entire world. as you can see from this event with 90 authors something like that and i don't know how many thousands of people coming through, it is the most active biggest club probably in the world of any kind and plus it is all journalism and it's all about the press and things we do that's really good stuff that a lot of people on the left and the right don't think we do well but we did extremely well. >> mr. aukofer, newspapers are shrinking. it's changing. where do you see newspapers in ten years? >> we are going to be around for a whole long time on paper and in print but we are also going to find other ways to deliver the news to people. but you're not going to take us away because i think there's an increasing realization on the part of the public that the only place you get really solid good reporting and our original information is on a newspaper. the rest of them just talk about what we do.

>> author is frank aukofer, his new book "never a slow day's adventures of a 21st century newspaper reporter." thank you. >> thank you. daniel jonah goldhagen talks about his latest book, "worse than war," which takes a wider look at the problem of genocide. the university of toronto of canada post's this one hour 20 minutes event. >> thank you to the new college for having me year. i'm going to begin this evening by showing a clip from the film, a the opening of the film. i've been working on this book for over a decade, and aid is the fruit of a great deal of labor and i hope it repays. the film can along much later in the process. we started about three years ago and it is very much parallel to the book.

it is different and has all of the power that film does. the film will be shown on pbs january 14th of next year and you will get a preview of the opening right now. [inaudible]

♪ [inaudible] [inaudible] ♪ all the people here murdered other people? ♪ >> [speaking in native tongue]

♪ [speaking in nativetonge ♪ [speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue]

>> i've been thinking and writing about genocide for nearly 30 years. it's something people don't much like to talk about and get out which. >> a controversy about holocaust raising a troubling new question colin coke were nazi killers helped by hundreds of gazans of ordinary germans? >> the subject of the victims to gratuitous bortolotti. the picture they were learning was of a loving people compelled to do what they did but people who agreed with the program who believed that the jews were necessary and just.

>> i spent my professional life trying to dispel the many myths that cloud people's judgment that stopped us from doing something to kill the killing. >> genocide happened in every corner of the world to every type of people. the numbers in the past 100 years are staggering. the turks slaughtered more than 1 million armenians during world war i. in the 1930's and 40's, the japanese killed millions across asia. in the soviet union, the estimated number of deaths in the gulag camps and beyond the germans slaughtered 6 million jews and millions more during world war ii. in the 1950's and 60's, the communist chinese killed an

estimated 30 million. and during the 1970's, the rouge killed 1.7 million cambodians, 20% of the country's population. bosnia, rwanda, congo, darfur all told in a wartime there have been more than 100 million innocent victims of genocide. more than all the combat deaths in all of the wars fought during that time anywhere in the world. based on the human toll alone, genocide and manslaughter or a worse problem plaguing humanities dan war. we need to understand why. >> we need to tell many truths

about genocide and mass murder because our understanding of genocide of mass murder is shrouded in ignorance, falsehood, confusion and on truth. here in the opening of this film, you saw a large scale truth and small-scale truth each equally important. the large scale truth is about the number of victims and the genocide or mass murder is the principal problem of lethal violence in the world today. it's not war. the small-scale truth is what was shown, what it means to kill somebody, which is how it is often been done in our time dating from the beginning of the 21st century face-to-face, a person deciding to raise his hands and strike down another often in the most gruesome of

imaginable ways and the way that was described. we need to speak truthfully about many aspects of genocide or mass murder. we need to speak forcefully. no sugar coating. is a serious subject as if i need to say that. i can't tell you this evening everything that needs to be said to be free conceptualize store told. we need to rethink how genocide began, house a on a fold, how they end and why they end. and ultimately what we can do about them and many things in between. and the reason we need to tell this truths and take a very cold and clear your life will get genocide and mass murder is because one of the truth about what it is it is not as many people take it to be which is overwhelming, beyond our

understanding, beyond our control. for as long as -- as long as we say that this is just something that is overwhelming, part of humanity, what can we do, these things just erupt, we will not be able to think seriously about what we can do about them. so the understanding isn't merely an intellectual or academic or scholarly enterprise. it is a critical one that ultimately can result in the saving of lives. we need to tell the truth about the extent of the problem we have already heard about the numbers. probably many more than 100 million victors to lead the victims of manslaughter of the perpetrators of genocide. a second aspect of that is we have to start seeing at as a systemic feature of the international community and the modern world. people typically think of genocide however were fleeing they are as being one event this happened in rwanda, that

happened in bosnia, it happened in cambodia before in faraway places for many people far away places about which they don't know very much. but in fact it is not a series of one of defense is a systemic problem of the international system. genocide and mass murder systematically occur and if we start seeing it that way we realize that we need to have a systemic and systematic response and not treat each one as if it's something unexpected that we have to try to figure out what to do to put an end to or prevent the killing from recurring. we need to think more analytically and systematically. we need to tell the truth about the nature of the problem which is ultimately not genocide. as horrifying and as much

attention as it gets, and it should get all of the attention, the problem is not genocide. it's how genocide is one manifestation of the more essential and larger problem. which is a form of politics that can be called elimination of some. states, political leaders set out for a variety of reasons, reasons of power and advantage as they understand them, to undertake political programs to eliminate the groups that are deemed to be unwanted or in a nickel for one reason or another. a group they want to get rid of. and when they decide upon this elimination test politics they then use a variety of elimination policies that are from their perspective functionally interchangeable and

