which is the solution and it didn't work. we now find ourselves in the zero to 60 policy mode. it's either dialogue or military action. and i believe there's something in between we need to think about more clearly. i don't believe this regime is not afraid of international pressures and sanctions, unlike what i think most of the world leaves. i think it begins internally. they fear the opposition more than anything else, more than what we could bring from the international day of. secondly, they fear regional cooperation. and here we have done a lousy job of working with the region to create the security cooperation, the kind of assurances on security that would isolate iran. those trips across the goal for kids those threats on the other side are done deliberately to

try to prevent any kind of regional cooperation. i don't know if any leader in the region that doesn't he iran is the biggest threat in the region. they may not be so publicly, but certainly they will pipe publicly. they feel threatened. they see the weakness sometimes in the western approach. the vacillation between a hard-line and a soft line in chasing dissolution of some kind of beautiful dog dialogue. we have to be careful of several things. one is that the salogue. we have to be careful of several things. one is that the sanctions that ever get implemented and put in place to not hurt the people and do not in any way curtailed the ability of the opposition to communicate, to organize and structure themselves in the right way. i think we need a policy that reaches out to the iranian community outside iran and work with them is the greatest conduit in connection to those inside iran that are trained to fight for freedom and for the

right. i think we need to work within the region to create the kind of security cooperation and give the guarantees that we will be by their side should iran threaten them in any way and allows them to isolate this regime is right in the region. there are many measures that could be taken before we start talking about military action. i domeone who is seen more many, many times and as someone who has suffered in blood and more and from someone who was seen the greatest sufferers than war, civilian populations, i'm telling you that as a last resort and that is something we want to avoid. the last thing we want to do is bring more pain with the iranian people. we can see what happens in iraq and afghanistan come in vietnam and elsewhere when we resort as a measure before we've exhausted all others.

so i believe there needs to be a fresh look at our policy. we need to examine that area between the sort of solution of a meaningful dialogue in this continuous saber rattling which gets us nowhere. you have presented an opportunity. you have offered the opposition. no one is asking for money, military support and guns. they are asking for him to be reached out, you like to be shined on what they're doing, support come the use of the bully pulpit, working within the community, working within the region to make sure we bring about change. lest this regime would fear that they may need to rattling, international sanctions that we can develop. and i think if we take anything away from this conference, it should be the importance of stressing a new approach to policy. examine those middle areas.

quit resisting reaching out and grabbing the hand of the opposition, giving them legitimacy credibility and giving them an international and world stage where they can demonstrate pressures that they are put under. i know the panelists will follow me and those gone before feel strongly about this. we've lived through. we've seen aspects of this. in my case, the military aspect. we have seen the actions that have been taken. we see every day the violence that is perpetrated by this regime, notably with in iran, but outside the region. not only against those in the region, but her own people, our troops, our diplomats. we've got to wake up and realize we can no longer continue to tolerate this and there are measures that can be taken. thank you very much for your support. [applause]

>> thank you general, very, very much for your options. like tom ridge and me in 1983 bill richardson came to washington as a new member of the house of representatives where we had a distinguished career. he left us to join the clinton administration where he served as ambassador to united nations and secretary of energy. he later went on to another distinguished career as the governor of new mexico. this is perhaps the person on the panel for which i need to have notes the least. a longtime friend and colleague, bill richardson. [applause]

>> thank you, very much. thank you, senator. when i was in the congress of the senator, we used to call him the torch because he was unflagging champion of human rights, whether it was cuba, sudan, iran, he was always fighting. and i see that site is still very much with him. i'm the only person here who is unemployed. last night i left office two weeks ago, but am so going to have knowledge to three iranian american new mexicans. they're the best in the the lot, so thank you very much for being here. you know, when i accepted the speaking engagement, would've my assistant said you know, bill, they didn't call.com the governor anymore. your views are not going to coincide with many of those

here. and i said why is that? they said well, you're just in the korea talking to the north koreans. you talk to saddam hussein. this was when we're trying to get a couple of americans released. you've talked to the cubans and you've basically said, i noticed that senator porcelli didn't notice my campaign for the candidacy, a very forgettable event. what i was saying is that i just believe that sometimes you've got to talk to your adversaries. now, i'll explain what i mean by that. but president clinton to say, when i was sent out on these missions and i did one with president is to north korea with a republican member of the cabinet, secretary of veterans affairs. we brought back some remains of american soldiers.

president clinton used to say, send richardson to talk to these regimes. that people like ken. so that was supposed to be funny. i guess not. let me just talk about three areas that i think we all share, at least i share. and i'm not new to this issue. i've been a governor eight years. and then trying to run a state or not is up to speed as many of my colleagues here. this is a very distinguished panel and made to me now. i want to thank tom ridge for talking about bipartisanship and on the speakers have been great and tony zinni. here's a guy talking about soft power, perhaps one of the solutions. here are the three areas where you think a lease my views coincide with all of you. one, i think it's important that we find ways to better treat the

iranian opposition, both in iran and outside of iran. ending u.s. policy, i mean citizens. i think it's important that we embrace this movement for freedom. secondly, with the mek, yeah, i think it makes sense to take them off the terrorism list. you know, north korea was taken up the list. i don't know if you know this some time ago. and this is something that i'm not going to say. this is bureaucracies. you know, bureaucracies move slow. to those families got to do some kind of gigantic leaps. i'm not making any excuses, but this is something we need to reassess right away. and it seems that this is a nation, an important movement and we should take steps to make it happen. the third is the camp ashraf situation. obviously we've got to find ways to protect those iranians that are there. i think it's inexcusable that we're not doing it.

talk about how they leverage with the government of iraq. we do have it. and so we should find ways to make that happen. not the same time, i think it's important to recognize why iran is important to america's national security. obviously we want a different government there. you know, i was on one of the shows this morning and everybody is talking about china, the two new superpowers, america and china, says america's relationships with nobody else matters anymore. you know, my hope is that with the new government in iran, america and iran can be great players for national security, especially in the persian gulf, but also around the world. it's because of iran's strategic importance, its nuclear

ambitions, it portends to stability in iraq, his support for extreme arab factions such as hezbollah and hamas for themselves or obstacles for stability in lebanon, to the palestinian israeli peace process that the major oil and gas producer. its importance to the flow of oil. its role as a leader in the world of islamic shia population. the state does as reality. that is the case. now, our ultimate desired weight to be had in tehran a government that is stable, that is democratic, access a response will member of the international community, where regrettably, as we all know, the situation is currently different, radically different. so i want to stay to work in assumptions that maybe you still are agreeing with me. obviously, i think in iran there are thousands and thousands of people that reject extreme

fundamentalism, violation of human rights. you saw in the presidential election that great movement of democracy after more than 100 years of struggling for democracy, iranians longed for a regime that respects citizens. here's a country, iran that is three times larger than france. three times. 70 million populations. we know the rich history of the persian empire that stretches back 6000 years, the iranian people we know are proud of their heritage, their contributions to art, science, learning. and despite the preoccupation that many have with the views of some of it leaders, represent leaders, represent leaders, represent, iran has aliment in iran of modern and very strong

democracy. and it's got an iranian community like a peer. and i bet you that better ideas from this panel can come from many of you as to how we can make a difference. so, what we need to do is how do we make progress? we know that the iranians chari deeply thought national pride, that the country be respect to its history, its accomplishments and its geostrategic importance. the second premise, where i still think we're together as there is no excuse for the current government document support for international terrorism, violation of human rights, rejection of international overtures to come to a deal on the nuclear program. the denial of the holocaust much more, the difficulty in obviously trying to negotiate with the current president. so maybe a two year we are all in agreement. the challenges which we do about all this?

you know, besides give some good speeches? how can we have things forward? i want to focus on to aliment of american policy. one focuses on the iranian regime and the other focuses on the iranian people. i think general zinni has been very good ideas on that. at dealing with the current regime, as we know from the cold war, the turns are above all a matter of clarity and credibility. we have to make sure that the iranian government knows that a nuclear iran is unacceptable and we had to be credible when we say that we will do what it takes if iran continues to disregard the will of the international community. and i haven't heard much discussion about sanctions here. it sort of came up a little bit. i'm for sanctions.

i think that for the first time my sense with russia and perhaps china, now that we've forged this new friendship, that may be sanctions might start working. i was energy secretary and i recall and i think it's still the case that iran imports house of the gasoline and half of its food. so i think some of the distinctions that are supported are the international community, our european allies to finally have gotten a bit serious unsanctioned, that we must continue not just pushing them, but finding ways to make them more for this. you know, maybe they're not going to do the trick, but i believe it makes sense to try to find ways to make them work better. the united nations, where he

served as ambassador has obviously dominated by china and russia, which has veto power. so it's important that through international mechanisms and through other means, that we continue this effort. in dealing with hard-line governments around the world, i was just in the korea. i feel that it's very important that we find ways to know as much as we can about our adversaries. and name-calling and refusing to talk to people i think it's you know where. indeed, they usually backfire on you by strengthening your adversaries most obstructionist and hard-line element. i'm not saying you don't call somebody what they deserve, but i think we should from and what john f. kennedy said. we should never negotiate out of fear, but we should never fear to negotiate.

i'm not saying we negotiate with ahmadinejad. i'm saying is they find ways of the iranian people by supporting opposition, by finding elements society that need community. i wonder every day as they operate out dated blackberry, that through technology and the internet and blogs, there's got to be a way to communicate, not just among young people in iran, but across the spectrum that we have not explored, but maybe our government needs to explore. and maybe technology and many of you that are here at communicating more effectively than we have. we have to recognize also that there is national pride involved. i'm under no illusion that a dialogue, government to

government, may be going through istanbul today is going to work. but i think not having sanctions and a unified international approach is a bad idea. and the fact that the united nations and the european community demonstrates two other significant players of the entire international community that the united states has made an honest and genuine effort to engage and find ways to make the situation better. president bush pursued this policy. i think it's the right policy, the sanctions. president obama is doing the same. we rallied support for increased pressures, sanctions and isolation. so i know many of you are saying well, governor come within spitting putting sanctions on iran for a while now. it isn't working. they just accentuate political

dispositions for government critics. it's another example of the regimes disregard for their general well-being. the sanctions offer another reason to criticize so-called american arrogance. and i think somebody said here, don't put sanctions that hurt the iranian people. and i agree. but i think sanctions as a tool that has to be refined and continue. but that has to be combined with new approaches to talk to the iranian people. one is through the mek group. at least give them some credibility, talk to them and find ways for together. hotbot the other obviously is protect the rights of those that

obviously is something that i wasn't aware of until this morning. and a third is how do we communicate with the opposition in america and europe, in iran quakes and somehow, this country this great arsenal of soft power, people to people exchanges, academics, business leaders, the we've got to do better. and so, i guess where i fall is what find a way and a bipartisan way. because i never found that, you know, this president did this, the secretary did that. that doesn't work. look, you've got men and women -- i guess it's only men, but it served here in both administrations and had been patriots in many ways. i just think that this issue is so important that it has to

involve the american people. it has to involve you. it has to involve members that are directly affected by this issue. it has to involve talking to your senators and congressmen and finding ways to get the american people in your state to be part of this dialogue. and so, i thank you for your time. and i'm going to give it the best part of my speech. the end. thank you. [applause] [applause] >> thank you, bill very, very much. general james jones. i enjoy just reading his resume. from july 1999 january 2003, general jones is the 32nd commander of the united states marine corps.

after a command as commandant comest imposition of supreme allied of europe. not bad when you succeed in a job held with held by dwight d. eisenhower. in january 2009, general jones was appointed national security adviser for president of the united states, a position he held until last november. general. [applause] [applause] >> thank you, ladies and gentlemen. i also would like to thank the organizers of this very important conference. and i am just honored as a member of this panel and the people i work with and it buyer for most of my adult life. i also very much appreciate the passion is in this room.

i could feel it just walking in. this is a room full of people who care about freedom, who care about their country, their native country, people who suffered and there's nothing like individual suffering and loss to focus the attention on a very, very important problem. the senators started out decoding winston churchill's quote that some of us in the military are very familiar with. i'd like to start up with another quote by famous american comedian and an 1860s, 1970s, a comedian but the name of mixing vessels was understanding of this audience and saying, he the other cheek gets hit with the other fist. i'm tired of turning the other cheek were iran is concerned.

