminded me of discrimination i had encountered. there is a form of discrimination that is somewhat affectsnd it's one that asian americans and american muslims. when some americans look at you or i, their first thought is that we are not americans. that we are not loyal to this country and we are somehow suspicious. that is had a series of profoundly negative effects in our country's history. countries our founding, we had hysteria against chinese and asian land laws that prevented agents from owning land and then the interment camps. killings of wthe en sho yen. and you had defendants accused
of espionage only to have the they were all asian-americans. within the muslim community, you have gone through an entire presidential campaign where there were racist and bigoted attacks against the community. you had to hear the president-elect talk about banning muslims and setting up a registry. you had a lot of very negative stereotypes put out there. what i want you to know is that i will be a voice in congress for you. i will fight for you. [applause] rep. lieu: i will fight for you, defend you and stand with you. as if they come after you, they will be coming after me. [applause]
lieu: we are all in the same boat together in this amazing country called america. we rise and fall as a nation. our framers were pretty smart and this is why i think we have hope. they created a system of checks and balances. they created an entire judiciary on a check of governmental power. nextis going to lead to my subject, things you can do. you can do what i did, give more money to impact. [applause] gave money to impact earlier this year because i was so offended i some of the rhetoric i was saying in the campaign. i also became a donor to the aclu and the southern poverty law center. [applause]
rep. lieu: they go in every day and fight your constitutional rights. differentso work on public rallies, you can go to join the million women march on january 21, you can run for office. [applause] rep. lieu: you can also take part in community offense -- events. you can do what you are doing right now, being an active participant in your community and also think about writing off ads. "the new yorkhat times" and will -- "the washington post" get a lot of letters, but they are often from the same people. together, we will show the voters of america there is a right way to do this, a wrong way to do this, and in two
years we can vote again and make a judgment and then in four years we can do that again, as well. [applause] i am deeply honored you asked me to speak and i am now going to recognize two of tonight.dees the first person i am going to --roduce his ramada a mad ahmed. she currently serves as the senior advisor to ben rhodes at the white house. she is been instrumental in getting the muslim american voice not only heard but understood by the obama administration. two years ago, she hosted a muslim women emerging leaders of it at the white house, bringing together girls who aspire to careers in journalism, government and stem.
>> first of all, i want to thank congressman lieu for the honor of being on the state with him. as somebody who as a child and growing up was in the camp of not believing in government, never being interested in politics, almost hating politics, and wanting to stay far away from government, it is a true honor to be on stage with by him.be honored i say this as someone who is converted, having been on the inside and having the opportunity to work in government and learned the true impact you can have on individual lives. i will say a little bit more about my experience later, but i want to thank impact for their leadership and the honor of having me here. more portly, for getting me out of washington, d.c. to warmer weather. i appreciate it. forso want to thank them
playing such a key role in engaging the white house. they have always been at the table. if there is anything i have learned, it is that having a seat at the table is more important and critical than just being on the menu to be discussed. i also want to recognize, something i don't see in many organizations that i admire about impact, and that is because you may have noticed it is run by young, innovative and energetic leaders. [applause] ahmed: often time it is hard young people leadership because you are not sure they know what they are doing. but as someone who came out of college with no work experience or government experience, summoning gave me the opportunity and put their trust in me in the white house and
byough that opportunity, failing and falling and losing sometimes, i learned to be stronger and wiser. that was how i was able to move up in the white house and that is how we will the able to strengthen and empower the young leaders of our next generation. i want to share a few things i have learned, especially given the time we are living in right now and recent developments that have taken place. that is, i have learned the importance of grassroots organizing and building partnerships. it is not just about standing for one issue but every issue. we saw that take place most recently at standing rock. the nativejust american community, but it became everyone's problem. we can no longer look at it as a lack lives matter issue or a muslim issue, but all of our issues [applause]
. ahmed: people have come to me since the election asking about how we will plan for the muslim community and i have said we have to plan for all of us. and so isis strength personality. when i first set of working at the white house, i first day in the west wing i felt very conscious of myself and i was not sure how people would see me. i was nervous. i would not sure -- was not sure think i didn't have the same experience as others because of my looks. after the election, i became conscious of the fact that i have the greatest opportunity because of this country because of the values of this country. the chance, given the right and i was able to work in the most prestigious building in the entire u.s.