these policies include massive repression, the prevention of reproduction, preventing a group from reproducing itself through sterilization for example. incarceration in camps, expulsions, and of course mass killing. and when the mass killing become sufficiently large buy whatever definition people use it is called genocide. in every case of what we call genocide the perpetrators also use some of these other means as compliments. to the killing itself. so we need to focus on the fundamental underlying politics recognize it as being eliminationism and recognize it as a form of politics in the modern world. and we need to respond to all elimination results even though they have only killing of the

size of just 10,000 people or so we need to respond to all instances of elimination results as we ought to respond to those that are called genocide. they are all of a peace and we need to refashion our thinking to recognize elimination of -- eliminationism and put that in politics. we need to tell truth about the commission of genocide or eliminationism or mass elimination's. because of the gas chambers and holocaust and things that were said about its, mechanized bureaucratic assembly line killing, we have gotten to a large extent a long understanding of the commission

of genocide. most of the victims of mass murder during our time has been killed with implants and techniques that are invented before the 20th century. only a small percentage of people have been killed with implements that were invented in the 20th century. when you know this you see that -- when you know this and you see that it is relatively easy to kill people with the most primitive of temple am as described, the question changes from the technology and even the organization, and it goes back to the will. it is the will that is essential. there is the will to kill the will find it it is relatively easy. if there is the will to eliminate people it is relatively easy to do so. so that is what we need to focus

on. we need to tell truth about the perpetrators. the killers and those to expel people, drive them from their homes, brutalize and so many ways. they are not abstractions, they are not robots just being pushed to do whatever those who are pushing them tell them to do. they don't do it because they are subjected to pressure, they are not bureaucratic actors. they are real human beings who have views about what they are doing, about what is right and wrong and who at some point chooses to raise their hand and stroked on the victim's. we need to restore the humanity to them which means in their case human beings made decisions to come at to perpetrate deeds that we and most people consider to be among the greatest crimes

that humans have ever committed but they are human beings. they are not robots, they are not abstractions. so when you read or think about genocide, mass murder in elimination's fink of ali nikerambae and that people during our time have acted as he has an art like him. i should tell you that when i was in rwanda during the film, there were these surrealistic moment. you saw the opening of the film where the perpetrators are working in the field. these are people who are prisoners. they are all confessed mass murderers. i was walking among them, among

their rose and they had in their hands for their work the implements they used to kill people. machetes, picks, and i walk up and down thinking how easy it would be for them to turn on me. they had no motive to do so and every reason not to but still would is impossible not to wonder. i look at them and watch them and they they do the work and look at the and there we were, human beings among each other. i also went into their camp after words in the afternoon after interviewing in the morning. they were given lunch and they sat in a large structure may be 50 meters long and 30 meters wide. i walked in there with a

director of photography and they were sitting in a semicircle, parabolic shape in binges and we stood in the middle and they were staring at us, seemingly unfriendly way and we later found out they were unhappy with us being there. we looked at them and felt if someone told me i would be standing among approximately 1,000 confessed mass murderers i would have never believed it. i looked and there were massive people but each 1i focused on their faces and there were some women there, about 15 but the rest were men. i thought about what each one day or what each one must have done. and we have to understand that they are not a mass of people but they are a large group of individuals active fleet collecting in an organization

but a larger group of individuals making choices as they repeatedly did, and what kind of trees is did they make and why did they make him? well i'm not quite how use such stories today. if you accounts what they did in detail but suffice it to say, the perpetrator is not just of rwanda but elimination as the result of the elimination test assault typically inflect brutality and cruelty upon their victims' that is unnecessary for the commission of the deed that they are supposed to carry out which is to kill the victims. they perpetrate excess, what can be called access cruelty. why would they do it if they did not believe what they were doing is right? why would they do it not only to the men and women with children the? which they did again, which they

did and do again and again and again. why would they do it? and the survivor captured hiding in the bush and used dogs to find every last tutsi to kill all of my children front of me and they slashed my right arm. then while they were raping me they were saying they wanted to kill all tutsi so that in the future also would be left would be drawings to show that there was once a people called the tutsi. survivors from elimination as assault after elimination must assault tell of the perpetrators words of their glee in celebration of their willfulness. and why did the hutu want to obliterate the tutsi?

eli, who you've seen, explains the killers -- and these are his words -- did not know that the tutsi were human beings. because if they have a thought about, they wouldn't have killed them. but we also include myself as someone who accepted it. i won't have accepted that today, the tutsi, are human beings. he is in fact this is the common view among the hutu killers and also common knowledge. as i was hearing it, he says, i had the same perception as others at that time adding that there was a fact of the hutu society that no hutu in his words could swear and lie to you that he did not know that. the effectiveness, she explains,

and he is so poorly educated is a brilliant guy with enormous insight into what happened. he explains of these views, what these views and did it is a cloud that can into people's hearts and cover them and everything became dark because to see someone standing in front of you without any energy and he pulled door mazzetti hi or club and hit him it is something difficult donner with a lot of anger and range on this genocide. one person seeing another and deciding to end his or her life and doing so with unspeakable cruelty. this is the essence of the perpetration of genocide of