and it is time -- [applause] and i would also say with all this passion for the subject matter that we're talking about the suffering of people, both here and elsewhere around the world, there is no country in the face of this planet than the last two centuries has reached out and done more to alleviate the suffering of the oppressed and to be a champion for freedom and liberty on the global plane surface. i'm very proud of that. i think it's a unique gift of america to certainly the 20th century and i hope on into the 21st century. and i hope that iran is at the forefront of that affair. let me just say a few things about the past two years in

particular. first, when administration change, it's clear that there are startup efforts that have to take place. there are new people that come into positions, people that don't know each other very well. you have to get organized and you have to get focus. the one thing that doesn't happen is that time doesn't stand still. events don't stop. crazies keep coming. and whether you're organized a ready or not, you have to do with the world as it is in the events as they come toward you. i would suggest that for those who wish to understand the president and the administration, the air three speeches that are particularly big defining in terms of the aspirations of long-term goals of this administration.

the first one was the inaugural speech. the second was the cairo speech and the third was the nobel peace prize awards. one of the care with sticks of all three was a balanced approach that suggests that if their previous speakers have said that you know, we shouldn't hesitate to talk to those who don't agree with. and i think the contents of that speech fully illustrate that. but i also think that it also says that at some point you have to take a stand and you have to make a decision that's to which way it's going to go. now, we're rapidly approaching approaching the 24th month of this administration's policies. and i'd like to share a few things but you about where the administration is with regard to

iran. but it's bigger than just iran. it is a challenge that we face that is so enormous that i've often thought of the president could do one thing and one thing only, but could be guaranteed he would do it, what could be quite would say finding the solution to the problem of the middle east and iran inclusive is probably the one thing that would most emphatically change the world as we know it in a positive way. we do not have a policy that is designed to limit the use of nuclear power for peaceful uses. as a matter of fact, successful in washington last year showed that the world is moving in that direction in a very unified way. but how you get there is extremely important.

in the use of nuclear power cannot and should not be denied to anyone for one thing. it helps underdeveloped countries bypass, if you will come at the industrial age of energy production and get to clean energy that affects the climate that affects our environment and so on and so forth. so these things with regard to nuclear power are very interrelated. and i want to be very clear. the president was extremely clear and he chose his words very carefully when the president said that the policy of the united states to prevent iran from becoming a nuclear-capable state, nuclear weapons capable state. and that word prevent was the liberally chosen. it wasn't taken lightly. there were other words it could have been inserted, but he picked a word very carefully. and my knowledge, that still remains our policy. with regard to iran, there are

three -- three very dangerous consequences with regard to the path of the design. the first one of course is that it becomes nuclear weapons capable. that has a geometry onto its own. we tried for years to prevent north korea from becoming nuclear weapons capable. we are as a matter of policy bent on making sure that iran does not achieve the same thing. the second reason and second danger that eventuality would pose if in fact it does happen is the fact that it would trigger a nuclear arms race in the persian gulf. and that is also fairly certain, a fairly certain outcropping of the first eventuality. the third one, no one to national security adviser worries me more the first two is

that iran is a state sponsor of terrorism could easily be seen to be the type of country that would export that kind of technology, weapons of mass destruction to terrorist organizations. and when and if that happens, ladies and gentlemen, world as we know it today will change because you can put restrictions and you can put sanctions and you can put deterrence on sovereign countries known to have nuclear-capable weapons because nobody wants to be totally annihilated as a result of the first use. when you're a terrorist organizations that have that kind of type elegy, then you have an asymmetric challenge that is very, very difficult to meet and to defeat. so those three dangers are omnipresent international game and should be omnipresent throughout the thinking of the

rational part of the world. over the past two years, the united states has tried to anything successfully, try to become a leader in the problem of nuclear proliferation and on the problem then is presented by iran. and i think that leadership role has been recognized. i will tell you the rapprochement between russia and the united states started very early on in 2009 in iran was one of the central reasons for that rapprochement. it has not changed. and russia has demonstrated on several occasions that is increasingly concerned with developments in iran and actually canceled the sale to

its financial judgment of the 300 missiles to iran as a consequence of their displeasure with regard to the direction of the iranian regime. so too is china although delighted they, but nonetheless persuasively join the sanctions. and as a result of our duties with the europeans, the european union smoothly patent and the u.n. sanctions that were adopted. and thirdly, individual countries who may not have been signers of the sanctions for punishing sanctions on iran as well. the full weight of all of the sanctions probably won't he felt for another six months to a year but this is a methodology that is unprecedented. it is by no means the only thing for the last thing that is going

to happen if iran does not change its ways. but the president was clear anything most people agree with the fact that it leaves some measure of space must be left open for the iranians to come to their senses and to do the things the world expects them to do, which are clear. we have both overt and covert discussions with the iranians. we've offered to meet with several foreign. as secretary of state was rebut publicly by the foreign minister who turned away. added several opportunities to national security advisers do with high-level officials that water to meet and they did not. we've offered to a bilateral discussions within the framework of the p5 plus one, the iaea which have never been enacted on.

we meet bilaterally in vienna. again, offers that were rebuffed. ..

and every conference that i've been to the question about the middle east and the overarching château of iran and on top of the process argues very persuasively this is one of the defining issues of our time, and i can assure you on matters of collective security between us and our friends that there have been many discussions and i am sure those discussions are continuing. i've heard many people say of course time is not on our side and that may be true but i would also argue the time is not on the iranian side because the willingness to talk, the willingness to continue to go down this road without any tangible result eventually means that sooner or later the world will conclude and we will conclude as a nation that iran has defined itself and we will

have to proceed with what we must do in order to achieve less successful goals that have been articulated. hope is not a strategy and we can't continue to hope that the iranians will see the wisdom of our position, not only our position but most of the world's position and come to the negotiating table and be willing to negotiate openly and forthrightly for their own benefit, for their own benefit of their people which they are routinely ignoring for their own benefit of the growth of their society. the president's words about u.s. intentions are not widely shared and though it could be said by critics that maybe we should and could have done more the truth is a lot has been done, but we haven't reached the end of the road in terms of what we must do

in order to make sure that we achieve our goal for the sake of freedom, for the sake of our children and our grandchildren and for the sake of humanity. this is a problem that has to be addressed. it has to be addressed successfully and i think this congress serves to underscore not only just the passion that the logic we have to take this on and be successful and i think you very much for inviting me to be here. thank you. [applause] thank you, general, very much. jim has been a fixture in american security policy. he's the former director of central intelligence and served as head of the central intelligence agency from 1993 to 1995.

previously he served as undersecretary of the navy from 1977 to 1979. jim woolsey. [applause] thanks, bob. it was an honor to be asked to be on the panel today, but to tell you the truth since i spent 22 years as a washington lawyer and then some time at the cia in the clinton administration time-honored to be invited in to any company for any reason at all. [laughter] mark twain once said history doesn't repeat itself but sometimes it does rhyme, and there is an interesting partial crime that i want to share with you by describing another regime other than the current regime in

iran. the one that took power in january of 1933 in january. the principal figure, adolf hitler had written in the 1920's of what his objectives were. to rule germany, to kill the jews and conquer europe. he was very explicit and very clear. when he came to power, the majority of the german people didn't back him or vote for him, the plurality did, driven in part by history of germany and ancient and noble people, feeling as if they had been badly treated by particularly the french and british in the aftermath of world war i with the debt that were levied and the rest. hitler began a very substantial

military buildup. some of it was hit in, some of it was known but he began immediately as an effort to enhance his ability to deal with his neighbors and the outside world. in the meantime, two paramilitary organizations, the ss and sa can to be the instrument of the nazi state owning much of the property and dominating much of the government decision making under hitler's cui orders. it can easily be said and often said that hitler was a totalitarian maniac, but maniac misconstrued something because most americans view of a my local personality as someone reading and not rational.

hitler was far more a sociopath, someone who is shrewd, calculating, successful, and with horrible objectives. because once objectives are to conquer europe and destroy the jews does not mean that one cannot be shrewd. i wrote a paper in college but hitler as it went from 1933 to 1939. , not to bismarck, no one. he had the chancellors of years of eating out his hand with a movement to establish talks with treaties, efforts to establish negotiations, and even as he moved into the beginning of the holocaust was wrong it's against the jews in 1938, and the jewish

refugees from europe began to climb aboard ships headed for other countries and frequently including in the united states finding themselves turned away. sometimes out of anti-semitism and sometimes out of a spirit of not wanting to antagonize hitler. only the dominican republic, by the way, has a crystal pure record with respect to that issue. but many were turned away. and then in 1938, also came the opportunity, the allies had been strong of long year after year with a promise of serious negotiations, and so we had munich, as we had chamberlain returned smiling and raising the peace agreement had been reached

at munich saying this meant peace for our time to applause, to general approbation that what at the time was called appeasement did not have a negative connotation right yet. it meant in 1938 pretty much the same thing that engagement means now. talking seriously to your major adversary and hopefully reaching agreement with him. and it was success taking the land by agreement in munich and followed by 1939 in the summer hitler and stalin pact and the joint decision of the nazis and stalinist to conquer europe from

different parts of europe, not to run into one another poll in the divided carefully. i mentioned that possible rhyme to point to a few parallels. the iranian regime today have some of the characteristics that the nazis did in the 1930's. certainly the twin objectives of conquering or at least dominating the whole region of the world and killing the jews, constant among dictators it seems. i also take a vintage of the fact that the persians invented chess and are very good at it. and i see ahmadinejad strategy as essentially moving juan upon

on one far side of the chess board slowly down towards the king's row in order to convert to the most lethal peace, the queen here a nuclear weapon. while neither side of the board and perhaps sidebar conversations or coffee lots of distractions are launched. but the resolute progress of the pond towards the king's row to become the most lethal piece on the board is what the heart of the matter is all about. the other phenomenon that is taking place is of course the iranian nuclear weapons program. if you do not believe that it is a nuclear weapons program, i have a bridge in brooklyn i

would be delighted to market to you. the worst and the most irresponsible national intelligence estimate ever several years ago confused its head line with its footnote, its headline was that iran stopped its nuclear program, nuclear weapons program. the footnote said by the way it is still enriching uranium. the enrichment of uranium is the long pole in a tent and a signing the nuclear weapon or the reprocessing of plutonium. that is what is hard. that's what takes time, not the design of the weapon. keep in mind we drop the relative design on hiroshima the enriched uranium one ever having been tested in the history of the world. we tested in florida wasn't the bomb dropped on hiroshima, it was a different design dropped

on nagasaki, but merely three-quarters of a century ago we talked this absolutely innovative within in the wartime without ever having tested if we were so sure that it would work and one can be reasonably confident that for a relatively primitive we designed highly enriched uranium weapon the iranians others states before them with the same degree of confidence. if you are enriching uranium and you have a right to do that by the way under the nonproliferation treaty as part of the underlying structure of the treaty which is derived from eisenhower's program, if you are enriching uranium as is your light, you are supposed to stop at 5% which is what you use as fuel for your nuclear power

plant. once you are at 5% you are not 5% of the way or so, you are about 70% of the way to having done the work you need to do in order to be able to enrich to 90% which is what you need for nuclear weapon. so the claims that iran make in the course of its undertaking are quite parallel to the peaceful assurances that hitler was getting in the 1930's as he took a dive bomber and these are for peaceful purposes, yes of course they were. of course iran's intention is merely to have enriched uranium for its nuclear power plant.

it is amazing to me the degree to which sensible people in different parts of the world have fallen prey to that nonsense time and time and time again over the course of the last number of years. in addition to parallels and diplomacy and weapons buildup there are some crimes with respect of course to ahmadinejad and the regime's treatment. jews and treatment of dissidents, and treatment of democrats, those who want decent iran comedies and irony in government of all stripes. and certainly now it has come time for us to take a very fresh look at the way we are dealing with iran.

it would be, i think excellent if there were factions within this iranian regime that one could work with. but i greatly fear that that horse long ago left the barn, that it was not the case in 1997 when a bond was made to a new iranian primm and mr. that people have some hope might be a moderate. i don't think it was the case now and it certainly is not the case now. those who depart from ahmadinejad and the revolutionary guard and the beseeches thinking are sought out and killed as quickly as possible and the chance of there being on the inside that we can

work within sight of the regime itself is slim to the point of vanishing. of course one should never be afraid of talking to an enemy. but the reason these are sometimes done secretly including sometimes by heads of intelligence service is that once a bureaucracy gets a hold of talks, they can do some fairly bizarre things with it recall a story about my wonderful co-chair of the committee on the present danger, former secretary of state and secretary george shultz known to many of you here in the room well. his old friend mike mansfield was nominated by president reagan, democratic leader of the senate to be the ambassador of japan. the two marines from world war

ii, longtime friends got together one-on-one because the secretary shultz always had a one-on-one meetings with a new ambassador. so we had a one-on-one meeting with mike mansfield and we sat and talked for 20 or 30 minutes and finally mansfield said george, i really got to go. i know how busy you are in really appreciate it. he said okay, fine, on the way out, he said, see that big blow by the deal and mansfield said yes. i ask all new investors just the kind of pro forma thing point to your country for me and mansfield said sure. turned the globe and pointed to the united states priggish shultz beamed and said you know, you are the first sob and a long time that's gotten that right. [laughter] once a negotiation that's going, just as to a hammer and a lot of things that aren't nails look

like nails to a diplomat, and life in one, quite frequently killed of things which aren't really opportunities to settle something look like opportunities to have negotiations and wright reporting cables. and although one can talk with individuals such as foreign ministers say a mahmoud ahmadinejad regime one should under no circumstances be diluted into soft peddling things that need to be done in order to make that hypothetical negotiations succeed with the chance is sort of close to zero as things get in human endeavors. one thing we should no longer do and in this i join the others on the panel is keep the mek listed as a terrorist organization.