personality and character mattered in the process of that. right now we are living at a time when not everybody has gotten to know me or a muslim american or an african-american or a native american. it is our responsibility to make sure we are listing our voices across every community and sharing the stories. the other thing i learned that is a reminder for us all right four p -- patients, perseverance, persistence and prayer. that will get us through the difficult times we are about to face and it will make us stronger and better. the civil rights movement are a perfect example. people were hurt and killed and people suffered. and now look at where we are today. it is still not perfect. the african-american community still faces a lot of challenges but we have come a long way.
that is the hope that we as a country know will prevail at the end, that we will come together stronger and more powerful. the last thing i want to leave you with is that as a child, post 9/11 in middle school, as someone who was called a terrorist, who was told to leave this country and pushed down the stairs, never in a million years that i imagine that i would get to work for this president at the white house. [applause] ms. ahmed: and it like myself, i have met so many more incredible individuals through my work in the white house. palestinian woman in morocco who it started a business program to empower other women. such as a woman in columbia who with very little resources created a farming program for
other women so they could become entrepreneurs. -- met at went at the the white house a group of cuban entrepreneurs. they had barely any money yet they knew that with the little they had, they had a role to play to make the world better. it was a little bit funny, it reminded me how all these years we may have been too comfortable. now it is our turn to work harder. these cubans i met with, they asked me, what is going to happen to you? we be allowed to stay in this country? i said, i don't know, but i'm willing to fight for that. me, immediately offer to the one who is a business advisor, she said to me, don't worry, i will get you a business in cuba. the party planner said, i will plan you a welcome party when
you get to cuba. , who owned a bed-and-breakfast, said she would provide me food and a home. while it was sad to hear that, it was also encouraging. the biggest thing i came away with is that compassion is something that exists in all humanity. in the worst of times we have to remember compassion will prevail. these people worked hard with very little and yet they still dreamed take. i truly do believe that in the darkest of times that we have faced and may face, the greatest moments of opportunity. , ih that, i want to say that know we are all talking about what has happened and what is going on but we have to stay positive and work 100 times harder. i know that organizations like impact work -- exist out there and i look forward to working with them. thank you. [applause]
rep. lieu: the next awardee is sara site need. for new senior advisor york city mayor to placido and has been a central link between the mayors office and immunities, -- the community. ther to this, she worked at interfaith center of new york. in this capacity she designed socialcuted retreats for justice, which brings together grassroots leaders with secular agencies. let's give her a great round of applause. [applause]
[applause] >> good evening. to the entireuch impact family, thank you congress member lieu. it is truly an honor to be here with all of you and on a day when we are marking the birthday of our profit. award is an affirmation that we are building beautiful connections in new york city between the city and muslim new yorkers.
