this is the single most important decision that we can meet today for florida's future. but, our efforts on education cannot stop tonight. florida has a rich cultural history surrounding its culture and the university. don't take my word for it. ask any anthropologist. [laughter] by the way my younger daughter is going to shoot me as soon as she reads that part of the speech. [laughter] we need to be realistic about this. somewhere out there today there are government officials in brazil or india or china and they are debating whether they should provide students with the proud men acknowledged to see the larger piece of the global economy.

the only debate they are having is how quickly they can become dominant global players. i look forward to working with you to closely look at our higher education system to understand how we can ensure that in the future job creators from around the world will get florida to find the talented and educated work force they will need to compete in the 21st century. it's our duty to help ensure in the time things are beginning to grow again we do not slow the growth by increasing the cost to live here. we can do this by building a mean a more effective government continuing to responsibly manage and reform the pension system. in cracking down on the fraud and abuse, the fraud and abuse that some people brought for the auto insurance system. last year with your help we reengineered the pension plan

for the floor of a state workers so that the individuals who will share in its rewards share its funding this would save taxpayers money and the government practices with the private sector. but despite the year of a great returns, our pension plan remains billions of dollars underfunded we need to continue to closely monitor our pension plan and ensure that will not become a liability for the taxpayers in the state or the workers to rely on that. this year we must also reform our although insurance to crack down on fraud and abuse that is running rampant in the estimated cost of the floridians $900 million. if we don't act the office of insurance regulation predicts

the cost for consumers will continue to spiral out of control. our best estimates will show a 30% increase in the pure premium cost year after year. the costs are being injured and at each and every day all around the state by saddam's daughter ultimately paid for by florida's working families. if we are going to be serious about keeping the cost of living low for the floridians, we have to get tough on the fraud and abuse and the auto insurance system. we all have to remember it's the consumers in our state that we have to protect, not the trial lawyers and all the others involved in these camps. floridians cannot afford another year of fraud and abuse in the cost that comes with it and impacts the poorest families the most. [applause]

but me say that after a year in office on a more than ever appreciate the sacrifice and dedication of all of our law enforcement officers in florida today as we know sometimes that sacrifice is ultimate. this year i have the experience of attending all attend funerals for our brave law enforcement officers who were killed in the line of duty. at this time i would like to recognize penny if she will stand up. she is a tenth grade biology teacher and an incredibly strong woman whose husband was one of these brave officers deputy john of the her in no county sheriff's office tragically died in a high-speed chase in july. a loving wife and mother of their children in the who is five and jessica is to join us here today.

we are extremely grateful to you and john for the service and sacrifice to our great state. [applause] [applause] so when i have the opportunity to go to meet any, the -- andy, her little boy was for am so we got down to get a picture and instead of me trying to make him feel better he was rubbing my back. he was the cutest little boy.

thank you very much for this and god bless you and god bless your children. [applause] now i just want to express our gratitude for everybody that serves, whether it is in law enforcement or in the military to defend and protect our state and country, and your heart goes out to the families that lose their loved ones like this, whether it is in the state or iraq or afghanistan. your heart goes out to them. succumb in closing i want to give a thank you for the consideration you've given me today and the courtesy that he extended to a new governor last year. since redistricting has been added to the already packaged in 2012 consideration and courtesy for demanding special premium of the next several weeks. no the line open to any idea from whatever source is likely

to improve the lives of the floridians. over the past year i've experienced the benefit of listening to the floridians, i've listened to each of you and i guess i've even listened to my close personal friends in the media. [laughter] [applause] i get asked all the time it is the difference between this and from the campaign and if you're running the company, you have -- you don't have media with you all the time. but i've gotten to know everybody and need a lot of their families and i have enjoyed that. [laughter] we of the monopoly of the good ideas. the commitment i made for those here today is to keep open clear lines of communication. so that together our time in the capitol expansion of service of

those in the sentence here. that is why pledge to each of you. malae voyage to the people of florida is continued to give this job my all. to help build the framework for the enduring prosperity that is grounded in the intellectual debate to intellect and ambition of our citizens. while the great recession has taken a lot out it's also revealed the strength and resilience that is deeply ingrained in the people who call for the home. other states have had their chance. this is our time. this is absolutely -- if you just think about it, this is the time florida should be the job creator. there is no reason we cannot be the number one creator of jobs in the country. it will be the biggest thing we do to change people's lives. it's our time to show the nation and the world that in this century floor will be the safe haven, the safe haven for individuals who want to live their intellectual version of