[applause] in 22 years of practicing law, i read a lot of legal decisions, and i recently read the circuit court's decision in the case involving the mek versus the state department, and my experience, and i think that of most lawyers interested in international matters is that courts ordinarily get a great deal of deference to the executive branch with respect to the conduct of foreign policy. this eloquently and well written decision of last july by the d.c. circuit effectively says quite blunt although it doesn't use this particular analogy that

with the department of state has done is what the red queen does an alice-in-wonderland when she is asked if first we are going to have a trial and verdict and then the execution. she says no, no, execution first, then trial. [laughter] so, we need to incorporate that move together with a vigorous effort to work with those who want a decent iran outside the country and inside the country. we need to help tide them together as bill suggested with technology. in nearly 1980's my great friend wrote a marvelous all paid in a wall street journal. the cooperation was solidarity was just beginning in the

afl-cio and to some extent the cia, and solidarity. and will setters of debt was about improving communications between the members of solidarity and the off had had a wonderful title. it was the facts will make you free, fax. the facsimile machine was the social network of the 1980's, and today we need to be careful how we do this, and we need to make sure that it is being done technically right, but there should be no reason that we forebear helping the green movement, the labor unions, the mek, all of those who have a role in a new iran to be built to safely and securely communicate with one another. we can do this and we need to do

it now. [applause] secondly, we should realize that although it means pain to the iranian people, the time is getting short. he may have bought us a year or so, but it is not the ultimate victory over the iranian nuclear program, and we need to do what we can to essentially destabilize this horrible regime through sanctions together with enabling the green movement labor unions mek and the rest. i believe we need to take steps far beyond those that would be approved even by a slightly reformed view of the soviet --

sorry, i need that slip from time to time -- the russians and the chinese. we need to basically utilize these excellent utilization of financial sanctions even more coming in and even more draconian way. i think what we need to do is pull together the elements of the secondary boycott essentially of all companies in the outside world, especially those in europe and asia that deal with iran other than by exporting food, pharmaceuticals, matters, substances and product still would relate to the basic needs of the iranian people, otherwise if you are a german bank or japanese construction company and you are dealing with iran, you should not be able to deal with the united states. [applause]

you should not be able to transfer funds from american banks. you should not be able to do anything. and the same -- [applause] the same would go for subsidiaries of american or others hiding under a foreign registration are in fact trading with the enemy that needs to get squashed and squashed now. i think finally we need to realize that it is not 1933, its 1938 and time is short and the leadership of much of the

western world would like to dither. there is a good reason why volume ii of manchester's classic free volume biography of winston churchill, the volume that deals with the years of the 1920's and 1930's has a one word title. that word is alone. churchill was indeed a loan in the 20's and 30's, almost completely. a few friends, but almost completely alone because he alone saw what was coming and what needed to be done. and when britain finally turned to him in may of 1940 nearly a year into the ongoing world war ii, it was very late. we were very fortunate that they finally did and that we, ourselves, were able finally to come into the war and cleanup

and absolutely terrible world situation that had killed millions and millions of people in no small measure because of the dithering of the 1930's by leaders who bear unfortunately some rather strong resemblances to ones we have had in the west in the last few years. [applause] it would be my hope that we would all be able to work on these problems together with a new spirit of urgency and a new spirit of commitment, thank you very much. [applause] thank you very much, bob. it's a pleasure to be here this morning and also with such a distinguished panel, many good friends and colleagues with a

might serve over the years, and also before you a group that as one of our colleagues has a passion and a focus and dedication which is remarkable. many of you and your friends and families have personally suffered at the hands of this regime, and you know firsthand both the horror of what happened and maybe more importantly the specter of poor that could happen if these issues are not dealt with. the things i want to speak about are of great importance to the united states, great importance to the people of iran, and on a personal basis, occupied a lot of my time when i was fortunate to serve as the predicted of the fbi. one of our speakers said and others repeated what you're hearing today is a very

non-partisan discussion, and i think that fema resonates very well from what you've heard. i was appointed by two presidents, one a democrat and one republican, and many of my colleagues served in both administrations of republicans and democrats. so we are talking about issues that i think transcend politics and transcend partisanship. we wanted to do is give you a case study which is a case which is now almost 10-years-old, the towers bombing that has great relevance to many of the subjects that we've discussed here today, and it's not the focus on any particular period of time or particular administration, but to highlight some of the issues and the confusion which is a word you heard several times about the united states foreign policy and decision making with respect to this regime which goes back

many, many years and the context of i'm going to talk about this terrorism which we talked about a little bit but not perhaps on a case study basis. the last time i spoke about the case in washington, d.c. in a trial that was a civil claim brought by the families of the survivors of the 19 u.s. airmen who were killed on june 26th of 1996 in the towers where as you know united states was enforcing the no-fly zone over iraq, and it was an interesting event for me to his fight and i testified years ago as an fbi agent, but this was a particularly interesting trial because we were asked by the state department and the justice department to please not testify and was a little bit of an unusual request all of the material we talked about were public record. it wasn't any confidential

information or classified information, but the united states had been and is now a policy of not supporting litigation against foreign sovereign states, even if in that particular case it was a claim for redressing the justice by the families of the survivors, the survivors of the 19 airmen killed on the towers. it highlights of one of my colleagues talked about as the confusing bureaucracies and sometimes faultless ways that we approach this problem. for many years up to sawtimber of 2001, one of the ways we dealt with terrorism abroad against the united states and its allies was using a war enforcement model, so if there was an attack against the marine barracks in 1983 which by the way resulted in a republican

president u.s. forces in the mideast, again, going back to this theme of nonpartisanship, for years and years after that event going to september 11th 2001, the united states had a policy through many different administrations of responding to attacks against the united states by using a law enforcement model. by sending out investigators doing crime scenes looking for witnesses, etc.. a model which many of us said and continued to say was an effective when the subjects of the investigation were sovereign states or terrorist organizations conducting acts of war against the united states. if you kill an american serviceman or woman overseas, yes, it is a violation of our title xviii u.s. criminal code. but it's more than that. it is an attack against the

united states and a knack of war in some respects against the united states. but for many years ago was a model the was used and i suggest one of the reasons why many administrations used that model is a much easier way to deal with an intractable complex dangerous problems. it was a military solution, it wasn't a diplomatic approach, it was let the police and the courts sort it out, and that is the model followed for many years. so in 1996, when the town were was attacked it was attacked by a group of saudi hezbollah members, and the was discovered fairly shortly after the event because host country, the kingdom of saudi arabia had detained and arrested several of the actors who said yes, we were recruited by the irg sea, we were trained and got our passports at the iranian embassy

in damascus and $100,000 cash from the general in the irg sea. this took a long time to get sorted out but although it was evidence of a crime, it was also during substantial proof that the attack in june of 1996 was an attack by the government of iran against the united states of america. and not very different, the attacks against the u.s. embassy in east africa. the attack against the u.s. s. coal. we sifted through evidence, actually giving people their miranda rights. i got a call during the the kolevar towers investigation the agents were interviewing one of the subjects and the question came up about how we could give

them the miranda rights because the local government did not provide an attorney free of charge if you couldn't afford one. as these are the types of applications that were going on in a very purposeful but a very ineffective way. when kolevar towers occurred among the president of the united states appropriately so from the oval office said that this attack against the united states would not go unpunished and no stone would be left unturned to bring the perpetrators to justice. so our charge was to conduct investigations. our first note was do you want us to conduct a criminal investigation because that may interfere with whatever other policy decisions you may or may not make. the answer was no, conduct the investigation. so we deployed several hundred fbi agents and personnel to

saudi arabia who conducted a crime scene investigations, interviews in conjunction with the saudis which is their police force. it became very clear after a short period of time the the perpetrators of the tax were irgc treen, planned and funded. the attack only resulted tragically and the death of 19 americans, 372 or wounded. the reason for that frattali was the truck was pleased perpendicular to building 131 which was the barracks. had they been placed in a parallel fashion the whole building would have come down and several hundred people would have been killed. it became very apparent during the investigation that we needed to get direct access to the defendant's subjects who had been the defended by the saudis, five of whom were arrested in the immediate environment of the

crime a short time afterwards. so we were told by the saudis that such request was unprecedented. american agents had never been allowed to conduct investigations obviously or speak to subjects in that country and the crime was one for them under sharia being handled in a religious process. so our necessity was to get a senior, the president of the mid united states to make the request that if the fbi agents be allowed to conduct the interviews to this overlong period of time we wrote talking points for the president, the vice president. they would meet with the crown prince or somebody else from saudi arabia and we always got back a response the never made the request. and then became very apparent after a short period of time that the request wasn't being made. other requests are being made, but not the one that was

critical for our investigation. this was the period as some of my colleagues have noted where the representative crush wall and the new moderate government appeared to be taking place. the government under which by the wheel of the nuclear reactors were built. so i recall getting a phone call one morning from the secretary of state that said that the iranians are company because of the agents are fingerprinting them when they come into the united states. i said of course we've been doing that along period of time because as you know, madam secretary, the agents sometimes come with a bustling team, usually the one who is on fixed, but he is the mois agent and that is why we think are protected. he said you have to stop because they are very upset. this is the mood, this was the policy not incorrect perhaps

because i agree with my colleagues that the opportunity for the discussion and compromise and diplomacy is very, very important. but we never got there during this period of time. it was in an effective policy. we learned during the course of the criminal investigation for instance that the white house had sent a diplomatic note unbeknownst to us that was supposed to be delivered to the prime minister which would request his assistance and the fbi conducting its investigation of the towers bombing. nobody told us they were sending the note. we read about it in the newspapers because the middle east ally delivering the note mistakenly gave it to the religious leader, not to the prime minister's office and that caused a big press conference and criticism. so, on and on the investigation went and we reached the point after a very difficult period of

time within the administration and the united states, not on the crime seen side or we got the evidence that this attack was committed by the irgc for the local hezbollah office which is exactly what happened in the marine barracks in 1983. and the permission that we finally received by the saudi government to interview the detainees was the result of loss using channels outside of the government and outside of the administration because we could not get any assistance within the administration with respect to making the request. the reason was simple. they did not want to confront the fact and the reality that the iranian government had murdered 19 americans and blown up the towers.