building a bridge, the theme of this conference, are only needed when there are two land masses that want to be committed -- connected. i want to credit the new york handm communities on one and mayor bill de blasio on the other for your open engagement and stronger relationships. [applause] thatayeed: without desire i would not be here. for a bridge also has two anchors and and bearings. as onegod and my faith of those anchors. i'm also grateful to my family, who have gotten used to not seeing me very often but they offer their unconditional love and nurturing. thank you. job asirst week on the senior advisor, and this was got an june of 2015, i
call from the office of the chief medical examiner. they wanted my help to develop more culturally responsive services for muslims in new york city. for those who do not know, the autopsies inndles the event of criminal or unexpected deaths. islamic rule is burial within 24 hours and we have a religious objection to autopsy. the emmy had dealt with a family that was objecting to the autopsy and they ended up doing they all hadcause to negotiate, lawyers got involved, and as we know, when lawyers get involved things take a lot of time. they were calling me cousin they wanted to avoid having to go through that in cases where families were objecting, if possible. we were working together to create a system and process that
would counsel families who object, and also educate the m. e. office and hospitals on muslim burial laws. a crucial effort that we needed to engage in that allows us to align our values and islamic guidelines with secular law. but what is challenging about doing this kind of work is that we are doing it in a charged national security backdrop. part of my job is to get better at rapid response and help build trust between law enforcement and new york city communities and create policies and programs that respect civil rights and safeguard the city. violencew, terrorist feeds a dark rhetoric about islam and muslims in this is ultimately resulted in backlash that has targeted arabs, muslims, sikhs, anyone who looks
muslim. in knowpublic safety your rights forms, we have been educating new yorkers about their rights for identity safety, protection from discrimination and their rights as immigrants. but as we engage on issues of security and safety, have to thanber that muslims, more victims and terrorists, are first and foremost human beings. stories like the one i just shared about the medical examiner are not about national security or backlash. muslims have stories about living their lives as every day new yorkers and americans. that is the story i am most interested in and that i think we need to work together to uplift. [applause] sayeed: stories about us as human beings. stories about giving birth, growing up, growing old and
dying. stories about our struggles. stories about how we are giving back, reaching out and building bridges. so long as me to talk about what is redeeming in my work, and i would say it is moments like the ones i talked about, meeting with the chief medical examiner. ,ringing together south asians arabs, and business contractors to talk about business in the city. working together to feed the homeless. these are the stories that showcase who we are in our fullness, in our humanity and our dignity. anm so grateful to have opportunity to do this work on behalf of muslim new yorkers and muslim americans and muslims
worldwide. biggest, and i won't say the best, but maybe i will say the best city in the world, and to work with mayor tilde blah zero who is one of the most progressive and visionary leaders today. [applause] again tod: thank you impact for recognizing me. [applause] >> good evening. i'm the special agent in charge of counterterrorism and crisis response for the los angeles fbi. it is indeed an honor to stand before you today, though these
lights are very bright so i can only see about one third of you. [laughter] >> i'm glad to be here, i think i have something important to say. medear friend salaam invited and i have a story to tell before i get started. a coupleany mail to me of weeks ago to remind me of this fantastic event and he says , we have celebrities, we have congressmen, senators, we have a schedule we have to keep a tight , you have five minutes. mind, i have to follow the five b's of public speaking. be brief, brother. be brief. [laughter] [applause] woolery: i'm here to talk to
you tonight about a topic that has trended upward recently. it is something that is near and dear to us and something -- thank you. and something that we can all be a part of, we all need to be conscious of this, we need to be aware so that we can protect ourselves. hate crime. i will define it for you so you know what it is the fbi looks at when we are investigating these things. when we come into the community and we investigate. hate crime is a traditional offense, and traditional criminal offense like murder, arson or vandalism with the added element of bias. congress has defined a hate crime as a crime against a person or property motivated by
bias toward race, religion, or sexual disability orientation. jurisdiction to investigate hate crime is primarily predicated on for federal statutes, which generally required three circumstances. the use of force or the threat of the use of force or conspiracy to use force, or conspiracy to the threat to use force. secondly, targeting victims because of race, color, religion or national origin. thirdly, additional motives to interferetimidate or with some specific, federally protected activity or right.
just argue with a definition of hate crime so that , god for bid, if you encounter instances of this kind of crime where you think -- or you think you have encountered instances of this crime, you now know that you can report it. you now know what to report. local report it to your police, you can report it to the fbi, you can report it to the leadership of your islamic center. the bottom line is that you have to act. i am standing up your, i am you aware you, making of what it is we need to know so we can come out and protect you, but it requires you to act, as well. because we are a community. so i implore upon you, if you see these instances of bias or hate, please report them. whereis a situation here
we experience underreporting in hate crimes, so we need to get that information so that we can do our jobs. the other thing i want to talk to about is something that happened on november 28 that had to do with a number of letters that were sent through the u.s. mail system to a number of islamic centers here in southern california and across the country. vitriol nature of those letters, the awful let -- language contained in the letters and whether or not it was a hate crime. there was a lot of media attention, a lot of interest and questions. there were a lot of fears. as -- what we did, impact and the community played a big part.