the american dream. as each of us know none of us can do this alone. so let's get to work together. god bless you, god bless the great state of florida. thank you very much. [applause]

second debate in washington in the studios. nixon gets control of it. so he brings a level to the room down to 40 degrees as a meat locker when kennedy arrives. he goes racing down to the basement, finds the guy and he's standing guard and says if you don't get out of the way let me turn that thing up to like 65 or 70. i'm calling the police. they have another standoff and the end of compromising on the temperature. so they go back up to nixon and the whole lady was they didn't want him to sway.

they had seen him sweat profusely in the first debate and they all knew what was going on but this is about who is going to rule america by the way. president obama came to the environmental protection agency today to come into their work in preventing pollution and interests in u.s. energy independence bid it was the president's first ever visit to the headquarters in washington joined by the administrator lisa jackson. this is ten minutes. [cheering] >> thank you. thank you. thank you, everybody. thank you, so much.

it is wonderful to see you. thank you. thank you. i know that alisa is making you all stand up. it's wonderful to be here with all of you. thank you so much for all the great work that you do. i want to first acknowledge your outstanding administrator, lisa jackson. [applause] [cheering] she has done an extraordinary job of leading this agency. but here's what i want all of you to know. not only is she good on policy not only is she tough and able to present the epa emissions of effectively for the public but

she also has your back. she's an advocate on behalf of all the people who work so hard here at the epa. you said chassis your boss loves you even if she doesn't show it. i don't know. [laughter] the main reason i'm here is simple. i just want to say thank you. i want to say thank you to each and every one of you because the epa touches on the lives of every single american every single. you help make sure that the air we breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat are safe. you protect the environment not just for which children, but for their children and you keep us moving towards energy independence and it is a vital mission. over the past three years because of your hard work we've

made historic progress on all these fronts. a few weeks ago thanks to the hard work got so many of you lisa and i were able to announce new common sense standards to better protect the air we breathe from mercury and other harmful pollution and there was a big deal. [cheering] part of the reason was a big deal is because for over 20 years special-interest groups that successfully delayed implementing the standards when it came to the nation's power plants. what we said was enough. it's time to get this done. and because we acted, we are going to prevent thousands of premature deaths. thousands of heart attacks and cases of childhood asthma.

families that are going to be directly impacted in a positive way because of the work that you do because you kept fighting and some of you have been fighting this fight for a long time long before i was here and long before alisa was years in your tenacity is making a difference. because of you across-the-board we are cutting down on acid rain and air pollution, we are making our drinking water cleaner and safer and creating a healthier communities but that's not all. take guarding our environment is also about strengthening our economy. i do not buy the notion that we have to make a choice between having clean air and clean water and growing this economy in a robust way. [applause]

think about it. we establish new economy standards, historic accomplishment that is going to slash consumption by about 12 billion barrels dramatically reduces pollution that contributes to climate change and saved consumers thousands of dollars at the pump would make them spend on something else. as a part of the recovery act you've cleaned up the contaminated sites across the country, which held to rid neighborhoods of environmental blight while putting americans back to work. so we don't have to choose between dirty air and water or a growing economy. we cannot make sure that we are doing right by our environment and in fact putting people back to work all across america. that is part of our mission.

we put in place new common sense rules to reduce air pollution. we create new jobs building and installing all sorts of pollution-control technologies. when we put in place the new emissions standards for the vehicles we make sure that the cars of tomorrow will be built in the united states of america. that we are going to win that race. when we cannot phoenician's waterway we generate more tourists for the local communities. so what's good for the environment can also be good for the economy. now, that doesn't mean that there isn't going to the attention. that doesn't mean that there aren't going to be legitimate things that take place and it doesn't mean that it's not important for every single one of us to think about how can we make sure that we are achieving our goal in the smartest way possible in the most efficient way possible. in the least bureaucratically possible in the clearest way