and as investigators we accepted that the foreign policy matter which goes beyond our jurisdiction and. so we would go back repeatedly and say do you want us to stop the answer would always be no, we want you to conduct a vigorous investigation, all the evidence and charge a river can be charged and this was the confusion and in anecdotal but historical the example of the confusion of the policy which in many respects continues today through a new administration with regard to the mek listing, with regard to the camp and regard to this lack of clarity and lack of purpose in terms of achieving what are very basic objectives year. after we finally got access to the detainees we interviewed them and they leave out and very good detail in an evidentiary fashion exactly what had happened, and we felt we had at

that point prove to indict and number of people under cover extraterritorial terrorism laforme the merger of 19 americans. so we got all this information together the agni went to see the national security adviser of the united states and when i told them what we had, it was a very interesting and unforgettable reaction. he looked at me and said who knows about this? and all of us here in washington did ask a lot of questions. for me the was the strangest question i got in the nine years i was here. who knows about this? and i said well, you know about it now, i know about it, the attorney-general of the united states and probably a couple of hundred fbi agents. the reaction was one of regret and one of disappointment not

because by the way people had been murdered and couldn't be brought to trial because they were members of the irgc but because now the administration had to confront a very difficult issue, one which has been confronted actually much more forthrightly by the current administration who was as general jones said that the united states will prevent the acquisition of a nuclear weapon by this administration. that is about as firm a commitment as i think i can hear. so anyway, they called the meeting in the white house as a result of this information and the usual people were invited to the meeting. it was in the room in the white house where i think everybody on my left has been on a number of occasions. the attorney general i thought the purpose of the meeting was to discuss what the result would

be of disinformation and what would happen. so at the meeting, the national security adviser hand out to documents, and when we got them we were a little bit surprised to read them. they were to press statements. one is the republican on the hill and the other was for the reporters and i asked the question i come over here to talk about this evidence and we are going to do and they said yes we are going to get to that first we have to talk about how we respond to the issue of whether or not the iranian government was involved in this attack. you can delete the weather from the stress because we have substantial evidence that they were involved in the attack and somebody said to me who was a lawyer that's all here say, which was a very surprising question to hear from the national security adviser and i said actually, the statement and

furtherance of a conspiracy by a co-conspirator and that is an exception to the hearsay rule. regardless of that, the reaction wasn't very different from the reaction we've seen politically over a long period of time. not because the people making those decisions or were not making those decisions are bad people or misguided people. i think all of them have the same goal and intention that all of us do here. how do we reach the of objective of justice and fairness and freedom not just for the iranian people repressed by these regimes but by all of the collateral consequences whether it's u.s. military personnel or other people victimized to dump the world from south america to the far east as a result of irgc's terrorist activities. the irgc was noted here and you

probably know better than us it's not just a government agency and it is an economic powerhouse, it's a conglomerate, it's a foreign policy shop, it's a military shot. it meets all the definitions of the racketeer influence organization and it kills people, mostly its own people. - from my perspective we reach the result that we intended to reach with respect to the towers. we invited 14 people on 46 counts with the murder of those americans and interestingly, we couldn't get an indictment in the administration under which the crime occurred. it was looked at and people said i don't think we have enough evidence etc., etc.. the same evidence was looked at by new prosecutors and they

returned an indictment and 90 days. those subjects are fugitives. one of the many and tie-ins with respect to the horror and the killings and the tragedies that the regime perpetrated over many years, but i think where we are as we sit here today is much closer to i would call it a fail-safe point or critical mass point, and i don't know exactly what to call it beyond that. but i think over the course of many years going back maybe to the early 1980's we have found that a combination of different alternative strategies working together will have the desired result. what is the desired result? the desired result is that those students who were murdered and

the families who were imprisoned, friends and relatives of many of you i suspect are allowed to do what free people are allowed to do everywhere through all time. we have sanctions the i think are working better. i spent a lot of time in europe working for corporations to be a ic within some of those corporations very resolute attempt to make sure that the sanctions are not violated because of the economic and political consequences that they would have for that company and that country. the amazing her like the reddi-wip nist after the 2009 election on the streets of tehran was almost a critical mass to be there was almost exactly where it should have ended. it didn't dissipate those young men and women, those heroes, the martyrs' among them, their families and friends, that

hasn't been a race, it hasn't been compromised, it's there and powerful. it will probably be in my opinion, and again i'm not a historian or diplomat, but my opinion is that is where the solution of this will be and the question is whether the regime will react as the tunisian tire rent reacted or will it react as many other governments have reacted when their regimes were threatened. i don't think we know the answer to that. but the critical mass is going to happen by a combination of the military hard power line in the sand which has been drawn. we think it has been drawn at least it has been said of the sanctions, all of the work is done covertly and overtly through diplomatic channels, military channels, through intelligence, law enforcement, and the object of here is to

support the strongest condemnation and the strong guest stress point for what we want to achieve, and that is going to be on the streets and homes and colleges and that huge and a great country and it is going to probably have been i would predict what in the near term. i don't think that you can keep that kind of force under wraps and restrained with the longevity and sustainability that the regime would certainly like. the sanctions are not going to be perfect. i don't know whether the subsidies away from the gas and food prices or because of the sanctions, and they will certainly impact adversely on the iranian people. there is no perfect solution. there is no one solution to be it's going to be a combination of all of these, but i think we are moving very rapidly to the demarcation and to the critical

point. and our goal and our hope is that it ends in a peaceful but successful and sustainable way that this regime is undermined and is defeated but by the means i think everyone here is talked about. i think if you had to write a scenario or write an ending for this story you would want to write one with a least amount of people killed, harm, injured, because that's the solution as americans and as freedom lovers that we want and we strive for. so your work here in the seminar is very timely. if you have a very powerful elements to this comprehensive and irreversible movement and force which the policy makers will have to respond to. they've already responded to it, but you sustaining this issue and your dedication to this

issue will take it to the next few steps, next few critical steps, and how those are executed and balance are obviously critical with respect to the preservation of life, but as importantly, the preservation of freedom and the stubble until the freedom in an institutional way. i want to thank you and commend you and i think you have heard a great cross section of furious but also of solutions and alternatives and my hope is that all of those together will win the day and get the result that we want. thank you. [applause] [applause] >> thank you very much. finally for the final presentation today, ambassador

michel reiss. mitchell was a former director of policy planning in the united states department of state where he worked for secretary powell. he helped develop the united states foreign policy with an emphasis in iraq, north korea, china, iran and the arab-israeli conflict. ambassador reiss was recently named the 27th president of washington college. congratulations. welcome. [applause] thank you for inviting me to speak today. i am honored to be on the same panel with such outstanding public servants. i just returned this past weekend from a tour across the middle east. starting in the uae, spending three days in afghanistan, on to jordan and finishing with two and a half days in israel. during the trip i met with a

number of senior political leaders and military officials. at every meeting that the top of the agenda was iran, the threat it poses to stability in the region, its support for terrorism and what might be done to halt its nuclear weapons program. these days most of the attention of iran and the region and in the media focuses on its nuclear weapons ambition and rightly so. the iranian regime continues to regard even security council restrictions, and there is the risk that its nuclear program will provoke other countries in the middle east to pursue their own independent nuclear options. in the past few days, senior israeli officials including the head of mossad suggested that iran's progress has been slowed and that it is now two to three years away from building a nuclear weapon. some u.s. officials have a slightly less optimistic assessment about that time line.

but there is absolutely no disagreement and no dispute over the fact that iran is keeping open its nuclear weapons option by continuing to develop various technical capabilities that each day bring it closer to being able to produce nuclear weapons should it decide to do so. my discussions in jordan and israel also focus on kuran's effort to destabilize government friendly to the west through its proxies' particularly hezbollah and hamas. this came as no surprise. we know that hezbollah is the largest recipient of the iranian financial aid, training and within prieta that iran's senior leadership cited hezbollah as a model for other militant groups. the israeli and other sources estimate that hezbollah has now stockpiled over 50,000 rockets in southern lebanon as it has rearmed from the war with israel in the summer of 2006. iran also provides training

weapons and money to hamas to support its resistance to israel and its implacable opposition to any israeli-palestinian peace negotiations to reach we all know of the successful efforts last week by hezbollah to collapse the government in lebanon. over the u.n. investigation into his father's assassination. we have also seen a ratcheting up in the past month of mortar and rocket attacks from the gaza strips on neighboring towns and villages. let me share with you a brief anecdote. last week i was in a town located right next to the gaza strip. the israeli police commissioner showed me his collection of all of the spent rockets that have been fired into the town in the past few years. now typically when this happens the israeli officials condemn hamas for these attacks. but there are other groups that launch these rockets against the israeli civilians like

palestinian islamic jihad which is also supported by iran as the governor noted earlier. it turns out the palestinian islamic jihad was upset hamas was getting all the credit for this tax. as we started writing messages to the israelis on each rocket to make sure that it was attributed to their group and not hamas. surely an interesting way to assert yorubaland the command and claimed market share. in addition to k in addition to iran's nuclear weapons program and support for terrorism a third topic that arose was the nature of the islamic republic itself. frankly less attention is said of this topic these days. seems international attention crested a few years ago with the green movement when it seemed possible democratic forces inside iran might topple the regime or at least fundamentally change the relationship between god, the state and the people. we all know what happened.

the response of the iranian government to this political challenge was to conduct massive voter fraud in the june 2009 election and in response the people poured out into the street in large-scale demonstrations. conservative hardliners reacted by cracking down on protesters and regime opponents. the supreme leader and president mahmoud ahmadinejad and their hard-line conservative allies then move to consolidate their power even more. by early 2010 the movement had lost momentum and it appeared the opposition had missed its moment. let me quote from a cia report from last year that describe the iranian regime and the following terms. strengthen conservative control limit opportunities for reformers to participate in politics organized opposition. the regime will look to marginalize opposition leads,

disrupt or intimidate efforts and use force to put down unrest. that was last year. but what about this year. has anything changed? the international economic sanctions galvanize the people into opposing the regime, has the opposition regrouped and reorganized. is the green movement an effective force for challenging lockwood of a dinner the? the answer received from u.s. officials across the region last week was no. international sanctions and pressure have aggravated iran's economic woes by disrupting and increasing the cost of doing international business, slowing some projects and programs and contributing to iran's economic slowdown but their assessment is even stricter economic sanctions by themselves will not bring down the government. iran's economy has been hurt by sanctions, sa oil prices and longstanding policies to discourage private sector and

foreign investment. the assessment is the economy is not in crisis or a least not yet. iran maintains foreign currency reserves to hedge against a moderate fall in world oil prices. tehran has resorted to doing business with small non-western banks in dealing with non u.s. currency's for financial transactions. mahmoud ahmadinejad is trying to insulate the poorest and most classes from the budget cuts and the removal of state subsidies. so even if there is rising political disaffection among the people the assessment is this will not bring down this government. students and opposition political class are seen as disorganized and not strong enough to mobilize, take their protest to the streets and challenge the government. that is a pretty discouraging assessment but is it accurate? let me offer an alternative.

let's start with an uncomfortable fact. the fact that no one in the u.s. government or across the arab world predicted will we have just seen occur in tunisia. no one. still useful starting point when we look at iran is we need a huge dose of humility. how poor we are at predicting popular uprisings and. that famous foreign policy analyst you ibert one said prediction is very hard especially about the future. so i think it is entirely possible that we may see a resurgence in the opposition movement in the coming years. maybe even sooner. what we witnessed in 2008/2009 may be only the first phase of this opposition, not the final phase. none of the key issues from the june 2009 election have been resolved. not the best economic model for

iran, not the islamic nature of the regime and proper rule for religious authority and not the outcome of the election itself. all of these issues continue to faster. it is also worth noting that iran still has an educated and restless middle class. iran has millions of young people. approximately 70% of the population are under the age of 30 years old. these young people have access to the internet daily. this is not a society that wants to be associated with a regime that stones women to death. so if there is going to be another wave of protest what might be the trigger? my view is there won't be any single event that prompts the opposition into action but rather the slow accumulation of hardships, indignities, results and humiliations. the lifting of subsidies alone would not unleash the opposition

but economic hard times combined with food scarcity, rising inflation, and rising unemployment or underemployment may lead initially to sporadic protests. we may start to see these as soon as this summer when university students are out of school or temperatures start to rise or the tipping deco will be if or when the regime announces there will be no more parliamentary or presidential elections. the point here is we can't know for sure but it would be mistaken to think that the status quo will hold forever. finally, is there anything the united states can do to assess the opposition. let me offer a few ideas. the obama administration should continue to tighten the economic news around this regime and lobby other governments to do the same. last week secretary of state hillary clinton announced the sanctions were having an impact on iran's economic behavior.

general jones just reiterated that. the administration needs to continue and intensify these efforts. second the united states needs to target its criticism that iranian leaders and policies and not at the iranian nation. what i have in mind is calibrating our official statements so they do not inflame iranian nationalism or allow mahmoud ahmadinejad to exploit statements to solidify his own power. efforts to expose corruption at the highest levels would be an example of what i have in mind but more broadly the obama administration needs to talk up and take out the batter of human rights and democracy and at the very least give greater rhetorical support to the opposition movement. [applause] substantive support

for the opposition would also be welcome. in the past the obama administration appeared reluctant to support iranian opposition efforts for fear it would complicate their nuclear talks. i disagree with that decision. aaron spent a large part of my career in negotiations with some pretty bad actors, supporting the opposition would give any american negotiator more leverage, not less leverage at the negotiating table. [applause] weather or not you believe that we have one year, two years, three years or more before iran will be in a position to acquire nuclear weapons there's still no reason to be shy about doing more to support the iranian opposition. a good first step would be delisting the m e k.