salaam said to me, let's get out and make a unified statement to stand against this type of criminal behavior. to let the community know that we are one community and that we are here together for this common fight. [applause] mr. woolery: i used the same see something, say something, but also to do something. it is not enough for us to just see it and maybe say something, but we have to do something. , we haveo call it in to make people aware of what is going on. an educated community is a safer community. are two things i want
to add to this. one is leadership. on november 28, as the community stood in front of the media and talked to the community about these letters, the imagery of us standing together united, that is leadership. that is leadership. the other thing we need to do is we need to grow that leadership into partnerships. what do i mean by that? level, wea grassroots need to make sure that everyone understands how unified we are. . we look different, we do different things, but are we really different? i think we are more similar than we are different. we showed on the 28th how unified we can be.
those partnerships were important that day. i want to talk a little bit about threats. we hear about threats all day, every day. it is in the media, it is international, it is global. we saw last monday how a threat was called into a national hotline center in australia that had to do with the metro red line here in l.a. that was an anonymous threat, and we saw how that threat galvanized the community, it galvanized your law enforcement agencies so that we could go do our jobs and we could protect you. threats, we talk about threats all the time. ,ut i submit to you as i close i think i'm good to be on my five minutes, sorry about that, salaam.
i cement you that our greatest threat -- i submit to you that our greatest threat is that we as a community are not unified. that is our greatest threat. [applause] woolery: ladies and gentlemen, i stand with you tonight building bridges, breaking barriers. good evening. [applause] >> in the name of the divine, the most compassionate, the most merciful, peace be on to each of you. think salaamt, i
is trying to play a trick on me having a federal public defender go on after an fbi agent. we usually see them on the witness stand. [laughter] ms. ahmad: for those who don't know me, i have the blessing of standing before you as the chair of the board of the muslim public affairs council. [applause] ms. ahmad: thank you. theseblessing because in political, trying times, there is no place, no group, no organization that i feel more humbled, brothers and sisters that each of you who are here as part of impact. [applause] ahmad: i know many of us
are feeling fear and anxiety and despair about the recent election and the direction of american politics, but the antidote to fear is action, and that is what impact has been about for the last 30 years. what i personally love about impact is that at a time when our religion is under such vicious attack, impact represents the highest ideals of our faith. minister young baptist named martin luther king relied on his christian faith to advance the cause of civil , grounded in the islamic egos of justice, has always worked for the adamant of american muslims -- the betterment of american muslims. [applause] ahmad: but what is critical,
and this is really important, impact has never been just about muslims. since i was a young girl, impact has been singularly focused on the idea that when american muslims prosper and when justice prospers, that america as a whole prospers. [applause] ahmad: and for that reason, for the last 30 years we have stood by other communities just as we are doing right now. right now, we are standing with the most vulnerable amongst us, our undocumented immigrant brothers and sisters who are working to combat mass deportation. [applause] ahmad: we are standing with their jewish brothers and sisters, and we put together a
petition to oppose the appointment of steve bannon. [applause] ahmad: and just this week, we delivered that petition to congress with over one million signatures. [applause] ahmad: after the tragedy in orlando, impact stood on the steps of the islamic center of southern california with lgbt clergy and leaders to affirm the human dignity of our lgbt brothers and sisters. [applause] ahmad: and similarly, we have taken positions on mass incarceration, then violence, and law enforcement safety, as well. [applause] ahmad: and what this means is that our work for the last 30 years has poised as for the challenge ahead.
we are resilient and we are not alone. i want every muslim and every muslim young person that is in this room of 1300 people to hear this loud and clear, you are not alone. [applause] ahmad: thanks to the work of impact, you heard from for our powerful elected officials, and i think i speak for all of us -- ieu, who has worked to protect us and used their power to protect us. [applause] ahmad: we heard from law enforcement, the fbi, who pledged to keep us safe. and after dinner we will hear
hollywood andnd media superstars like torch to k jonesrge takai and van who know the heart of our community and will use their megaphone to amplify our voice. [applause] ms. ahmad: because of the alliances we have built for the last 30 years, we are ready to continue the fight for all american muslims. there are a few very beautiful terses from the koran tha capture what i am saying tonight. says,ran teaches us and ease.with hardship comes with hardship comes ease.