assaults. we have to tell truth mom just about the perpetrators about the victim's. we have to humanize them as well not that we don't want to do that but we often don't. they are not just numbers. they are human beings. they are not just 10,000 people or 100,000 or 1 million people slaughtered by their tormentors and killers. they are one human being slaughtered 10,000 tons, one human being each one slaughtered until the 10,000 that are dead. think of how outraged or affected you would be if one person were killed in cold blood in the streets of your neighborhood. think of oliver but would say about him or her. this is what we must think about

the victim's in other countries in faraway places among people with whom we may not otherwise identified or feel a great deal of commonality for. each one is a mother or father, son or daughter, brother or sister and we need to keep this in mind and not get lost with numbers. i sat across from many of them doing the film and talk to them and i thought repeatedly i can't imagine suffering for five minutes with this person suffered for years. not for five minutes i wouldn't know how i could endure it. and did they did and they have to bear it every day of their lives. the personal loss of suffering, the loss of their family, of their four -- children.

the reason we need to do this is not just because it is a good thing which is, but because we need to browse our own empathy not in this superficial sense which of course we think it's terrible, horrible, we think what it would be like to be in that situation but in a more profound sense the need to arouse empathy and that of all those around us and particularly of our politicians. because we need to think what would we do if that was a person in our neighborhood with a loan a family member. what would we want our country, our political leaders to do? it is critical that we humanize the victims' and keep the humanity with us in mind and in our hearts at all times. we need to tell the truth about what starts elimination assaults.

elimination test assaults until now have been attributed to all kind of causes i won't go through them all. structural, historical, demographic, conflict will. you have heard many of them. a common view is they are ethnic hatred that spin out of control, volcanic eruptions that come seemingly from nowhere and what can we do about it? because when ethnic conflicts spin out of control that is what they do. in fact all of these views are inadequate. it is very simple one starts elimination assaults. it is started by one man or a small group of men who at a discreet moment make a decision, a political decision to slaughter, expel or otherwise

eliminate a group or groups or populace that they hate or they don't want or they think are inimical to their well-being or an obstacle to their political projects. it is a discrete decision. whatever the cause of the underlying conflict that there is a decision moment made by leaders. these are large scale national or regional undertakings the require vast organizations the coordination of many institutions. it is done by a state in the ways a state do this with central coordination decision making. it is critical to say this because -- and it hasn't been said which is just striking and

indeed shocking. it's politics and it's a decision because when you start thinking about that way as i will come back to read it suggests a whole host of things we can do to change that decision. and so we tell truths about why it starts. starts because of politics and i said this already and i will say it as i said about empathy, many people say it is political but the minute -- its political not in but trivial since that of course is politics. but its political and a more profound sense. mass elimination is part of the regular tool kit of contemporary politics known and available to the leaders around the world, known to work and employed as certain moments when they decide it is to their advantage to do. the reasons it has become a part

of the political tool kit of the modern world and modern leaders are complicated and i won't go into them now but that they cannot be doubted and they are means we have to start thinking of fashion and political responses to these political initiatives and take to the political tools out of the tool kits by adopting our own political countermeasures. we need to tell truth about what we do to do this or to stop the killing, which is next to nothing. that is the truth. ..

the international community and the u.n. as it and institution, we must speak truthfully about our set up to do nothing. they are not set up to do something to stop the killing. it is exactly the opposite. we need to speak the truth about what is wrong in this is what is wrong. if you look out on the world, if you are just a naïve person then

you look at the world, this is what you would see. the wealthy as strong and powerful countries of the world, the democracies of the west, which are against genocide, our leaders don't want people being slaughtered. they don't want people being expelled. they don't want to have eliminations and the peoples of our country still want the meat there. dave luck upon the world, in which weak and poor countries led by dictators slaughter their own people. and you, the naïve person would ask, how can this be? how is this possible? how can all these people who say they are against genocide, and really are, stand by in that

these weekend poor leaders and those serving them slaughter people again and again and again? it simply does not add up. it is the wrong equation and we must change that equation. we must tell truths about what can be done. everything. we can put an end to the killing. it is within our power and it can be done in my view relatively easily. if you recognize that it is politics and that a leader or a small group of leaders make the decision to begin the elimination, and they do so because they calculate that it will bring them power and advantage. in other words the cost will greatly outweigh, the benefits will greatly outweigh the costs.

you can then think, how can we fashion policies? stokan ameyde response politically to that decision-making moment of the leader or the small group of leaders and do so so that's the cost will be raised astronomically in the benefits will decline astronomically so when they look out on situations or context in which they might otherwise say, i think i will undertake an elimination, they will save the costs are too great. i will be the loser. it is not for that. we have to find some other way. that is why it is critical to recognize the elements that unleashed genocide and what the nature of this kind of politics is because if you put it this way, you can fashion responses and as i said i think relatively easily and effectively.

so what should we do? how should we respond politically? any anti-elimination system would have three components. a prevention system, and intervention system, and punishment, which is part of a justice system. while in the book i go through each of them in great detail and lay out the various components about what each should be, the one that we should obviously focus on and the one which i will speak about this evening is the prevention system because that coal should be that we prevent them, that they never began. intervention, which is what most people talk about the kurds by definition much too late. realize that in one day the perpetrators' can kill 10,000 people.