[applause] [applause] >> third, we need to promote free access to the internet and the free flow of information from outside iran and especially with in iran. i'm talking about twitter, facebook, myspace and all the other technologies mentioned earlier. we have all seen the impact these technologies can have when they are aligned with of the forces of freedom. my sense is many iranians want to be part of the international community. they want to be integrated more closely into the economic dynamism of the region and they want to become full members of the twenty-first century. we need to do more to help them.

thank you. [applause] >> i want to thank you again on behalf of the panel for bringing us together today and all of view for your patience and the members of the panel, i know we have taken more of your time this morning that was planned or promised. but we are grateful. many of you may be new to washington. you may not have attended similar events in the past. i have spent most of my adult life in such forums in this town. i can remember no occasion under which such distinguished people from various pursuits, professional service have come

together in one room, such remarkably similar views. i hesitate to add the numbers, but i would suspect, there is assembled on this stage more than 200 years of experience in law enforcement, anti-terrorist activities, military service and american foreign policy. a distinguished set of careers. no one on this podium needs me to represent or characterize their views. i speak only for myself. but i think several things are unmistakable. we can differ on how we believe american policy should respond to the growing threat of iran possessing nuclear weapons but it appears to me as i listened to every speaker one thought was common. the discussions in turkey must

be more than another meaningless milestone on route to nuclear-weapons held by the government in tehran. second, the listing of the npa as a terrorist organization by the united states government is wrong. it is wrong -- [applause] -- it is wrong as a matter of law. it is contrary to the facts. it is interfering with the rights of american citizens to be heard, and it is contrary to american foreign policy. having expatriate groups of americans from around world organized as is their right and their responsibility to bring to the country of their ancestors's

birth a responsible government. i call upon secretary clinton who i consider a dear friend and one of the finest leaders in the history of our country to do what she knows is right. end policy and end it now. [applause] i leave you finally with this prediction. as it has been difficult to be part of the resistance to the iranian government, made dangerous by the actions of

tehran and complicated by policies of the united states government, one day, you will look upon your children and your grandchildren with pride and say that old world looked the other way when even the united states government made it difficult to stand up against tyranny in tehran, your family was there and stood firm. you will be proud you were here today and part of this. [applause] we promised all of you then this was going to end sometime ago. we promised members of our panel that they would be on with verde's by now so i will take the liberty of limiting if i could, i know people in the audience would like to speak to members of the panel. they will take a few minutes to answer their questions privately but if there are any members of the media who want to take advantage for a couple minutes with one or two questions, let's

hold everybody for that. would anyone in the idea identify the media source to ask questions? anybody? if there's not we will break. no one? thank you all very much. >> up next this -- case to keep sensitive information out of the courts. after that the conversation on money, politics and the influence of corp. the. the senate will debate a proposal to days at will change the senate procedural rules with use of a filibuster. live senate coverage at:00

eastern. >> president obama delivers the state of the union address to a joint session of congress. c-span's live coverage begins with our preview program followed by the president's speech and 9:00 and the republican response from house budget committee chairman paul ryan of wisconsin and your phone calls and reaction on c-span, c-span radio and on line at c-span.org. watch our live streaming video and see reaction from members of congress after the president's address on c-span2. >> the supreme court heard a case last week on a runner lot -- long-running contract dispute between the federal government and boeing general dynamics corp.. the 20-year-old loss involves the navy's cancellation of a $4 billion fighter jet.

boeing and general dynamics contend the government violated their corporations's constitutional rights by using the state secrets privilege to stop them from arguing their case. the audio of this oral argument is that our. >> general dynamics versus united states and consolidated case 09132, boeing versus the united states. >> may it please the court, the proposition that petitioners are challenging is the one embraced by the federal circuit. the united states government can declare certain of its partners have operated in default and under those circumstances can reach into the pocket and withdraw $1.35 billion of money that was spent by the united states for services rendered without question pursuant to the

contract, pursuant to the instructions of the united states government and when contractor seeks to defend against the claim that it engaged in some default conduct, assert the state secrets privilege and in so doing deprive the contractor the ability to respond to the government's conclusion. under those circumstances it seems the statement of this court's decision in the united states versus reynolds that the government is free to assert state secrets but when it does so it has to assume certain responsibilities that come from it. at least in the circumstances where the united states is the moving party. >> when they deliver the first aircraft, specified by the contract, there are reasons that

the cost was far out run by the contract price and so it fought to reformulate the contract. at that time, correct me if i am wrong, at that time the contract said nothing at all about superior knowledge to share information that has been shared. >> there was nothing with respect to that. the first time contractors identify superior knowledge problem was when the government took the extraordinary step of issuing a secure notice because until that point the parties are attempting to negotiate and work to a final resolution of this project. to bring the contract to a happy resolution. >> if that was the impediment going forward on this contract,

to mention it. >> put it in context. at this time there were consistent efforts and requests being made to get access to the self technology and discussions that went back and forth. the federal claims specifically helped. the information was forthcoming but too little too late to effectively allow the contract to proceed as planned. in a perfect world maybe you would identify this but they are trying to come to a resolution fog -- to allow both sides to be satisfied by the final disposition. >> why wasn't the need to share that technology a part of this contract or conditions to the contract? i have gone through the contract -- enough of it -- i haven't

found anything in the contract that requires the u.s. to share information. does that have anything to do with what the process would require? i am going to pose a hypothetical. let's assume the contract required the sharing of state secrets and the government then invoke its privilege. is that a different case than this one in terms of due process? what did the former situation where it has been made a condition of the contract required different treatment than this situation where the government is saying if you want to raise the defense as part of a contract, bent you do what every other litigant with the the privilege does his privilege has been invoked to proceed with

whatever evidence you have? that is usually what happens with other privileges. >> we would be content to proceed with the evidence we have with the court of federal claims that it was impossible to be in a position to resolve it. i want to answer a more fundamental question. the basic point is the background principle of law is the understanding of parties when they enter into an agreement. that would have been true in the other cases where the federal circuit acknowledged defense. that has been around for a long time. it is an understood basis on which the parties enter into an agreement. the second answer is you are asking us to put into a contract something about information we don't know anything about. we have some sense about the a 117 but don't know anything about other programs. >> where is the obligation of

the government to tell you build it this way using the technology we have? your claim is you were promised this information and use structured the contract based on that. >> we have a series of distinct claims. our first claim is we never would have entered into the contract in the first place if the government had provided us with information based on superior knowledge that for instance the weight specifics we were being asked to provide or supply were literally impossible to comply with based on what the government already knew. if we had been given a warning we wouldn't be in a situation where we are here. >> there is a claim they told you about estimates weren't right. >> there may be a factual dispute and i would be happy to litigate that issue if we could get to that point where we are

allowed to litigate any aspect of our particular defense but the bottom line is the state, proposition as stark as it is is the way it comes from the federal circuit, the government can assert a claim for $1.35 billion against us and tell us we cannot defend against that claim even though the reason we were unable to comply with the contract is because the government didn't provide information at the outset -- >> two questions i have. sorry. i did have her question because with that, in this case, it is not unfair to hold your client in this case and just read two certain court opinions and this is a defense coming out of long in the past that doesn't have much substance to it. that was her question as on understood it.

but let me give you the other questions. if we accept as a principle of law what we said in a criminal cases or whatever and apply it to government contract or sophisticated contract, perfectly capable of negotiating their own contracts. we are not just throwing a monkey wrench into the gears of government contract thing. we are throwing the whole monkey. that is my second question. this indicates -- the threat the government contract by changing from rentals to here is overwhelming. i would like your views on both of those. >> seems to me clearly this is the precise situation where reynolds is saying if you cannot bring a legitimate defense part of the problem is we don't know exactly what information we didn't have and were never entitled to. difficult to say how strong is

our defense under these circumstances. will we do know is the federal claims judge looked carefully at this and we made an impressive showing without regard to any confidential privileged information of defense in these circumstances. a very valid defense, we are not furrowing this in simply as a mechanism to force the government to assert state secrets but that is a fairly contrived approach to litigation and frankly not something i would imagine any circumstances in which we would do that. i don't see how this throws a monkey wrench into this process whatsoever much less the monkey because the basic understanding is the government is not entitled to force its contract to ruin its course. to have information that is forthcoming with the contractor either at the outset which would

have been the best of all circumstances or as matters along. >> as a formal matter, is that right? >> moving party, it is not a self defined concept. the petitioners or the plaintiffs -- >> the team that you outlined was known to them before and. why do we need to look beyond that? >> the review scheme also says 1986, the federal circuit before the contract was entered into the federal circuit said the filing -- the mere filing of a complaint immediately vacate the contract and officer's rule. our understanding when we enter into this agreement is if there was a problem the way the officer operated we would be allowed to file a claim and the immediately take the contract in officer's rule off of the table. it seems to me all we are asking for is to go back to the status

quo in that situation which means there's no contract in officer decision and no basis on which the government can make a claim for $1.35 billion. >> you referred to several times. that was not based on completed work. that money was advanced. you cannot comply with what was necessary to comply with to get that $1.35 million. we did not distinguish the $1.3 million that you received, but just not fulfil what you needed to get to that. >> what had not happened, there had not been a final sign off by the contracting officers. that is a different statement, an argument with respect to half

of staff improve through a mechanism to the contract in officer. the bottom line is these were services actually rendered, this was not a prepayment for services to be rendered in the future. this was for work we had done for what we submitted to specific claims and which the contract in officer had pending before him at the time. what the government says is it was payment and they didn't alter the league at the airplanes that were the ultimate desire under these circumstances. they terminated the contract year before the airplanes -- >> seeking to emerge as a total winner. what we would have gotten if successfully completed including any profits? >> that is not true.

all we are asking for is remedies that are fully available if you were to confirm this from a termination for default and termination for convenience. under those circumstances, the government has a wonderful mechanism protecting against the kinds of lost profit damages that might otherwise be available in a situation where you have a more traditional breach of contract. all we are asking for is actual amount of money we expended that frankly the court of federal claims explicitly found and that this date it is unchallenged or political at some point but these were all reasonable, allowable and fairly applicable costs to the particular contracts. >> why shouldn't we view this as a dispute between two private parties and if we did that, perhaps one party would be the moving party with respect to some of the claims and another

party moving with respect to the remaining claims? .. i think that is precisely how you ought to look at it. we would be very comfortable with that because it is quite clear to me that except in a hypertechnical way, because of the way the contract disputes that, plays out, the government is unquestionably the moving party, the party seeking affirmative relief. >> i think it is questionable, mr. phillips, for this reason >> that the government has a duty to share certain information. and you are seeking to enforce. implied term of thet in contract. so it seems to me as to that alleged duty, you are the moving party. you're saying, please enforce this implied term of the contract. >> well, not, i mean, that's one way to articulate it. i think the other way which isat much more consistent with the

reality that's going on here is that the government is making ao claim forn $1.35 billion for which, on the basis that we did not act in a timely fashion, ana that's the only basis that exists in this litigationbasi anymore is just the time of the actions that we took. and our answer to that claim is to say, no, we, we are not at fault for the delays because yot did not provide us the information, or you did not spare us the burden of having to go down this path in the firstrn place.o >> yeah. but then you go on to say, moreover, give us the payment for the additional money beyond the 1.35 that you've already given us. >> well -- >> there's this additional moneu that we've expended. >> right. but that just goes to justice alito's question about is there some way to evaluate those claims separately, and the answer is, yes, they shoulde. be -- >> well, why shouldn't we? it seems to me if, indeed, you say the government has come up with a defense that makes it impossible to decide who's in

the right here -- dec >> right. >> -- why don't we just, you know, i think the usual course taken by courts would be to leave the parties where theybe t are, the matter can't be litigated. that would mean you would keep your 1.35 billion, but you wouldn't be entitled to sue for the additional amount. if you were that worried, you should have, you should have had more frequent progress payments or something. why don't we just leave you where you are, both you and the government?eave assuming we agree with you on all the rest? >> well, i mean, to be sure we would be much more comfortable in the world you just articulated, justice scalia. >> [inaudible] [laughter] >> with interest. >> i forgot the -- >> that's starting to add up, your honor. [laughter] and, certainly, we think that is the minimum that we should be into be entitled to, and maybe you could say we're sort of being a little

greedy, but the reality is that the standard rule is that if you take a contract and you say you cannot make a determination that the contractor has been guilty of default, then that contract shouldhe be and the basic contrt law and it's also in this bas agreement that you converted to a termination for convenience. and then the question simply isn what rights flow from having declared this from being a determination -- >> you mentioned the 1.3 that y you get to keep, the 1.35 million. but there was also another figure. 1.2 million that you would get on top of that. >> right. and that -- >> that certainly wouldn't be leaving you where you were.>> >> well, no. actually, what the $1.2 billion was was the additional amounts of money that were actually add expended by the contractors that were reasonable and allowable according to the court of federal claims on this agreement. and it would be the standard operating procedure if you havee a term mission for convenience