possible. that's also part of our mission. that's not a federal agency that can't get better and be smarter and accomplishing our mission coming and we have an obligation every single day to think about how can we do our business a little bit better. how can we make sure the taxpayers are getting every dime's worth but they are paying in order to achieve these important common goals that we have i believe we can do it and you've shown me the we can do it over these last three years so couldn't be prouder of the work that you will do every single day as federal employees. i know the hours can be long. i know that sometimes spending time getting these policies might means less time at home than he would like with a

birthday parties and you're missing the soccer game and the spouse is not happy with you. i know a little bit about that sometimes. [laughter] i know these jobs are demanding. but i also know what compels you to enter public service in the first place. and that's the idea that you could make a difference. then you could leave behind a plan that that is a little cleaner and safer than the one we inherited. and i have to tell you the part of why i get excited when i see some of the work that you are doing is because our next generation is so much more attuned to these issues than on was when i was growing up. when i sit down and talk to my kids probably the area where they are the most sophisticated understanding of policies when it comes to the environment.

they understand that the decisions we make now war going to have an impact on their lives for many years to come. and their instincts are right. so, door mission is vital. just think of what this agency has been able to do over the last four decades. so many things we now take for granted. when i hear folks grumbling about the environmental policy, you almost want to do a back to the future kind of reminder of folks of what happens when we didn't have a strong epa. the year before president nixon created the epa, the river was so dirty from the industrial pollution that it literally caught on fire. in my home, chicago river you

probably could not find anything alive in it for decades ago. now its thriving. to the benefit of the city. today because of your work 92% of americans have access to clean water that meets our national health standards. before the epa was created our cars were storing harmful pollution into the air with all sorts of impacts especially on children. found by more than half and lead pollution is more them down 90% from a generation ago. all those served before have made a difference. our environment is safer because if you, our country is stronger because of you, our future is brighter because of you. and i want you to know you've got a president who is grateful for your work and will stand

with you every inch of the way as you carry out your mission to make sure that we have a cleaner world. so thank you. god bless you. god bless you, united states of america pure degette thank you. [applause]

we are going to take a look at the surprising climate change and the scientists behind the research. >> i think there are a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated the data. >> what i do is i read different comments by politicians on a large scale if you say something really hot regions that is completely you are going to get the four pinocchios. if you see something that is misleading or out of context you get mauled one pinocchio.

the group in charge of internet addresses will begin accepting applications for new top-level domain names in addition to those already in use like dhaka,.org and.gov. he spoke at the center for strategic and international studies for just over an hour >> thank you very much for coming out today.

my name is jim lewis. it's been a busy year for internet governance and it's going to be a busy week for rot so we are especially pleased he would take time out to talk to us on a topic that is i think close to my heart and close to his. with that let me turn it over to rod. [applause] thank you, jim and csis the international studies would be doing such important work for decades to promote greater international understanding even around the world honored to address all of you today the attendees will five represented here. the internet regions, north america, south america, europe, africa and also asia so very honored to be with you. we also want to acknowledge the attendance from the white house,

state department, the oecd, government of australia and other governments around the world. truly honored to be with you and all of you from the private sector as well as other nonprofit organizations pity i have a great appreciation for the work that jim haslet here and particularly the commission on the cybersecurity for the 44 presidency i think the was very important similar work that made a contribution globally to better international understanding on the internet and particularly for a report that was written on security and cyberspace for the 44th presidency that still often referred to. and that has contributed much aglaia lot that's going on about the internet and about the future of the internet and how it's used by all the different aspects of society. we are here this week to make an announcement or because of the significant change in our world

of technology. heralds of the new era for the domain name system and accomplishes a new milestone in the history of the internet and that is mainly the opening of the new generic top-level domain system of the internet and the third round at the most significant opening in the history of the domain system. so what's changing and who decides what's changing? the context i want to lay out and apply as well to this institution is that the internet as we know was initially developed in the united states of america and was 100% american and is becoming 100% global. what is happening this week facilitates that continued transition and change which is for the betterment of the world and the betterment of mankind. what the globalization is just one aspect of the program but

it's a critical aspect because when the domain name system was created initially there were some top-level domains that were limited only to this national geography. top-level domains such as .gov come to mind and the others that were established were operated by operators in this geography. and of course opened up the domain name system before and operate a were around the world light .asia that is operated out of hong kong and china so this is it part of that continued move. how is this developed? who decides? this change to the system the global multi stakeholder community of icann and it follows on the historical trajectory that was established in the late 1990's when the