it is too late even a week or a month afterwards. we want to prevent them. what do we have now? we have no prevention system to speak of. we have only very occasional intervention, which comes much too late. there have been the only very few instances of serious intervention. and we have a justice system which is on its way to being established and then the international courts and tribunals that preceded it, which should be applauded but they are too late, too slow, too partial without sufficient powers to be effective. as i said we should strengthen them but that is pretty much all we have as the least important part of an anti-elimination this system. how does propension work?

prevention works with deterrence. you want a deterrence system because you don't want to have to identify the ah-hah, tomorrow at genocide is going to begin here and therefore we have to ramp up. you want a system to work in its natural functioning so that it will affect all of the potential genocidal killers, that is the leaders, at all times. and deterrence means that the perpetrators know that the penalty that they will encourage, the costs that will occur will be great, sufficiently great that they will not want to undertake elimination of saltz, and that they will find it credible that that cost will be applied to them. high cost and credibility of the threat of its application. these are the two critical elements.

valley thought ferry hard at the garrison which i was working on this project about what could be effective. there are lots of things that could be effective than many of them are required states to do a great deal and peeno that from coming just from that time since the holocaust when people began to think more seriously about how to prevent genocide, we know that states have done very little so we shouldn't expect too much of them from our political leaders so we need to fashion policies that are relatively low cost and still effective. if any political leader, and not just the leader of a dictatorship by his cabinet members, high level subordinative all kinds, military leaders, police

leaders, if they begin in the elimination of saltz, they should be declared, according to an international legal doctrine which has existed for a couple of hundred years. they should declare the enemies of humanity. aidid doctrine which has been applied to pirates which means they are that, the inman-- enemies of humanity that are subject to being killed. unless they turn themselves then. and what is more common there should be a bounty system established, a bounty program similar to the program that the american government has called for word for justice, which is in place to reward people for the apprehension are killing of terrorists. we have a program that is in the united states in which large bounties are paid for the apprehension are killing of people who kill a few dozen

americans. why shouldn't we have one for people who kill tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands or millions? we should put bounties, large bounties on their heads. $10 million for a leader, in million dollars for a cabinet member for coe how many dictators or high levels of ordinance could even be sure that their own bodyguard wouldn't turn on them for such a reward? how many of them could ever feel safe, could ever go to sleep wondering, without wondering whether they will wake up in the morning? no political leader wants to be wanted dead or alive. this would give them great pause and i think would no doubt stub many genocidal killers or elimination this leaders from ever making the decision to

offer such policies. we should make a second credible threat, a promise that if an immolation assault begins we will do what nato did in bosnia three years too late, which is balm the military forces and installations of the perpetrating state. most of these dictators rely upon the military for power and they cannot defend themselves. we could degrade their forces easily and quickly at relatively low cost. make it clear to them that they will lose power. their own militaries would turn on them if this credible threat would ever be applied to them. and as i said, relatively low cost is not sending in an invasion force. we did this in bosnia when they

finally decided to do with milosovic chinned came to the negotiating table in three weeks and the genocidal assault of bosnians was over. if it would have been done three years earlier when it, 100,000 people would feel like and many more would not be brutalized, systematically raped, expelled from their homes in their regions. now, i know that the bounties are measures which will cause people to feel uneasy. it seems like a radical measure. the first question is, would it be effective and always keep in mind what we are talking about. we are talking about saving vast numbers of lies. i ask the president of bosnia if milosovic, and he knows milosevich very well for he knew him very well, if milosevich it

known that starting the genocidal assault on the bosnians, that a large sum daunting would have been placed on his head, would he have done it? and he told me, i don't think he would have. explained that he relied upon the international community loving the status quo and if you change the status quo he would get to keep the situation that he had created. i asked the justice minister of rwanda, and man who has is deemed himself in the horrors and the analysis of genocidal assault as much as any public figure of our time, he has let the justice system which has processed 1.2 million people suspected of having participated in the genocide.

they acquitted approximately 300,000 convicted various forms about 900,000. i asked him this thing question. if the hutu leaders had known that a bounty, a large fountain would be placed on their heads, what they have ever undertaken the genocidal assault and killed 800,000 people, men, women and children, and not just killed them but did unspeakable acts of cruelty and fertility to them along the way. would it have prevented the rwanda genocide? he said, definitely, definitely, definitely many times definitely. he then explained. these are his words. if people knew that at the end of the day they would be the

losers, they never invest in a losing enterprise. because genocide, as you correctly pointed out is a political enterprise, a political game but again, it is a power play that is well. is everything. so of people involved knew at the end of the day they would be the losers, they would not play the game. that is for sure. these are the testimonies of two men whose words carry enormous weight based on their demands knowledge of two of the most recent elimination assaults of our time. we ought to heed their words. we need to tell the truth about

the impossibility or seeming impossibility or futility of changing something are ending something that is seen to be a part of humanity for all time, which it has. people say, how can you expect genocide that is always been a part of the human condition, it will always be with us. if we have been sitting here at the beginning of the '90s, at the beginning of the 19th century-- sorry, at the beginning of the 20 a century and 1900 and i said, we will be able to put an end to imperialism, he would have scoffed. at imperialism had been with humanity for all of human history. it was a central feature of how the world, how the world was run at the time and get imperialism is all but a thing of the past and certainly on a large scale