where the government says, look, we've decided we just don't want -- we don't want these airplanes anymore, so let's just call it off, which the government has the right to do.g then the question is, what are the reasonable costs that are, you know, sort of real low candidated as a consequence of that? >> but the government didn't do that. i mean, you're making it up.d the government didn't terminate for convenience, the government claims you're in default. why should we force that downnvn the government's throat when we can no more say that the government's wrong than we can say that you're wrong? >> well, it seems to me that -- yeah, i mean -- >> [inaudible] call the game offsome. >> well, the question is, if you call the game off, what flowsd h from that?all it seems to me that you can say? well, let the government call it a default, i suppose, or you could just as easily say and, obviously, the position we would take is you say the government cannot call it a default because in order to get some kind of determination along those lines, somebody's going to have to make a judgment that's not an honest assessment of the facts of this

case. so if you say it's not a default termination, then there's just a certain amount, certain consequences that flow from converting it, and it automatically converts at that point to a termination for convenience.hat and in a termination for convenience situation, then your reallocate the cost in precisely the way the court of federal claims has done this. >> yeah, but the fallacy is we're not assuming -- assuming we agree with you on the rest, we're not saying that it's not a default termination. we're saying we don't know. >> right.g and the question -- >> we don't know.we' we don't know wha' the state secrets is, the government is entitled to make that determination. so we don't know who's in themae right here. >> well, the problem -- >> so why force the government to go to a termination for convenience? >> all right. well, i would think that the more appropriate way to proceed under those circumstances given that a default termination carries with it a lot of collateral consequences, it exposes you to subsequent

problems in the contractingubse context, it creates thethe possibility of debarment in future proceedings, that rather than allow a finding that no one can comfortably conclude is the right finding to stay in place and have those collateral consequences flow from it, the more appropriate way to proceed would be to say, look, i can't make a determination in this pro case that there should be a termination for default. and under those -- and so, therefore, under the contract, under government contracting principles generally, it automatically converts over to a termination for convenience, and once that happens then you go down the road of evaluating those costs. con and, again, the government's got arguments about those costs, i'm sure, and we can debate thosergm out although, you know, i would commend -- >> mr. phillips, give us a way, a reasoned way -- [laughter] to reach the result justice scalia is suggesting. because you are being greedy. you admitted it. the termination -- >> i could be cured from it.

>> the termination for convenience carries its own automatic consequences that appear unfair in light of thensq fact that the litigation of the default termination has been o invoked because there is a riskd to the united states. so is there a reasoned way to d? it? not, to not impose that unfairness on the government? and if there's not, then explain to me why it's unfair given that your two sophisticatediven contracting parties to say you entered a contract knowing the government could invoke state en secrets, it has, and so you bear the risk of that.ld i mean, you always knew the government could do this.at >> but, but, well, i don't know whether you want me -- >> it goes back to my original i question is you could haves contracted around it. >> sure. and so could the government. the reality is that theight background principle here is united states v. reynolds.

in united states v. reynolds is the moving party, that is the party seeking affirmative relief, that's the party that'sm going to -- >> could i ask you whether that principle makes any sense in this contracting situation?hat because both parties have arguee as though the question of who is the moving party is determined in this case. but in a contract situation the question of of who's the moving party is very often arbitrary or fortuitous. sit if you think about it in a private setting, you have one contract, one contractor who you fails to perform or provide some defish cent product, another who decides it's not going to pay, and the question of of who the,n plaintiff is often just a matter of fortuity. who gets to the courthouse first, what the payment schedule has been like, so whether somebody is demanding their money back or simply refusing tr

pay it at all. so why in this contract. situation is the question of who's the plaintiff or who's the moving party, why is does that make such a difference? >> well, i think that actually i the court in reynolds to the mov extent it would have envisioned any of these circumstances i decades ago used the language "moving party" rather than plaintiff or defendant for precisely that reason.son. i think what the court had in mind is the party that was seeking affirmative relief. >> you're thinking of a tort.f reynolds is a tort action. >> oh, no, to be sure that's the specific context although the court's language is broader than that. >> it can't possibly be the case, the question of what the payment schedule is. if i've paid you already and then i find your productt deficient, then i'm going to go to court and demand my moneyde back. if i find it deficient before i pay you, then you're going to go to court and say, you have to pay me. so why should that difference-- make a difference with respect to the constitutional question before us?efor

>> well, because in the oneou situation i have $1.35 billion in my pocket for services that were unquestionably rendered and which, in our judgment, you know, satisfied our portion of the obligation under this contract. >> both party has a claim here. one says you provided deficient performance, the other says you were obligated to pay me.are the question of who has the claim and who has the affirmative defense, it can bema structured in either way. >> i don't disagree with that, justice kagan. i think the bottom line, thought is what do principles of fundamental fairness tell you to do --l >> that'syo exactly my problem. because when i looked at reynolds, reynolds doesn't hold anything in your favor. it holds the opposite way. it says to you in a criminal case we said it was unconscionable for the government both to prosecute ano not to, not to tell them the

secret, okay? and it says such a rationale has no application in this a civil forum where the government is not the moving party. doesn't say anything about where the government is the moving party. >> right, but --s no >> and exhibit a that it is not unconscionable here consists of the two opinions of the federal circuit. i mean, now, what do you want me to read to get over thatat d impression?read >> well, i mean, the very fact that the court says and limits its ruling to where the government is not the moving party, i mean, is the government really -- >> didn't limit it, it said the rationale is unconscionable. now, i don't even have to goal thate far. i can go to fundamentally unfair. all i want to know is what should i read to get over my unfortunate impression which i got out of the two opinions thau i did read? that there was nothing unfair? okay? the what do you want me to read to get over that impression which i think you do want me tom

read something. >> right. no, you should clearly read the court of federal claims opinion that gave rise to this in the first place where the judge says we have made an impressive, prime fascia showing of a defense. and the federal circuit's view is, we don't care. we're not going to let you goe o down that path period, and allol we're saying this that situatior where we've made that kind of showing, the default rule should be the government cannot -- >> just before i get there, that showing was based on the court'w in the camera review of -- in camera review of already quite a bit of confidential information, correct? and -- >> and the nonprivileged information. >> so it made this decision andl it couldn't conclude you were right as a matter of law, correct? >> well, it recognizes it terminated the discovery early. actually, it terminated it discovery very early, and thereo are whole programs that we know nothing about. we know about the b-2 and the

a-15, what we don't know are about the other programs, and there's nothing in this regard about that, your honor.do n >> thank you, mr. phillips. general? >> thank you, mr. chief justice, and may it please the court, two basic things decide this case. first, the government is not affirmatively invoking the power of the federal court, only the claimants are. mr. phillips' clients asks that court to set aside the decisiont of the contracting officer and to award them over a billion dollars this damages. the government by contrast simply asked the court to d dismiss the federal lawsuit. and second, reynolds makes clead that the state secrets privilege will be used to bar a claim ati most only when the party that is relying on secret information is trying to use the federal court to alter the legal status quo. >> and we have, we've gotten to this point in the dispute was

you say they're at fault, theyhd say you're at fault.e under the state secrets doctrine, we can't resolve that question. why don't we call the whole res thing off, nobody's at fault, that means it's terminated nota for fault, but for convenience, and that's it? >> well, for several reasons. one is that is the affirmative use of the federal courts to alter the legal status quo. i think the principle ofal reynolds is -- >> well, only because you altered the legal status quo, the legal status quo as they're going along with their contract. and you altered it by holding them in default be. >> i disagree, mr. chief justice. i think that the contract itseli specifies that the contracting officer will decide whether ori not there's a defaulticer termination, and once there is that, they owe -- once the contracting officer so decides, then they owe the unliquidated o one changing the status quo. >> undoubtedly the case, ands those are the terms under the contract to which they agreed. our central proposition is that

in a world in which the federal court doesn't know, as justice scalia said, who is right and is wrong on a particular a p claim, it should stay its hand entirely and get out of the business altogether. it should follow the hippocratic principle of doing no harm.at >> am i correct to interpret what you've just said to mean thatm you think this case shoul- be decided under the basic reynolds, that the party that seeks the affirmative, seeks affirmative relief from the court is the party that bears the burdens th involving the invocation of the state secrets privilege? you're not asking us to adopt at new test of applicable limit on the contracts?sk >> actually, i don't think we need to go this.? i do think there are special arguments in this case because it is a contract as justice wryer said -- breyer said, sophisticated parties will decide who bears the burden of coming into court and so on. but here i think this is a simple principle in a world in

which the court doesn't know whd is right and wrong, and that's o the answer to the question that justice sotomayor asked to many phillips a moment ago about what did the court of federal claims ultimately decide? they said in page 245a, we can't know one way or the other.ai and so -- >> could i, could i, i'm interrupting justice alito because you answered his question very quickly. if we determine you're theitio moving party, you lose? >> no, i think -- >> is that what your answer to him which is that he asked you whether we apply reynolds. he didn't say which part of reynolds. whi are you conceding that if we apply reynolds and we findding you're the moving party, you lose? >> oh, absolutely not, justicelo sotomayor. i don't think reynolds says that if government is the moving party, it's an automatic loss. i think that's a back-up argument that we have advanced e

in our brief that i think therep is no reasonar whatsoever for the -- >> let's talk about moving party. i don't, i don't know that moving party means who comeson' into court first. i would, i would -- in the context of a contract dispute i would say the moving party isf the party who is trying to uses principles of law to change the contract. and that's the government here. the government, the government is blowing the whistle. it is the government which is saying you are in default, and under the law since you're in e default, we can walk away. and, indeed, we can claim the money we've already paid.aid. that seems to me the moving party in the context of a contract. >> justice scalia, i think it's important to add to your definition using legal principles in a federal court. because that's, i think, what p reynolds is talking about. there's not some abstract -- >> it was talking about that

because that was the factse situation in reynolds. but i'm saying that the logic of the matter, the logic of the matter when applied to a contract situation such as this ought to be the party who isntra blowing the whistle, who is par trying to use the law, the one who is asserting that the law requires this result. and then we say, well, we can't tell whether the law requires rs this result or not. that, it seems to me, ought to be the moment of --is >> i don't think, justice,>> that's what either reynolds is getting at or this court's subsequent decision about a state of uncertainty in the law annsd what the role of the fedel courts is getting at. cou i think what all of these decisions say together is if yon don't know one way or the other, you should return, you should wind the clock back to the status quo ante before the lawsuit was filed, and there was an undoubted right of the government to have $1.5 -- $1.5. now i understand maybe some ofmb

you say you should just cut itnd even. i suggest there's no principled way to do that which is what i . think mr. phillips' answer -- >> it wasn't the undoubted right of the government before the-- lawsuit was filed. it was the undoubted right of the lawsuit only if contracting officer was correct that theresu had been a default. if he was wrong about that, it was not the right of theif h government. >> justice scalia, let me read to you the contract to which they agreed.ce if contract is terminated under the default clause, the contractor shall on demand repay to the government the amount ofo unliquidated progress payments, and then what happened as agres result of that demand letterand that we sent right after the, lt after the termination for default was they came to us hat in hand and said, please, don't take this money from us right now. and our banks are going to complain and so on. and so we entered into a deferment agreement which is pages -- >> i'm sorry, do you want toemen give the site? >> joint appendix page 342, and

it seems to me a very odd notio. of due process to say that somehow the fact that we agreed to their deferment creates some entitlement for them to keep the $1.35 billion. >> i have this question aboutlin due process, the components of the due process analysis, it seems to me, are reasonable, what's necessary in the case, is what's unconscionable.cess that, it seems to me, is just an extrapolation of what reynolds said, and i don't know why we don't have that just as a law o the federal common law of contracts. i don't know why we need to elevate this to the due process analysisment -- analysis. >> i guess i would say two things, one is -- >> assuming that we apply reynolds which -- w >> right.ds. i think if you were to look to that background common lawou contract principle, you'd look not just to reynolds, but toreyn tenet, excuse me, todayen, which i think makes clear that add the time they signed their contract,

theyey were on notice thattice highly-classified information that is the subjectly of litigation is something that generally can't be litigated in the federal court. and then if you wanted to think about due process and the overlay of unconscionability or whatever with respect to federal contracts, you would ordinarilya assume that the contract itself from highly sophisticatedlf parties would work that out ahead of time. so if they were concerned about this situation unfolding, they could have written into the contract that they should get certain information and that ifm government invoked the state secrets privilege, it would automatically term that it the contract's default, convert it to a default termination into a termination for convenience.of t >> well, that just restates theo question of what do you do if you apply the reynolds principle to this case, and they would say, well, you could have put it in your contract, too, and i think that's almost a wash.wo >> well, i don't think it comes. out as a wash, justice kennedy, because i think the contract is undoubtedly clear that in order to challenge the decision of the