it is such a simple verse, and yet profound. for all ofis true us. we all have personal hardship and are lives, whether it is lost or sickness or difficulties in our families and jobs. i think we know that with hardship, yes, these -- ease does come, but it only comes after we have taken action. when we have fought that disease or had a difficult conversation. now we're in a collective moment of hardship, and although we so desperately want that ease to come, the koran teaches us we have to act for it. there is another verse that says , on those believers who do righteous deeds, the all compassionate shall ordain love on those individuals.
it is such a beautiful verse. it is not distinguish between muslim and non-muslim, man and woman, race. it talks about doing a righteous deeds as the path toward love. what that verse does is transform all of us. we are not passive victims. we are the privileged and we are the lucky that get to do good and do right in times of difficulty. [applause] ahmad: to that end, all of you know that impact has to exponentially increase our work over the next year. is $1.8 million. i am asking all of us here to make a commitment for us to raise a significant portion of our 2017 budget.
200 anding a target of $50,000 for tonight as our -- $250,000 for tonight as our fundraising goal. there are three ways to give. all of it is tax-deductible. you can write a check using the envelopes on your table. you can flag down a volunteer wearing blue scarves to give them a credit card, or you can .org/give.ct i employ you to give generously. before iuple of items am done. as you are donating, please do so from your seat. the servers are ready to serve dinner and will need access to the aisles. in about 45 minutes, if you could help us move the program along by taking your seats, we would appreciate it. it is really wonderful to be with all of you and have all of
you in this room. thank you so much and enjoy your evening. [applause] >> tonight on c-span, in memoriam. a look back at some of the public figures who died this year, including former israeli prime minister shimon peres and mohammed ali. billy crystal was among the speakers at mohammed ali's funeral. you had to live in his time. it is great to look at clips, time,u had to live in his watching his fights, experiencing the genius of his talent was extraordinary. every one of his fights was the aura of a super bowl. he did things no one would do. he predicted the round he would knock some of the out and then he would do it. beautiful,y, he was
he was the most perfect athlete you ever saw, and those were his own words. [laughter] but he was so much more than a fighter as time went on. with bobby kennedy gone, martin , who better?one huddled on the conveyor belt that was rapidly feeding the war machine that he was mohammed ali who stood up for us by standing up for himself. >> c-span in memoriam tonight starts at 8:00 eastern with a look at the life of shimon ,eres, john glenn, mohammed ali ellie was l, janet reno and fidel castro. ♪
>> welcome to "westminster and review." >> is a time the government stopped running away from the looming threat of jobs and businesses in this country and the living standards of millions of people? >> i am optimistic about the prospect. >> we will be talking to two asks bert that what we know now and what the brexit future holds. not, there have been other subjects debated at westminster. blameample, who was to for the humanitarian disaster in syria. >> i think we are deceiving ourselves if we believe we have
no responsibility for what has happened in syria. >> and on a more personal note, and np moves collects to tears when she tells her colleagues she was raped. left feeling surprise, then fear, then horror as i realized i could not escape. suspect has taken over debate at westminster, the brexit. it set up a radical change in direction. in the immediate aftermath, a caused david cameron to resign and after a truncated leadership conference, theresa may took charge in days of turmoil. pm crisscrossed europe, shaking hands with leaders and
pressing the uk's case. the later of the s&p group asked her what would happen now. people that can on freedom of movement across andeu for business pleasure. they face the prospect of having to apply and possibly pay for visas. is the prime minister in favor of protecting visa free travel, yes or no? there was a very clear message from the british people at the time of the referendum vote. aat they wanted to see movement, they wanted to see control of the movement from the european union to the u.k.. the labor leader wanted to know what ministers were going to do now. >> this is a government that
drew up no plans for brexit, there was no strategy for negotiating brexit, and no clarity, no transparency and no chance of scrutiny of the process of developing a strategy. the jobs and incomes of millions of people are at stake, business is worrying and the government has no answers. the prime minister says she will not give a running commentary, but isn't it time government stopped running away from the looming threat to jobs and businesses in this country and the living standards of millions of people? honorablethe right gentlemen, i am optimistic. i'm optimistic about the trade deals that other countries are actively coming to us saying they want to do with the united kingdom, and i am optimistic about how we will be able to ensure our economy grows outside of the european union. say, labor did not want a referendum on this issue, the conservatives give them a