first policy concepts were developed in the formation of icann and for the transferring of the coordination of the global domain name system from the united states to the world in a multi stakeholder multinational body. headquartered in the united states manly icann. and the original policy documents that stated that this new body should open a top-level domain space to provide consumers with more choices and to ensure there's more competition and market space. how has that worked out? we estimate the average prices of domain names in the generic top-level domain have dropped 70% since speeseven founding, 70%. that is a very significant transfer to the benefit of consumers and users of the

internet around the world. the multi stakeholder body has different formalist components. there's three policy organs. there's a group called the country code name supporting organization so the country codes are the operators of like .eu or .ka for kennedy's of the country code registers for the internet has over 100 members. it's called the ccjso and peter is here with us today. we also have the generic name supporting the organization, and that is a group of participants of the domain name registries and registrars in the generic space so when you think of .com or .net or .gov they don't pertain to countries, so there is a whole policy body that includes registries, registrars, also civil society organizations

, intellectual property constituencies which have very strong views and interests on the topic of the new generic top-level domains. and that is the policy goal of the free three that initiated the new generic top-level domain program. the third policy development is called the address supporting organization. that is for all of the addresses in the world. there's five regions in the world. each one has a regional internet registry, which is the community coordination policy body that allocates internet address is. so the aso is also involved. seóul icann policies start or our borneman of those three vehicles. this policy that is being implemented this week was developed in gnso starting in 2005, approved in paris in 2008, and a policy perspective

approved by the board of icann to go into operations in june of last year in 2011 in singapore. the different policies around the world we have three big meetings recall them public meetings. they rotate around the five regions of the world and so they cycle systematically through with america, south america, europe and asia and africa. so policy was developed and when the board approved a program in june of last year, it was decided the launch date would be two days from today, january 12. 1201 upc to be precise which is equal to 7:01 p.m. tomorrow evening here in d.c.. this new program will open. when we talk about the interim government and the context of this solution we refer to the internet is the internet. but why do we call it the

internet? that suggests one thing. we think it is one thing and refer to it as one thing. if you think about what comprises me in that, it's actually millions of private networks and billions of privately owned devices some ups such as cell phones, the ipad or tablet pc. we have approximately 2 billion uses in the internet today and that is growing quite rapidly particularly with the advent index of the region of the smart fonted tablets are very likely to add several billion users to that number over the next 20 years. and surveys around the globe showed that 75% of people the world have a very strong opinions about how access to the internet should be handled or said just a level of utilization is actually much higher than the number of devices and accounts might suggest which makes sense when we think about the families and communities. so the internet has become very

pervasive. but why do we refer to the internet as one place? it's really millions of private networks. and the answer is that there are three things that unify the internet. and those three things have to be coordinated globally for the internet to operate as a unifying the global whole and those three things we have been referring to them in part or domain names, network addresses or it addresses and the protocol and the parameter registries wycherley technical standards for the internet. domain names, addresses and the protocol and the registries are the only three things in the world that make the internet look like one place. icann community in all the hundreds of organizations and more than 100 governments that are formerly involved in icann for the government advisory committee are the stewards of those three resources that we

call you need to identify years of the internet. to keep the internet whole and not a factor but not have multiple routes not have a fractured or blocked or filtered internet requires an enormous ongoing effort and collaboration in the party is globally to keep the system working and to keep the system evil thinks it can meet the needs of mankind and our commerce and society and individuals. that is the multi stakeholder model does. this program, the knute program is an excellent level that policy development process produces. in the case of the new generic top-level domain program as we mentioned that started in 2005, 2006 there were more than 45 public comment period to be cut. when anyone in this world and anyone in the world could share their opinions our thoughts, write papers, post them on line,

support this program there were more than 2,000 submissions over that period of time to help shape this program. the summary analysis of the suggestions is 1400 pages long to give you an idea. the icann meetings around the world now or attracting on average around 12 to 13-1400 people around the world that each policy development the big meetings that we have in the public meetings. and there's many more people. you can participate. at those meetings by the way, the microphone is open. so there's many formalist sessions, many sessions going on with it is cybersecurity issues or law enforcement issues or intellectual property issues or add dressing. there's many concurrent sessions. many of the sessions the microphone is open uniquely for anyone in the world to come up and speak and share their views and that has been the case for

six years in the development of this program, the new gtlt radomski but as an international consensus driven organization and is committed to a secure and stable global and unified internet. as we talked about the organization. now let's talk tabled more about this program. first let's talk about the globalization. where are the users of the internet today? half of them, a billion or in asia. approximately 500 million alone, 25% are in china. and yet today in the internet there isn't a single generic top-level domain in chinese characters. or for the hindu language or arabic characters. there's nothing in the generic area. there are country codes and reintroduce the internationalized domain names successfully starting in 2009.