contracting officer about aon default termination, they have to come into federal court and invoke affirmatively, seek affirmative judicial relief from the federal court to change them world.at we don't --th >> am i right that this contract did specify certain information that the government agreed to give the petitioner?nmen >> that is correct. some of that is in joint appendix 137-140. >> mr. phillips says the reason they couldn't specify this information is they didn't know what it was. t they, they didn't know it wasow secret information, they wouldn't even know what to ask for.ey d >> i have to say it is a veryt o odd thing to bid on a highly multibillion dollar contract on the assumption that they're going to get some technologyract that they haven't even specified. i mean, this -- we're bidding for their research and development. they brought in lockheed who which had built low technology, low observe about planes precisely for the reason theyort

said they'd have the technology. you see their bid, their offer, and i don't think anyone held a gun to their back to say -- rea >> no, but they claim that you knew that it was impossible to do what they contracted with you to do at the weight of plane d which they promised to come across with. they say that you knew that because of of other contracts that you had had.me and yet didn't, didn't tell them about it. say >> justice scalia, let me say twdio things. first -- >> we don't know whether that's true or not, and we're never going to know it's true becausei you came in and blew the whistle and said state secrets privilege.aid, >> can two things. that impossibility claim was separately litigated along with 18 other claims of theirs ins al defense to the $1.35 billion1.64 we've been talking about. they've had massive opportunities to litigate almost all of their challenges with the

one exception being the superior knowledge aspect of this case. and much of that has taken case in a highly classified environment. >> are you saying it was not impossible to do it at that weight? t >> i'm saying -- well, the tha initial weight we thought it was impossible, and those are the citations in the government's brief. so -- contracted for. >> and then we, at the weight contracted for we had warnedhe w them that it wasn't, and then later we relaxed to that weight specification.t, a so i'm not sure that is reallyex present one way or the other.amn but our central submission,wa justice scalia, if you're not sure as you were saying to me you don't know who's right and who's wrong, then the federal court shouldn't be complicit ind the process of siding of pickine winners and losers in thatners circumstance. in >> then what would happen -- >> are you ever the moving party in the court of claims? >> sure. i could imagine that we could be on a counterclaim, for example. >> well, on a counterclaim, but that, obviously, means somebody elsem. is the moving party. they've raised the claim. >> that's correct.e the --mo

>> and if somebody wants to getc money, if somebody wants to gets money from the federal government, they have to go to the court of claims? >> that's correct. >> this is a pretty convenients rule for you. [laughter] >> well, it's a convenient rule mr. chief justice, that they agreed to when they signed the contract. they knew the deal going in, th. cda was on the books. if they wanted to challenge thee decision of the contracting officer, they would have to comt in. now, you could have structured it very differently. could have said, you know, that there would have been to be -- if there were a termination for default, to itma would automatically change -- >> you had the burden of proof on the issue of default. thatro was known, too, wasn't i? >> on the burden of fault butden not on superior knowledge, the u precise question here. if you follow their rule, they're asking the court to proceed counterfactually and say that they are entitled to not just the 1.35, but the 1.2 billion on top of that as if they have proved their superior

knowledge claim. >> do you agree that there's nothing between -- i think justice scalia was asking mr. phillips why can't we just say let's -- all bets off, everybody go home with what they have. but mr. phillips only these two things, there's either default termination or termination for convenience and nothing in between. do you agree that that's the world that we're dealing with, those two choices and nothing else?th >> i do agree that that is,ng e that's the way the contract is written. it distinguished between those t two, it distinguished between liquidated payments as to which the government has no right in the event of a default decision, and unliquidated payments as to which the government has an absolute right at the moment the contracting officer decides c there has been a -- >> i don't care how the contract's written. i mean, if we're going to say that there's been a broken play. that we're not going to try to apply the contract because we can't tell who's in the right and who's in the wrong.

it's totally irrelevant what the contract says. in you just leave the parties where they are. >> justice scalia, i am saying leave the parties where they are under the terms of the contract, and -- the >> no. you're -- [laughter] >> with well, justice scalia, i don't think the federal court should be in the business of micromanaging under the due process clause in a contractual situation with parties that cano protect themselves, ex ante very easily. >> we can do it as a matter of the law of contracts. and can we look at the law ofth contracts in reynolds, reynoldsc talked about the moving party, t and i'm not sure that that phrase either had or has really define bl content in our law. it seems to me it's just a question of the burden of persuasion with. at one point the contractor has to proceed, he makes -- it makes a certain showing, and the government has to go back andd,i forth. and if at some point the person with the burden of persuasion

invokes the privilege, then weof have to ask whether it's fundamentally fair as a matter of the federal law of contractsl >> so even if you follow that reasoning, and i don't think you should for reason i'll explain e in a moment, but they would still lose because they still ad bear the burden of persuasion on superior knowledge. the excuse that's at issue in this case. now, i don't think that would bt the rule, that's an appropriate rule, justice kennedy, because i think underlying reynolds as the central proposition that a court shouldn't be involved, shouldn't be picking winners and losers either way when the state ofei knowledge is unknowable.ay >> so just to make sure iledg understand your argument, suppose that state secrets had prevented you from being able to prove your default claim, that you were unable to make that showing payoff state secrets. -- because of state secrets. whatse would happen hen? >> unable to make the showing in, in federal court? >> that's right. the secrets that you were, that you wanted to protect weres yo

actually the key to your proving that there was a default. >> right. well, in that circumstance, fau again, i think the case would bg dismissed because they would be coming in and seeking affirmative judicial relief to void the contracting officer'sn decision --wh >> let me make sure i understand because that really does sound like a heads you win, tails -- whatever. [laughter] you're saying if state secrets prevented you from making your affirmative case, you should wie that one too? >> i think that that would be the general proposition is if federal court can't know up with way or another who's right and who's wrong, it shouldn't grant affirmative relief to a party, and that's -- >> to a moving party, and you are never the moving party. [laughter] >> well, again, justice scalia,r that's the contract they signed. they could have signed a

different contract with different results. they're saying we didn't have sa the ability --he c >> counsel, you can't -- >> did the contract contain the term "moving party"? >> it did say who had to come into federal court in order to challenge the decision of thenot contracting officer. and that is, and it puts thatf burden on them. >> that's what i don't understand. yes, the default provision is decided by the contracting officer. but by law you can't collect on they file at once complaint.cer, so you can't do anything until you get the court to affirm your default.rt t you are asking for a legal declaration of being right, that they defaulted.hat that's -- you're the one seeking -- >> justice sotomayor, this is a very important question, and i think that's the impression left

by their briefs, and it's wrongs so the filing of their claim, their claim in the court of federal claims they say vacated the contracting officer's decision. that's wrong under the statute, 605d in the contracting disputes act says that a clause can be put into the contract to cla continue it in effect and require performance even if there's an appeal to the court of federal claims. and that provision exists in this very contract. >> i'm sorry. you're going too fast for me, and i don't think i remember this in your reply brief. >> well, i think it is. it's in if a footnote of our reply brief, and it cites the 605b, and our claim is that, that provision requires -- right now we have an absolutees entitlement to the $1.35nd c billion. that is what the contract says, thathe is what even the deferme. agreement says that we've, entered into. the so we're not asking, justice sotomayor, for any affirmative judicial --

[inaudible] at all. we don't want the court as itcii does in skate secrets -- state secrets cases to stay outrets entirely and deny an audience te this case on thely merits. and if you do what mr. phillips says or what justice scalia suggested, the kind oft compromise option, that is affirmatively using the power of the federal court granting him relief on a claim that he has not proven. and that is something i see zero precedent for -- >> granting nobody relief. we're leaving you where you are. get out of here, is what we're saying. [laughter] >> justice scalia -- >> we don't know what the answed is, so go away. we leave you where you are.re y [laughter] >> justice scalia, we have no problem with a go away rule, and if you didha that and returned r the status quo anti, we would t have that $1.35 billion. that is what the contract says, that is what their own filing oc september 16, 1991, said before the court of federal claims when they called that $1.35 billion, quote, money presently due and

owing. >> and that assumes that the contracting officer's termination for default was valid. and we don't know that it was valid, and we don't want to ha'e to inquire whether it was valid so to say, go away, means everybody keeps the money he has. >> justice scalia, that seems to me, that is affirmatively using the power of the court to set aside the contracting officer's decision which is what i think is forbidden by reynolds. and it would be an odd rule because it's, basically, a happenstance. r if we hadey had just simply bec insisted on our $1.35 billion at the moment that it was owed toed us in february of 991, we wouldn't even be having this conversation right now.io the only reason we're having it is because we aseeded to their own request to not take the $1.35 billion right away. >> i want you -- you keep saying there's a sophisticated party. what would the contractual term look like that would avoid this problem? >> oh, i think it'd be very c

simple. you could say in the event the government invokes a state secret privilege, any termination for default -- >> do you think any client would ever agree to something like that? >> do i think the government would? >> yeah. >> well, i think that underscores the problem with their argument, mr. chief justice, because they are saying read the contract precisely this way to eliminate terminations and convert them all into terminations fort convenience when the state secrets privilege is being invoked.n th and i agree with you, i thinks that would be a very unusual contract for the government to get into. that is what they're demandingus here, and that's --to. >> how do they write the contract? if they -- your answer can't be the only way they can write it is a way you'd never accept. so how do you contract around this problem?woul >> well, i think that there are. other ways. there's the possibility that they may demand extra money this exchange for greater risk. there may be that there maybe some alternative disputebe mechanisms available, i don't

know --di >> this wouldn't be a problem in an alternative dispute resolution because that's not aa court?em w >> well, it would depend, you>>i might have in the military the equivalent of the in the tenet v. doe, you might have the panel. i'm not sure what the precise arrangements would be. i do think the need for this court to be involved in is a lot lower than, say, in the criminal context of reynolds because the government is a repeat player with these contractors. they're not in the business, as our deferment agreement i think underscores, of trying to willy-nilly advance the state secrets privilege to take money away. i think there have only been a couple of instances at most that i'm aware of in which the government has invoked the state secrets privilege in any sort of contracting action and nothingct like the superior knowledge thing. and since 2009 the government altogether in civil court has invoked the state secrets privilege a whopping two time thes -- >> it isn't a big practical problem.

all right. go -- let me ask, then i was misimpressioned. would you go back to justice kennedy's question for a minute? i don't quite see, if you would discuss it a little bit, how yof do this as a matter of constitutional law. because the due process clause is tied to fundamental infairness, and can i think the answer has to be in this kind of circumstance secret block or not, it depends. it depends on many things. so would you write as a matter of constitutional law? shouldn't it be written as a matter of federal common law of contracts? shouldn't it be written as an exposition of the superior knowledge doctrine? which seems totally open to it. and, or shouldn't it be written as a matter of discovery law which is what the district judge who ended up thinking the court of claims judge says, gee, idist don't really know. i mean, that's how i read it. ge how would you, would you speak about this for a minute?