it does not exist anymore. if i had said to you that war would no longer be a principle means by which many of the states of the world relate to one another, you would have scoffed. war was a constituent feature of the world around for as long as he manatee by which states everywhere in the world related to each other, not that they had fallen behind that there was always the threat that hostilities could break out. and yet, we still have force and some parts of the world but in many parts of the world is no longer a way in which states relate to each other. if i told you had many poor countries of the world that human-rights and political rights would be respected and become such a public norm that even in those countries to violate them they pay lip service to it and they claim

that they actually risbeck human-rights and political rights. you would have scoffed. it would it seemed like a pipe dream at the time. you would have said perhaps in a few countries that might happen but it will be a long, long time it ever, not in our lifetime, not in our children's lifetime will we see these rights respected in many countries around the world. and yet, all of these things have happened. momentous changes, momentous shifts in areas that are analogous, some of them analogous to the elimination of some, so why should they not think we can deal with it? schifley devoted, and i owed of the energy, we the international community devoted an iota of the energy to stopping it to what we have devoted to stopping more we could put into it swiftly and surely.

it is right now genocide and mass murder rfs the secondary issue in the international community and other forms of the elimination assaults that do not include very large-scale mass killings are basically not on the radar screen in the international community as things to stop and prevent. now, the good news is that just as elimination assaults are begin by one man or a small group of men and occasionally women, it actually it only takes one man or a small group of men or women to put in and the elimination system or at least it's beginning in place into begin to stop the killings.

a deterrent system relies upon fighting the enemies of humanity who are conducting a war on humanity. we misconceive what genocide or mass murder is. we call them crimes against humanity. it sounds terrible but they are not crimes as domestic crimes are. there not to be responded with police actions that they are a war against humanity. they have declared a one-sided war on part of humanity which means of humanity itself and recognizing that genocidal perpetrators', elimination as perpetrators' often after assaulting one group assault a second in a third in a fourth group. their conducting a warren humanity in diggins dinoire we respond with the force that we do when we are defending ourselves against war and with the rules of war, which is sad

but true, we need to stop and kill the enemy. a few, one man, the president of united states or if you political leaders, the president of the united states, the leaders of the major european countries and the major union can institute a bounty program and with nato or without nato can promise to balm and degrade the military forces of any country undertaking eliminationist assault. they have the power to do this literally overnight. it just takes a few more of men and women to change the leora schaefer, the calculus of leora schaefer or genocidal leaders.

we tell the truth about our duty. ask yourselves, each one of you, if i'm right, at bounty program would have saved 800,000 tutsi in rwanda, ask yourself, would you say it should have been in place? how many of you would say no, we should not have had a bounty program. it would have been better to let's 800,000 people die including hundreds of thousands of children. how many of you would say that and try to defend that position? eyes sayyed like this, because i

know that people will think that what i am suggesting is a radical. but what the truth is, what so many things about genocide that our vision is clouded by the cliches we have heard about genocide, by the horror which overwhelm says, by the blaze of which we have attached our understanding of genocide almost from an understanding of everything else to do with politics and social life. we need to reach a greater understanding and analysis in their responses to the elimination assaults. we need to reintegrate them into an understanding of society and politics and use the same forms of analysis in the same political tools that we know are effective in other matters to deal with the genocidal killers and to save lives. so what that means is that what i'm saying is not radical. the radical thing is the status

quo because the status quo has led us to next to nothing, even though there has been a anti-genocide convention since 1948. we have done next to nothing and watched as with other impunity, and tens upon millions upon tens of millions get slaughtered. the bounty is not radical. the current system is a radical. it is catastrophic. we cannot wait for the community or the u.n. talid folk. people are dying everyday and not just a few people. vests numbers. and if you say, if you are with the justice minister of rwanda and you say that we could have

stopped the rwanda genocide with these simple deterrent, the kind of deterrent we use on our own society and of the ways in the community when people commit crimes they know they will pace of there for many people would otherwise commit them choose not to. if you are with-- and you think we should it saved 800,000 in rwanda than my question is, how can we not use the same mechanism and other credible deterrence to prevent the next rwanda and the next rwanda after that and the next rwanda after that? thank you. [applause]

>> thank you dr. goldhagen. i am sure there questions from the audience and i am looking forward to starting conversations. c-span is here keeping-- taking the offense so they are going to be taking from the microphone to ask a question into. you are not going to hear your voice amplified. dr. goldhagen will repeat the question for the audience at that is not hurt. i am going to start this off with the question this evening. you have traveled the world and you interviewed many people from both the documentary and the buck. i am wondering if you could share with us one moment from those travels that still resonates with you. one of them, i am sure there are many but one of those moments.

>> these trips were unforgettable and they made an indelible impression upon me. i have been working on genocide starting with the holocaust for three decades. and nothing has made deeper impression on me than sitting across from victims, sitting across from perpetrators', interviewing them, talking to the people who are trying to save lives, the people who have taken them, saying all of the institutions and processes that you see after-the-fact as well. in guatemala, i went to an exhumation of the mass grave, and again something i never in my life-- it was in a mass grave while they were doing it. and, the people there had been

killed by the regime more than 25 years earlier, and while they were exhuming the victims, really excavating the grapes, taking the dirt away, in the way that francecca, the way that forensic experts do which is painstakingly slow, the families of the men who were there, they knew who was in this grave, they had been there all this time. the families were gathered around. this went on for days and probably for weeks. we were only there for a day. the wives, the children, even grandchildren of these people were there. they ate food at lunchtime, they watched, they talked among themselves. it was deeply deeply moving. so long after to see these people so affected, and they