referendum. we are listing to the british people and deliberating on that result. ,he home secretary is shouting and wants a second vote. i have to say to her, i would have thought that labor mp's what have learned this lesson. you can ask the question again ain't still get the answer you don't want. democrats campaigned to stay in the eu and their leader predicted trouble ahead. when will she put the interests of hard-working british people above extremists? >> and as the weeks passed, wanted to know what
the plan was and how it might impact different parts of the u.k.. >> the plan for brexit seems to be to cut a special deal for the city of london so that the bankers avoid the consequences of leaving the european union. when will she cut a similar deal for wales? >> i will be cutting the best deal for the united kingdom,. stop. neededgovernment parliaments approval to leave the european union. the government had insisted it was possible for ministers to trigger what is known as article 50. the government appealed against the ruling, taking the case to the supreme court. a verdict is expected before the end of january. meanwhile, back in parliament, a bank indered how
india was impacting the u.k. >> there is a big difference job,en how you do your [indiscernible] just saying that we will have nothing to do with the world trade organization. who is going to give you that indication? the negotiations have indeed begun. understand, but we have a central forecast, which given what we know, and we don't know anything particular special that
the parliamentarians don't know. given the likely outcome, it is a sensible forecast. but as this proceeds and if we get greater clarity, we will adjust that and it could be adjusted up or down. >> elsewhere on the committee quarter, a leading campaigner asked if it was possible to have what he termed a quickie divorce from europe. the chancellor handed to the treasury committee that he felt best wanted a more drawnout transition. . an emerging view among businesses and regulators and politicians, as well as i think a universal view among civil servants on both sides of the english channel, that having a longer period to manage the
adjustment between where we are now as for members of the european union and where we get to in the future as a result of the negotiations we will be conducting would be generally towards aould tend smoother transition and would run lusk -- less risk of distraction, including risks to financial stability. >> just how long might it take for the u.k. to leave the eu and set up new trade deals? eutain's ambassador to the was reported to have privately told the government that a post brexit u.k.-eu trade deal might take 10 years to finalize and steals -- still fail. it could be rejected by other eu members international parliaments. whole issue was raised that
the trade -- by the trade secretary. should we ask for the reality check about the decade-long period of time it will take to extricate ourselves from this particular process? d we not be rushing so headlong into the process? >> there are number of bureaucratic processes we face but the british people have given us clear instructions to leave the european union union. huge opportunities to ease the cost of living on low income families. he is right to highlight the potential to reduce the cost of living in this country. free-trade interest more people can access more goods a better value, making their money go further.
protection tends to hurt the poorest. >> it has been two years since the environment secretary announced plans to sell to china. we are still no closer to signing the protocol. if it takes this long to reach an agreement to sell this, what is that say about our other trade deals in the wake of brexit? >> i am very intent that our agricultural exports continue. in the house of lords, there are plenty of strongly held forions about the options relationships with the rest of the eu. opinion, these opinion are largely delusional. we should stop talking about a haven of social dumping, as many
believe the government plans. it is perfectly reasonable, responsible and democratic to consider how sometime in the future, the final decision should be made. another referendum could be needed and justified. >> the mood i find in europe is not one to punish the u.k., but of great sadness. that a country that has done so much for peace and prosperity for the cotton it should be turning its back on this project. >> the former home office minister argued that britain was not a good place to negotiate a good exit deal. i will now try make the case that it is essential to our future and that people did not vote to leave the single market, just the european union and peered -- union.