>> sure, justice wryer. i think that -- justice breyer. i think that it's a couple of reasons, not just in the sophisticated parties agree ahead of time to other things, but also the whole notion of due process and contracts is odds, because the government has waived its sovereign immunity only since 1855. they don't have any freestanding rights to come in ab inish show and claim fundamental contracts. i think that is implicit in the constitution itself that they don't have that right. so the question becomes is there some extra protection the courts should give here akin to the one in reynolds about criminal defendants and the government using state secrets information; and i think the answer to that is no because parties can work that out themselves exanti. so my answer to you is i think it was option b to use the contract as the base and contractual interpretation as the basic rule for decisional here.rpre

the contract itself specified, and it was done under the shadow of reynolds and totten that specified they would have to be the moving party, they would have to come in and challenge the decision of the contracting officer -- >> well n a whole law of contracts you could say, oh, the contracting parties could have put this down. anticipatory brief, we don'tach. need to have rules on that. that's not the way the contractn works. >> well, i do think with respect to this, and this, you know,. thousands and thousands of page contract, i think that this specific set of issues could have been worked out in advance, and i do think it was worked out in advance. they knew going in that they bore the burden of walking into court, paying their attorneysboe and everything else to challenge the decision of the contractingi officer, and they also knew at that moment the government had an undoubted right to the unliquidated progress payment. the contract they signed distinguished between liquidated progress payments as to which the government has no right and

unliquidated payments as to which default termination automatically gave that to theee government. and the argument they'remati advancing here is, well, let'smt collapse those two, let's keepai the 1.35 billion because the government hasn't given it to ul yet. >> yeah, why is that unliquidated? i didn't get the distinction between -- why is the 1.35 unlick question dated? >> one is the work they had reviewed and understood andtrea said, the government had saidth thisey is good work, we're going to pay you for it. we and other work which are claims they have made, but they haven's actually been approved by the government.ave and i think mr. phillips -- i don't think there's any sort oft of evidence or certainly nothing that the courts below found that says that they had a right to ta the unliquidated -- >> what's the other? what's the other 1.25 billion? >> the 1.2 billion he's seeking on top of keeping 1.35 billionno is, as i understand it, hislion

costs, his extra costs incurred under the contract above and beyond the $4.8 billion that was in the initial contract. >> general, do you have the citation to that footnote you referred to in the 605b? i can find it later but -- >> it's page 32. and i'd also refer the court to the court of appeals appendix page 19567 which is the page of the contract itself that incorporates the provision, the provision is far52.233-1h, and it says that it mandates performance in compliance with n the contract even when they're in the contracting -- there in the contracting officer's decision, even when a decisiont is under appeal.s un so it is not the case whatsoever that their filing of this claim somehow vacated the contracting officer's decision. the only way that will happen 's if this federal court reverses

the federal circuit -- >> so your view is that the complaint did not stay their obligation to pay you? that provision required them to pay you? >> that's correct.uire >> the unliquidated -- >> that is right. at that moment they had to pay. they knew that, and they, in fact, sent a bank letter and so on, this is joint appendix 329, saying, please, don't do that. and then we entered into a deferment agreement. but we have an absolute right th that money right now regardless -- we don't need an affirmative decision from thisre court in order to get that money. we're asking the court to simpl stay its hand and follow the hippocratic principle of doingwe no harm' in a world in which thh court can't decide who's right and who's wrong. >> if you're wright -- right about that, it's the government's absolute right. because you withhold it from other contracts of these contractors?f yo >> that's absolutely right. the federal rules and contractit disputes act provide us an offset so that we could -- wean

don't have to actually seek the 1.35 billion from their coffers as he colorfully called it reaching into, we can offset it against future contracts, and the federal courts would be out of the business altogether about that 1.35 billion. >> so you get the extra money without having to go to court. o >> and again, mr. chief justice, that's the contract to which they signed. thank you. >> thank you, general. mr. phillips, you have three minutes remaining. >> thank you, mr. chief justice. justice kennedy, i think the answer to your question is that this case can properly be decided on federal common law principles and be, indeed, i pro would ask the court to apply law those contract principleses in this context on joint appendix on page 209. general katyal focuses on what happens when the contracting officer takes some action. what he leaves out is the act following sentence: the contractor shall have the right, of appeal under the disputesthe clause there any determination

by the contracting officer.ispu and while the general spends ani awful lot of time talking about what do you do in the article 3o context, the contracting disputes act specifically allows us to go through board of contract appeals which is not an article 3 institution. and i guarantee you that the government would be making exactly the same argument if wet had taken that particular route. seems to me the case ought not be decided on the basis of this kind of technicale ba assessment. the case ought to be decided on the basis of sort of where the rights are and what's the fundamental change and who'se making the shift in one direction or the other. and if you do that -- and justice ginsburg, you specifically asked the question am i asking for all or nothing? no. i think there's no question that you can come up with a principle basis to adopt precisely the principle that justice scalia pointed out which is to say we'll stay our hand, we will no uphold the contracting officer's decisioning and, therefore, we're not going to say there's a default -- >> but you say --ill >> -- but we're not going to goe the extra mile and say --

>> so you are saying there's another way, there is a middle way.re >> there is a middle way, there's no question about it.o u all i was saying in response to justice scalia's question was, you know -- >> on what principle of law? >> that if you don't have a contract for default, theninci there's no basis for -- and we're not going to do any more than that, we can't decide who's right, who's wrong, and, therefore, we're not going to enforce the contracting officer's decision' we're going to leave the status quo ante which means before the contracting officer declared there was a default under these circumstances. >> it's the go away principle of our jurisprudence, all right? [laughter] >> i actually get that a lot.wa [laughter]uris justice scalia. >> mr. phillips, i understood your papers as making only a constitutional claim. >> no. i don't read that, justiceakin kagan.ly a i mean, we've certainly had aea due process argument in there, but embedded in there as wellroe are a number of references to federal common law principles ae a, as a, obviously, nonconstitutional basis on which to rule in our favor.

and, i mean, i think the court ought to be informed in making its determination about how tofm interpret the contracting arrangement by the question of whether this is fundamentally unfair and unconscionable, obviously. but you would probably do thatrn as a matter of federal common law principles and trying to decide on contracting principles or not. at the end of the day, your honors, this has been a fundamentally unfair, and we'd ask for the court to reverse. >> thank you, mr. phillips, general. the case is submitted. >> in a moment, a conversation on money, politics and the influence of corporations. >> madam speaker, the president of the united states! [cheers and applause]

>> by congressional invitation, the president outlines his legislative agenda for the next year and reflects on the previous in the annual state of the union. watch every address since 1984 online at the c-span video library, all searchable on your computer anytime. >> now, a conference examines the influence of money in this politics. this event is organized by a coalition of groups calling itself the movement for the people. this panel is an hour, ten minutes. [inaudible conversations] >> okay, excellent. so welcome, everybody. we are, we've been talking about movement all night long, but it seems that there's been a confusion about sometimes what is movement, actually? in the 1890s the populist

movement, farmers' alliance, they organized farmers to put together collective marketing and storage of grains. and simultaneously they developed a network of lecturers that spread an analysis or a platform, the omaha platform throughout the country. their secret was that they were really making a difference in people's lives. much of our modern organizing has gotten confuseed. we think that we're a movement organization because we have a large e-mail list, and we can generate large amounts of e-mails to congress or e-mail petitions. but what we've done functionally is undermine the capacity of grassroots, of the grassroots to feel like they know how to do it themselves. an organizer at united workers said to me is that the job of lawyers -- i'm going to add in politicians -- is to make and

deliver arguments, to negotiate, deliver arguments. it's the job of organizers to build power. when organizers get confused, when people who think they're involved in movement get confused by getting involved in this political calculus sacrificing principles, they forget that, to do their job. it's, it's -- and when we have that term political calculus, i think this is fascinating, calculus is actually the mathematics of changing variables. if you're an organizer, your job isn't to do the political calculus, it's to be the changing variable. you're changing the context within which all these other negotiations and etc. in society and politics happen. so i wanted to make sure that this conversation that we're having over these next couple days was when we talk about organizing and we talk about

movement building, that we're grounding that conversation in this a healthier, what i believe to be a healthier concept of organizer and on social movement. so i've invited some really excellent people to speak about these things, and they're going to do that with the aid of video or slides, etc. so, let's see, steve meacham is actually going to forgo the video and slides piece, and he's going to go analog, sort of an unplugged version of what it means to be an organizer. steve is an organizer with city life, he's been a community organizer for 40 years, and he's been getting some significant attention, urbana and city life have been getting significant attention at pbs, bill moyers, et. the other bill with the s. and so i invite steve to give us a taste of, an introduction to the work he's doing.

and all of this will just be a teaser for what we're going to be able to get to experience tomorrow. so, steve? you can speak from there or come up here. >> i guess i can speak from here. of i'll save you the trouble of looking back and forth, you know, strain your neck at this late hour. i'm going to start what a question around -- with a question around movement building that is at least a uation of a question -- variation of a question people ask all the time. one million homes were seized in 2010. it's projected that 1.2 million homes will be seized in 2011. here's the question. high aren't there mass -- why aren't there mass marchs of hundreds of thousands of people on bank of america? all these foreclosures in the midst of predatory loans, robosigning, fraudulent activity, deliberate runup of housing prices through the

speculative bubble, why aren't there mass marchs? now, that's a whole discussion in and of itself that i'm not going to speak to tonight. but at least part of the answer to that is, actually, they are marching in some places, and i'm going to talk about how that's happening in boston. just this past week, this past tuesday, in fact, we did something that we call an eviction blockade, a storied tactic in the history of ten innocent organizing. this was for a home homeowner who got foreclosed, and the bank after foreclosure was trying to evict him out of his home. and the bank was trying to evict him even though he had paid the rent, he had paid rent to the bank for a while until the bank refused to accept it anymore. the bank was trying to evict him even though he had a trend of his who was willing to pie the home at -- buy the home at market value and then rent to him. the bank was trying to evict him even though the money the bank wanted for the house -- about half of the loan value -- easily

was affordable to this homeowner had they modified his loan to include a principal reduction to the real value. and that's all the bank's going to get anyway when they sell the property. so despite all these factors, the bank insisted on evicting this family with five children and an elderly person. in the response, our movement gathered in front of the home, people sat in the doorway and said, yes, you have the legal right to take this home, but we're not going to let you do it. and if we have to, we'll get arrested to stop it. the bank backed off. the bank said, all right, we're going to wait nine more days, and they're going to try again this thursday, and we're going to go back and have another eviction blockade. we've done these 21 times in the last three years, and 18 of those 21 times we have, the bank has backed off. three times we got arrested, and the family got evicted. but the eviction blockades are kind of the tip of the iceberg of protest activity that we're engaged in that is a remarkable story of a growing mass movement.

also last week we had three protests at foreclosure sale auctions, and the investors who came to the auctions got scared and left. the auctioneer got scared and called the police. we had a mass meeting of over 100 people. we had a leadership p meeting all in one week. as an organizer, i'm not claiming credit for this. we're partly in city life riding a wave here. we identified an issue part of of organizing as catching a wave and riding it well. so this is a wave that's out there, but it's a wave that many, many people can catch and are increasingly catching, how to organize people in foreclosed buildings, people faced with foreclosure, faced with eviction after foreclosure, how to organize those people into resistance. and we have kind of a metaphor that we use at city life called the shield and the sword, and we actually have a physical shield and a sword that we bring to our rallies where the shield is legal defense, and the sword is

public protest. and on the one hand we have a lot of volunteer lawyers and our own staff legal expertise that helps people know what to do when they go into court and represent themselves. we can't get everybody lawyers for reasons that you can complete hi understand, but we advise people about their legal rights in mass meetings, and they go represent themselves and come back to the next mass meeting a week later and say, here's what happened, what do i do next? and they learn to represent themselves in court and by the shield, by the legal defense, they slow down the bank. the bank has the right to evict no fault in massachusetts. they don't have to have a reason. they evict no fault, but the shield legal defense slows them down. and while the legal defense is slowing them down, we bring to bear the public pressure, the sword, and we bring out this, we shine a big spotlight on that case. and when the banks, when these giant institutions like bank of america or chase or citibank are trying to evict somebody who has

offered to buy the house at the same value the bank is going to get after they evict them but they insist on evicting thinkway, they lose all the -- anyway, they lose all the public relations, they lose the public relations battle, and they typically back off because even after they've evicted a few of our people, the ensuing publicity was such a disaster for the bank that they really lost in the long term anyway. so from our point of view as organizers, or we're in this position where we win if we win, and we win if we don't win. either way, we're going to build a movement. either way, the banks are going to look terrible. and some of the most active members of our organization are people who actually lost. but even though they lost, they lost -- as they put it, they went down swinging. and they learned a lot in the process, and they retained their pride, and they didn't lose the shame, they lost the power. and they made the bank pay. and by organizing now, they continue to make the banks pay.

and the difference between that and kind of leaving in the middle of the night is a huge difference in organizing, but it's a huge difference in mental health, too, let me tell you. so this is, as bill earlier described, we're not supposed to speak too long, it's supposed to be a bit of an opening for tomorrow. but i'll just close with a couple more points. one is, as a lefty i'm really against certain forms of big government. to give you an example, in our eviction blockades the amount of resources the government has put into ports and police to evict homeowners who are willing to pay represent is an astounding amount of money. they're the big government we could entirely do without. another thing, it's very important in our organizing that we understand the relationship between our street action and these national debates. why -- we spend a lot of time our meetings not only on planning action and testimony

and expressions of solidarity and tears of joy and pain, but political discussion. why did the crisis happen, how is the speculative housing bubble related to the income gap between rich and poor, all those kind of issues that people are coming to understand that create the moral space for them to resist. and lastly just to say -- there was a lastly here, but i'll just close with this, that our organizing strategy has something that we call the five masses which is not a nod to the vatican. 's