were just getting the bones. they were in terrible condition. they were just getting the bones crushed and strewn about in his grave. that is all they were getting and it defined their existence of these people, at least as far as i imagined. there is a face of the little girl. you see it on this film. is just unforgettable as she stood there in crouch there and watched what was taking place. note little girl should save. the victims and their assault the by the perpetrators, they have no choice. they get over run. they suffer what they have to suffer because they are powerless. but these families brought this, this family brought this little girl and it was something she had to do they thought and it is not for me to judge whether it

is right or wrong but a terrible thing for a little girl to have to watch. you can imagine how gruesome it was and i presume she knew what it was. so that was the scene, it the int why don't bollon that was out of the ordinary and deeply affecting on many many levels. so if you have other comments or questions i would be happy to hear them. where is the microphone? this woman over here, and then we will go to the front. >> mr. gold tuygan you have suggested very correctly that the bounty system and prevention, which we all agree with this, but who will need to out the punishment? in today's world, the native nations, the european union, the international criminal court?

who can we expect to meet out those punishments? >> the woman in the audience says that she agrees with the need for bounties. in fact she said you all agree. i'm not sure that is true and your question is, who should decide, who should be doubt the punishment, and you are right. the u.n. is not going to do this. the u.n. is an institution that is more and in a blair of the elimination does-- eliminationist assault or a hindrance to them. i say this and they criticized the u.n. extremely forcefully in the book and in the film, not because, not because i dislike

the view of the united states or american politics. i do it as someone who is for multilateralism, is a liberal internationalist who would like the u.n. to actually live up to its founding principles or at least some of them. the problem with the u.n. is that it holds sovereignty to be nearly sacrosanct and one of the things that has occurred in our time is the elimination of the salts and genocides have shifted and done internationally cross once borders often by colonial powers in their colonies to the second part of our 20th century to almost wholly domestic matters, done by the states within their own borders and the principle sovereignty says as long as you do whatever you to within your own borders know what the country has the right to intervene and that includes

when use lutter drones citizens or otherwise eliminate them. silda u.n. fights to the last breath to defend the sovereignty of states and that of sovereignty is. it is a sovereignty of states and governments, not the sovereignty of people and therefore the u.n. not only is an impediment but actually defense, legitimizes in defense and give sustenance to the dictatorship of the world as members in good standing of the u.n. and in my view dictatorships today should all be conceived of as pro-doah elimination nist risch james because they maintain that power in the modern world where people, all people want to govern themselves, want to have democratic rights, they use must-- must use violence or oppression which eventually will meet greater resistance and when

it does they are never that far from moving to the elimination levels of violence the dictatorship today are for eliminationist machines. they should be got rid of them think u.n. does not do that. would protect them. who should decide? in my view if nato wants to institute such a policy that is fine the european union or the european countries want to institute such a policy is fine. if the jena wants to live alone or with other democratic allies in this fine. we live in the world for almost nothing is done. and the country or in the coalition of countries that want to intervene either preventively or once killing begins or elimination begins to save lives as they go did in bosnia, they should do it. the moral lot is higher than international law in the u.n. which in this matter is utterly

bankrupt. people might say what are you going to have, people intervening all the plays all the time? the reality is it is hard to ever move them to do anything. let's get them to do something. let's get the democratic anti-genocidal countries of the world to live up to their principles. i do think an international agency should be created by treaty that will monitor and identify eliminationist and salton declared they have taken place quickly and at this point we know when they begin which would trigger all of the mechanisms that i lay out in the book. so by trading the established it should be stepped appropriately and we should get the countries of the world to do something, the democratic countries. yes, sir. >> i would like you to comment on what is happening in sudan and specifically, the president

of sudan has been considered as a criminal and there is a warrant out for his arrest, and following exactly the steps that you left followed, that you left out wind, however he has the power and nobody's going to touch him in the same thing is happening in iran, where there's an outcry of revolt and again the powers to be far too strong and control the situation. >> the question is what about the situation in sudan where there is a warrant out, issued by the international accord for the rest of the al-bashir, the president of sudan and pellmell-- also the gentleman mentioned iran with the regime is as we all know, a dictatorship and that he begins its own citizens. with considerable violence.

the situation in cid dinges note ineffective the current system is. the genocidal assaults have been going on in darfur for more than five years before an arrest warrant was issued by the international criminal court for al-bashir. it took them several years even to begin an investigation of him because they were arguing and arguing in the u.n. and elsewhere about whether it is a genocide arcot according to the international definition. this is where we need to think about eliminationism. it is a eliminationist assault. they have no slaughtered for the dehlsen people. you regime which earlier killed and expelled even more people in sudan and that is barely ever mentioned in discussions of darfur. it is just shocking. a case where a eliminationist leader conducted a war on humanity, did it to one large segment of this country and then

turned on another and started with the war contaminant to percussive the international community such as this is an effective, doesn't do very much in moves very slowly, talks a lot in the wind. it has no enforcement capacity. and we just wait until al-bashir gets himself up for somehow gets the poster who knows what. so the gentleman suggested what i have been suggesting has been ineffective but it is in fact not what i have been suggesting. it is really a good but ultimately highly ineffective tent rate attempt to do something. if you wait until a genocidal war eliminationist leader has already killed hundreds of thousand people is very hard to do something at that point. yes pekid bum. we should bomb their military forces. we should make a no-fly zone,