we have more than 20 countries represented in the root of the internet now with more than 30 internationalized domain extensions and the was a critical move in the internationalization of the icann and the internet domain system. but this move is critical because it is the first time in history that an organization in china or in a beijing and new delhi or the uae or another country can apply for a top-level domain name in their own script so it's absolutely vital, and i personally travelled through 27 countries in the last four months and stopped and that with the internet community, met with company's common on profits, governments and 16 of those and probably will overcome probably close to 200 meetings dhaka other program and should tell you that they're given the parties that interested in

beijing and new delhi and the united arab immigrants and around the world and goldfine geographies also in salles paulo brazil. there's interest around the world. this is fair and right they should have this access to the internet and i remember meeting with a minister in france last year and she asked me a question and said why is this taking so long? and are you finally going to open a new program? and i say that because obviously we know there's a lot of controversy and a lot of parties that are opposed to the program or aspects of the program they want to see changed and that is the sign of a healthy multistate older model the debate that never stops politics here in the united states or anywhere else and the world goes on and on and on and has been in the limelight over the whole period of the program there's been a lot of

interest and certainly the last few months in terms of interest lobbying, millions of dollars being spent in the city by the parties that want to share their views. purdy's incidentally the play very valuable roles in the development of the program the property protections we have intellectual property protections come intellectual property experts on the board, we have great experts in our community, not only the intellectual property constituency itself across the community and other areas that have been deeply involved coming and i see the greatest reason it's taken so long to develop this program was actually attention to intellectual property issues. secondarily, i would say probably attention to government issues. governments have been concerned about the geographic maiming issues. the trip of cities, what's the treatment of capital cities, what's the treatment of the nation's national names, the

treatment of steegmans and all these issues are very complex and difficult because they involve different trees and different bodies of law around the world. governments have also been duly concerned about law enforcement issues and how you increase the standards of the information and support for law enforcement and the domain name system and the new gtld. of this program clearly has more intellectual property protections by far than any previous gtld program in icann's history, and also better care and candlelighting on the law enforcement issues. and then of course there are different constituencies out there. you have privacy constituencies and the civil rights and civil liberties that have different views and needs and interests than small enforcement might and that is a healthy tension much of which works through the icann community to kind of policies.

now are those policies perfect? no, no policies are perfect. but for the sake of the global public interest, you have to decide one consensus policies are developed and well thought through and considered and key issues have been addressed there comes a time to make the decision and to move forward. and the icann board has made the decision to move ahead in the program formally in june of last year in singapore and charge the organization with gearing up to handle all of that technology needs, processing needs a contract income arbitration processing, etc. come to be prepared for the launch room thursday of this week's. so let's talk about some of the enhanced provisions in this program to address intellectual property issues and so-called defensive registrations and other things. the first days in this program we are doing criminal background checks on the officers of applying organizations. and in fact we have communicated

with interpol and are taking some of their suggestions and how we identify the right parties to work with globally to engage those services. so we do background checks. taking a list of the strings that are applied for, so any top-level domain names that are supplied for a around the world we are going to the goal of those applications on april 12th and in may we are going to publish the entire list and anyone in the world anyone in this room and anywhere in the world can go into any single application and state your opinion, state your support from state your indifference, state your concerns, whenever it might be. with a virgin your set of issues might be. in addition and that period is open for 60 days. also, for 60 days we have a special window for our governmental advisory committee, those are the more than 100 governments that formerly a vice icann and putting a finger of the governments in the room

today. they have 60 days to give early warning. and the advice is special in icann because we've different advise the committees that when advice comes from the government what is written and become the board is compelled to either accept that advice or if it rejects it to explain the rationale why it is being rejected and there is a very high standard of expectations and care that have to be given to all of those what we call recommendations, city of 60 days to issue a preliminary opinion all of those and flag and the they are concerned about. they still reserve the right to come back at any time in the future and express an objection. but it's a part of a problem to be established in the formalist government and review of those strengths. then, for a seven month period of time, anyone in the world who has an objection to one of the strengths can actually finally formal objection but you're going to have to pay for that