>> this is not just a trade issue. there are huge numbers of issues , justice,n to eu laws agriculture, fisheries, the environment. two years negotiation will not be enough. >> six months after the referendum, what if anything do we actually know? i'm joined by two experts. simon fraser is a former white isand dr. hannah at the institute for government. what have the ministers been saying to you? we know there has been a lot going on in whitehall, a lot to prepare for the government to make decisions about what the u.k.'s negotiating position to be but we don't know very much
about the conclusions or if any conclusions have been drawn on the basis of all that work. >> simon, what is your impression? simon: my impression is that this has been a period all about committee but not much has actually happened. i would describe it as a period of learning and understanding about what brexit is really about. you see the government and whitehall reaching out to gather information about what is this things, what different parts of society think, what do entrust group think so they can begin to put together a negotiating position for brexit, but that position has not yet been put together. we're begun togs understand is that it is a very complex set of issues and getting a coherent negotiating position together is not an easy task. >> hannah, we've heard a lot from opposition mp's saying,
tell us something, get on with it. to think ministers feel any pressure? hannah: there is definitely an imperative in the politics to show the public something is happening and the public voted to leave. it is not necessarily obvious to the public why there is not been more done in the process. however, they have said that they don't want to rush into article 50 until they feared -- feel they are in the right position to do so. they are laying the groundwork to make the right decisions in good time, i think. >> how long can we go on laying the groundwork before things actually have to happen? simon: we need to get on with it. we're going to trigger oracle 50 in march -- article 50 in march, i think we need to get on with it and trigger. we have to know what the
objectives are, what the agenda is and what the process is going to be for negotiations and we have to sort of pre-organize some of that. we need to know our own position in that we need to prepare the ground to actually embark on a negotiation. hannah: the first thing will be to establish what is on the table. what is it that we can negotiate in the process and what will we need to wait for a subsequent negotiation, or could we do the two together? presumably behind the scenes, different departments are scrambling to make sure their particular pet issues on the top of the agenda. yes, it hassimon: to be arbitrated and put together. there is one other point i would
fromto make, apart understanding what is going on internally, we have also been looking at what has been happening externally in the world in learning more about the context of brexit. -- the most notable event is the election of donald trump as president. we need to think about how that will affect the external context as we going to negotiation. we will talk about donald trump a little later. do you agree with simon rogers that these negotiations could take a decade? i think i do agree that if you look at the complexity of the negotiations, you have to negotiate the article 50 exit plus the future relationship, and it is unlikely you could do that within a two-year timeframe. all of the focus is on the interim arrangements that may be
necessary in order to secure a smooth transition from the end of the exit negotiation to the establishing of a long-term relationship. that is quite a tricky thing. it is another thing we learned more about in the last few months. host: two think there is a danger here for the government that this takes up everybody's day? true thet is government was elected in 2015 with a manifesto a wanted to we have ad since then new prime minister that is brought ideas to the table she wants to deliver in many things are not brexit related but will ultimately be affected. they have to think about not just the negotiations but the post-brexit. how do we identify opportunities from having left the eu and making the most of those opportunities? the work is to be starting now on those sort of things.
whitehall was already undergoing cuts in staffing and budgets before brexit, and is now having -- usual,ness as in the manifesto, and brexit. host: thank you very much for joining us. we will come back to later in the program. for the time being, let's move on and take a look at some of the other news in brief. >> it has not just been a momentous year for the u.k. the election of a donald j. trump as the next president of the united states came as a surprise to some and a challenge to many. >> can i ask her what action she
would take if the new president-elect carries through on his campaign promise to discriminate against our citizens on the basis of religion? >> we want to ensure the dignity of our citizens. it is up to the united states what roles they put in place in terms of entry into their borders. the government has given its blessing to an expansion -- of london posh heathrow airport. london's heathrow airport. a third runway will cost around 70 billion pounds. >> it delivers the greatest economic institute benefits to our economy. it offers a major