balm their forces, if we have to put real troops on the ground. the question i would ask, and they think everyone should ask president obama and let him finally earn his nobel peace prize, and ask the leaders of every democratic country, the leader in candidate and the european leaders of the country the following question and i would ask every journalist to pose this question and to keep asking it. how many african lives will one american or one canadian or one german or one british life? how many? what is the answer? is that one? is it ten, is it 100, is that 1,000, is it 1 million? if they say well you know 1,000 lives would justify putting one american life at risk or one

canadian live for one european life, we would certainly reach that threshold. the want to say it is a million, let them defend the number. let's hear what their moral calculus really is. let's ask them and let's get an answer and not let-- not except it is really more complicated than because it really isn't. yes there consideration but it is a simple equation. i think that an african life is as much as an american life and as much as the canadian life. and of course there are practical consideration, at one point intervenes in other countries. if one person is-- i'm not saying that one person is killed wiesen in the marines. a child of-- whether leaders answer and let's get the moral calculus on the table.

let's make all of these issues that i am laying out here as clear as can be in press our leaders and have our media, our television, radio and print journalists pushed these issues and create public pressure on them to declare where they are and then to act appropriately. >> i have sort of two questions. the issue of darfur is not only in the issue of definition, which has been a problem, but also you have china. you have nondemocratic countries that come into the calculus that you can't ignore because there are countries that don't want to make those decisions for political or whatever so that as one side. the other is i look at a country like uganda with museveni and the people and they think one point, here you have a situation where you have the initial, the

initial sites of which you call an elimination-- eliminationism and nothing is going to happen until moves to the next up or even then even nothing will happen in the same question applies. there are too many other interests that will prevent a european nation and nato and united states and obama from going in and saying okay let's put a bounty and how do you get around that? and i think journalist in many cases have fallen by the wayside. >> okay come of the question is about the strategic and other interest that exists in the world that prevents the jena, the europeans, candidate, other countries of good will so to speak from doing anything to stop the killing. and, the speaker specifically pointed to china being a player and the holes it in these

complex into uganda with this year is an incipient, a low level eliminationist assault that takes place in which has not quite escalated perhaps to the levels we call eliminationism and so therefore what do we do? there are several responses that deal with different aspects of the problem and i will just be telegraphic about them. the first is, people raise all kinds of objections and i'm not saying you were doing this that people raise all kinds of objections. people say what did do with this difficult case and what do you do with that can you applied the principle of the time and if you don't house that a principle and so on and so forth. my response is this thing that they gave earlier, which is if we start doing the easy cases, easy in the cases that are unequivocal, then we have made a lot of progress. if we just exceed one time to prevent or to stop and

elimination of salt, it would be historic and if we succeed one time or perhaps if we fail and actually institute these measures, then the next leader will learn he had better not do this. we will have done immense good, much more than if we cut the murder rate in canada and the united states in half in a given year which everybody would justifiably praise in sync kalea since we put so much effort behind. so we can do the cases that we can easily defined. we can all agree upon and all good will and that we can effectively act upon. then we can deal with the borderline cases and the harder cases and could have long policy discussions about what to do, but we don't need to come if just because we can't do everything at once doesn't mean the can do an awful lot begin

with. with regard to china, in sudan, you know, i actually don't think that if we took serious measures in sudan that there would be, china would scream bloody murder but what is going to happen? are they going to stop trading with us? are they going to bailout of the international system? sudan is pretty far away from china. does not in their neighborhood. it is not as if we are talking about taiwan so i think with a resolute west that it could be done. but the more important point is, if you get to this point is much too late and it is true with uganda too. that is why we need preventive measures, said they don't even begin. it is very hard to clean up messes and these are colossal messes. it is very hard because even if you intervene, you have the

whole problem of massive reconstruction. think of the cost of doing any of these things. the cost of bombing, the cost of reconstruction, cleaning up the mess in bosnia and rwanda is so the astronomical it is cost-effective actually to prevent the elimination of salting cost-effective to the world economy because countries then can participate actively so they are actually in the interest, the most narrow venal sense it is actually in the interest of the western countries to prevent these eliminationist saltz. whoever has the microphone. >> it is getting late. >> i am sorry. >> do you want to take one more? >> i will take one more question and i'm going to be over your afterwards and i will be happy to talk for as long as you would like me to. >> could you talking little bit about how he would see the

bounty system working, take this to your case scenario? >> well, the question is how with the bounty system work and what would be the first case scenario? the first thing to do is actually the program, to make, to apply the doctrine of the enemies of humanity though-- n.t. define who they are. anybody, any political leader, the president or prime minister whatever he or she calls himself, cabinet members, people in military command commissions and we can discuss how far down it goes, the police command commissions and so forth, anyone participating in the government in state institutions that a sudden level become automatically enemies of humanity. they are deemed to be war with humanity and the rules of war apply to them. we create the system by treating or is a said the u.s. can extend as far as i'm concerned it's a

reward for justice system which instituted unilaterally. what is the world done? people say what is going to happen? what is the world done? it is not perfect but is led to the capture and killing of a lot of significant perpetrators' including after-the-fact genocidal killers in rwanda, from one the. have handbooks created that are handed out to every person who enters one of these command or governmental positions upon taking office, telling them of what, if they began eliminationist the saltz to democratic leaders, dictators, to everybody. put everyone on notice and let them know you were serious. nato and your opinion in the end the jana should send them along, african union, the other