structure and there's four different types of objection that can be filed that can be filed on the basis of intellectual property issues, so if someone applies for a name the looks like your trademark and they don't own the trademark finally an objection there is a formal process that will be independent experts that are independent of icann and all these mechanisms are defined in the applicant guidebook the 300 page rule book for the program those experts will determine the winner and the loser in that objection process. if an applicant loses, they are gone. they lost their application and are out of the process. the application is $185,000. that sounds like a lot of money but that is price down to cover the criminal background checks supporting the technology process easier, the public comment process, the allosaurs processing of the application, the development of the application processing system, and many other checks that we have to do. it is set to break even. one-third is the risk contingency because icann does

this litigation and other risks. if there is any surplus after the pergamus complete, the community will decide what is done with those because they are managed in a separate fund. they don't go into the general fund. so this is run in a pure breakeven basis for the benefit of the world. succumbing back to the protection. there are those objections. for seven months to have the opportunity to start an objection and then they will run in the different courses of time depending on the nature of the objection and the timeframe set by the panel experts than the policies that are defined. the next thing it's very significant and it is a global trademark clearing house. so, one of the problems in the system today is that if you are a trademark holder it is kind of hard to watch what is happening across the top-level domains in the world to see if anyone might be a resting your domain name so that requires human effort work so the community and the intellectual property experts say we can do better than this let's build a global database and allow any party that can provide the documentation that they have the right to a

trademark or service marks to register that database and then get alerted if anyone in the world registers that at the second level for all of these new top-level domains. let's say hypothetically weekly 8500 new top-level domains and you register your trademarks in the system once, if anyone in public tries to register one of your trade marks in the 500 top-level domains you will get notified. once you are notified you can either come in a key to the party directly and say cease-and-desist or plea, and if they don't listen to you you can finally complete, informal arbitration complaint under either what we call the uniform dispute resolution process which is the basic arbitration process for the domain name disputes and is used roughly 5,000 times a year today and incidentally in more than 80% of the cases the party that applies winds and the control of the demand name changes because usually parties will only apply if they have a trademark or service mark and the other party doesn't the

process works and it is much less expensive than the litigation or others. so it is available but some parties are concerned that isn't fast enough because it can take some number of weeks to have resolved these issues so we develop to the uniform at the suspension system for the very clear-cut cases and those will be resolved in a 21 daytime period i believe is how we structured that. so that is another protection. the further protection is what we call the registration rise. what is sunrise? think of a new top-level domain appearing on the horizon if it's rising there is a period of time during which the trademark holders have the right to register the domain names before other parties do. there's a period of time when only the trade market and service mark holders will have the right to register and that is just another protection mechanism sought by the intellectual property interests and the communities.

and then finally, there is the something we can think of as the nuclear option. and that is called pddrp post delegation dispute resolution procedure. what that means is it a new registry operator is demonstrated over time to allow or engage in abusive behavior that's not in the global public interest and is not respecting the contrast and the policy in the global internet community, we actually have the right to shut down or take that that registry. we hope to never do that and as you can imagine, there was a very hard fought battle by members of the community. but it exists and will provide an incentive for good behavior because we don't want to see the malicious conduct the turn out there. it isn't good for the use of the internet. let's talk about the positives. it's easy to focus on the negatives and the discretion and

that is an important part of the policy process but what are some of the positive reasons that this program is moving forward besides the globalization? another reason is its innovation whenever you create new standards in the internet, whether you open up any technology and create a standard their tends to be innovation. now what is the innovation going to look like and where is it going to go? loveless no. that's why it's called innovation because it is uncertain. it's about creativity. and we certainly have the impression there is a lot of creative ideas the parties have out there and around the world that they are going to want to bring forward in this expansion of the new top-level domains base that we haven't seen in the past and i think that is what makes the future so interesting. it's also what makes the internet so exciting. so you work to design all of the proper protection is that you can in the program, but you also have to remember that there is a very creative people up there who are not sharing their plans yet.

there is a number of them bubbling up in the last few days if you read "the wall street journal" article from yesterday and other articles that are appearing parties are beginning to talk about some of their plans for the new top-level domain that they are going to be creating that were not speaking before. and by the way, i should talk about in numbers i can't remember if i covered this but we don't have a specific forecast on how big this will be. we planned on the 500 applications and having traveled around the world i heard members as low as several hundred applications being forecasted by others at the highest number ever heard was 4,000. i don't know where it is going to come out, and icann doesn't care. our goal was to create any number of applications our goal is to serve the global public interest and to administer this program fairly and professionally for the benefit of the global internet users. while ensuring the security and the stability of the global internet is becoming so vital for so many aspects of our

lives. we also think that very clearly this innovation will create new jobs. we don't know how many. we can look in the mirror a few years from now and see that clearly new businesses are being formed, new companies are being formed, news service providers come in a top-level domain registries, new registrars. so is creating new opportunities of business and new jobs. and coming to know, the reality is great ideas don't last forever so if you think of this estimate may seem very familiar. .com, .net. but the reality that is what is created the past and it is important to openness of the world and the users around the world can see what they wish to create for the next generation of the internet domain name system. the third benefit is competition. why? the reality is not everyone has the domain name they want today. one of the reasons for that by the way is the fundamental mismatch between how the

trademark system evolved and developed over time versus how the internet works. the trademark system is fragmented and divided by categories and geographies. so if you take the united states, we have over 40 different categories for flailing trademarks. different industrial categories. so the same name exactly the same name more term can be filed by different companies in the different sectors. now, take that issue and what around the world to the countries and our countries around the world probably more than 150 have these regimes and you are talking about well over 5,000 different entities that have the right to exactly the same trademark or term the domain name system on the ever had his integrity and it is unique. every domain name is unique to the if you take example of, there is only one example of, in the entire world and that is why the icann policy and the work of our community is critical in

coordinating the internet to maintain the integrity so when someone sends you in e-mail to your account it gets to you and doesn't go to the five other people in the world that have chosen to use the same name that you have. in the system that would lack integrity. so the domain name is unique and has the integrity just like the address system. the address is unique and there is address integrity and that is what keeps the global internet unified and keeps it working skilling for the benefit of mankind. so there's always open to be a pressure between the trademark system which is divided again by the categories and geographies trying to fit into a system for each term or string is unique to you can imagine the competition for some of those whether that is financial competition our policy competition or avert it might be there's a lot of heat and that is a lot of the heat that you are hearing i think hearing here in d.c. and other places in the last few weeks. the fourth primary benefit is it relates to competition. its consumer choice.

so maybe you didn't get the domain name you want it because someone else with your family name grabbed it in 1993 or 1994. most family names are grabbed by 95. in the western world. so you're going to have another bite at apple with the creation of the top-level domains but it may be you or a different part of a trade association worker paucity or geography that's going to have a domain name, a top-level domain where you can actually get the name he want to have whether you are an individual or business. so that provides more consumer choices. some people ask me they say are these new going to be successful or how many are going to fail? how do you define success and how you define feel your? certainly who will decide? the users of the world will decide, organizations will decide what succeeds and what is not successful. icann's concern is not about the

individual business marketing were organizational usage success of the top-level domain. it's the global internet the main system be secure and stable and reliable and that is with the checks are for the system and the community cares about protecting the rights holders such as trademarks that we discussed. so we will see some success and some failures and we will probably see some innovations that we find it very hard to even think about today. certainly some things are predictable having spent a week in beijing about a month ago, and hearing that a number of parties will be applying for the top-level domain for their equivalent of things like .gov and .com and .org it sound like it is reasonable. we will see and make it clear we have no opinion come icann i have no opinion as the ceo about any of these concept or idea. we will take the applications and we will process them fairly according to the rules and the

final decider on these will be the board of the directors of icann but they do not intend to weigh in on the individual decisions. they intend to accept the process handled and our chairman, dr. steve crocker is here with us today who leads the board. so, again, if we look at icann come icann in the summary is consensus driven, focused on security and stability and focused on the unified global internet. and this program has been developed to support all three of those. it was developed for the consensus, policy development process through many hard-fought battles over many years. it has an entire set of protections for the additional security and stability that the previous rounds did not have such as support for the de ns and the centralized backups and other things i won't detail here and get into too many technical