regional organizations. make it clear. the first thing to do is to institute, create the program, notify everybody in the world than put a lot of muscle behind it, rhetorical and others and set up a system so it is not just talk. and notify everyone and then if a leader is stupid enough to put it to a test, you have the international authority that is created through treaty to declare there is a eliminationist assault, to declare that one has started and then the bounties in the bombing, which should be done, commences, or if there is no such international agency and just say the united states establishes such a program, then let them come a lets them apply it. and, bounties can be collected and the u.s. can act with its

forces. again. i will repeat what i said in the know it is hard for many people to get, to as they say wrap their heads around it. the radical problem-- program is the status quo and my challenge to you and to everyone is it you don't like what i am proposing, and i understand it causes-- come up with a better deterrence system that is likely to be more effective, that is likely to prevent more mass slaughters, but it is not an acceptable response to say, the status quo is okay or let's wait for the international system or the u.n. to be involved. we must act. tens of thousands of people can die every day. it is urgent. we have difficult choices. let's be responsible citizens and let the political leaders of our country be responsible leaders and take the difficult decisions to save lives.

thank you. [applause] >> daniel jonah goldhagen is the author of the moral reckoning, the role of the catholic church in the holocaust and its unfulfilled duty of repair. for more, visit goldhagen.com. >> we no historically that markets often don't work but they have forgotten all that.

>> joe scarborough wooder you currently reading? >> let's see, i am actually breeding harold evans, my paper chase which is a remarkable story. you talk about when newspapers were in their heyday. he discovered idi amin. he had a remarkable career with the times of london and it is a great book. and, i am reading a couple of other books, absolom absolom, william faulkner which i go line by line every few years and

another book by british historian alastair horn called seven ages of paris which is just a great history of paris. it is about as enjoyable of a history book is that ever read. >> your book came out earlier this year. when is your next one? >> boy, i don't know. we got in the top-10 for two or three weeks and that was great, but it is kind of tough writing political books in this environment. unless you want to write a polemic and that is not really my style, so i don't know. you know, actually the best part of writing the book was the book to our, because we would go out and be with actually have these great krautz and actually there would be republican, democratic and independent. it was like having town hall meetings all over the country and back in june and july is showing up in the polls now so

that really was the fun part of it. and i love writing too. but just the whole process of people on the right calling you a socialist, like my mom and people on the left calling me a nazi, it gets tiring after a while. but i think next time if i write something that will write about my dog. >> is "going rogue" on your reading list? [laughter] no, it is not. i don't-- nothing against sarah palin but i every presidential biographies and history. hoon knows? if she gets elected president i may read her book after that. >> joe scarborough. >> alright.

beilin pits tells his story of rising from a baltimore inner-city neighborhood to a career in journalism will handicapped by a stutter and functional illiteracy. the hour-long event is in his current hometown of mount clair new jersey. [applause] >> thanks everybody. thank you so much, thank you all for being here this afternoon. it is so wonderful to have this at my home church in mount clair agers the was so many members of my church family. this event was sponsored by the senior at our church. ladies and gentlemen thank you. here's the format. i'm going to talk for a little bit. like you i was raised so i can talk for live well but i will talk about the book and read a couple of that search on the book and then i hope to answer to-- open it up for questions. the book cover certainly my

life, things that covered my professional life, issues in the news today like the war in afghanistan where i was just a few months ago so would everyone to talk about we can talk about during the q&a session and we ask that when you come up, when you ask a question if he would come to the microphone so our friends at c-span can record it so the nation can hear your questions and hear our discussion. okay? alright, the book is called step out on nothing. it is a journey story. i have been a professional journalist for 27 years, 15 years and local television in 12 years at cbs news and in journalism basically every story calls and-- falls into one of three categories. it is a search for treasure our love story. and journalists and the "new york times" in the mount clair times, every story where there's a front page, sports page and lifestyle falls into one to three categories a journey story from here to there, a search for treasure or a love story.

this book, step out on nothing is a journey story. it is a journey of a boy from east baltimore, me. my mother, my mother had a first child and 16. she had me before she finished high school. i didn't learn to read until i was 12 and the stoddard until i was 20. of the book is about the journey from how does the boy from east baltimore in that circumstance and up on 60 minutes? when i was diagnosed as functionally illiterate i could not read. one of the early therapist that my family took me to told my mother, he says i'm sorry, but it is my diagnose is that your son byron is mentally. and you should have been institutionalized. my mother at that time had a tenth grade education eventually went back to morgan state university and got her degree in sociology and became a social worker to help the mostly single

women raising families but that day with a tenth grade education and the *ferpa said i'm sorry misfits your son is mentally, he should be institutionalize. geisha pcast aside and how often have we seen stories in our community and elsewhere young people who are cast aside? fortunately for me my mother is an old school southern women, baptist woman, tough woman. she said, test him again. them in said-- test it mcginn. if that is his fate then we will deal with that that test him again. >> they tested me a second time in the next expert with the degrees behind his name said adductive one point they took out a tape measure and put it around my head like it was a mellon. like that felt like i was in a fruit stand in my mother was buying some cantaloupe. put the tape measure my head. wit you can imagine this head on a small boy,t