details but there's additional security protections and clearly it should serve to support the unified global internet helping to meet the needs of internet users around the world who would like to have some of the same choices that people who live in this geography enjoy today. so, how was this internet going to look in five to ten years and the domain system? i think they can say it is going to be more ubiquitous. there will be more domain names and more devices. mark network addresses. it's going to be more global. the highest growth rate in the world of the internet users is in asia. a very significant growth. it's going to be more diverse. we are going to see more different tools and applications, devices, more different domain names. more different languages and domain names and less latin as a portion of that next. so it is going to look more like

the world and it's going to look less like one individual country. and i think that that is a good thing for the internet. >> so, i also think if we see i guess into years and have that discussion and we look back on this program today many people ask the question why are you doing this program i think in two years' time a lot of people look back and say how could we not have the ms, how could we not have them do it opened the internet to this innovation and this international participation i'm thrilled to be here with you today and maybe we can move to a question and answer. thank you very much. [applause] it occurs to me i didn't introduce rot when i came in but i just assumed everybody knew who he was to be he is a global internet leader and if you don't know who he is, see me afterwards. with that i think what we would like to do is if you have time,

to get your questions. there are microphones if you can wait for them and if you can please introduce yourself when you ask your question we want to go ahead and start we have one. .. gone through two significant evolution in its designer for

just 12 years. so our design is quite organic and evolving. it was developed at the prospect of an reviewed in depth by airport, which is a multi-stakeholder consensus body at both. the board members are elect did by those policy development organs that i mentioned. they are appointed from the advisory committee such as the root server advisory committee to engage his policies, security debility of policy committee, just experts from around the world. the at-large advisory committee can watch a clip more than 150 civil society groups around the world and of course the governmental advisory committee. and so, all of those bodies, but that when you look at the attack on this policy development alone, for the first time in history and a formal pre-consultation, just on this program in march of last year in brussels with more than 40 countries represented.

i think we had 18 out of 20 board members and liaison family worked to repeat the requested changes that came from the government of the world and we were able to accommodate well over 70 of those. which is just another touchstone example. that does not mean in a multi-stakeholder model, reaching consensus is not unanimity on this program was not a prude with unanimous vote of the icann ford. round one west end 2001. there is a unanimous board vote. this one had a dominant majority. so, it is all online and documented in transparent and the reality is coming in now, some of the parties that are issuing complaints right now issued letters as a part of this program and the changes were accommodating. you're probably going to find a

group of parties. again, no process is perfect. and by the way, this press is still because the board of icann reserves the right to change this program in the future and every applicant that applies across to understand the. we don't know what set of issues can about tomorrow. >> of key members of congress face of this town, why not delay it can't answer more of these questions. >> there is a date approved by the icann ford. the global internet committee feel they waited for many years already and there was their reasons given for the delay. there is none of information and come in the last few months. the same set of arguments, most of which have been hurt for five

and six years. same set of issues. it's all balancing equations. that is to say congress finally enact legislative body. that doesn't stop the lapping a special interest. it's wrong, you should change it. i think it's the same team. >> you said this debate has been healthy. i'm wondering if you want to qualify that in any way, or is there any way in which the debate has not been healthy? i asked that because there's been controversy controversy that the internet and icann is too dominated by the united states, by the u.s. government. any of the way the you explain the evolution of this program if it appears to have international support, but has run into criticism in the u.s. congress, even from the federal trade commission. members of congress and the department of commerce to order

you basically to slow down. there's criticism coming from washington make it more difficult for you to say that icann is not dominated by washington? >> yes. you know, icann is a global institution and it says that in our bylaws and even in the white paper in grading papers that were developed as a joint effort by the department of commerce in initially. there is a national attention. and that's why he thought the more important that we be true to the global public interest and not the interest in anyone national geography. having said that, let's recognize concerns expressed from trademark of business interests from around the world in different trade association and other geographies hasn't been limited to north america or d.c. it has been focused here are the last month received a lot of

attention. even that is healthy because the debating and engaging of issues is leading to a better understanding of icann. icann is a complex organism. for multi-stakeholder body with all these interlocking parts that work together. and how do you develop consensus on the internet? the same is true by the way of the internet engineering task force, the critical organization that defines standards of the internet and the ones we seek to follow us americanization. so a lot of pressure, and that attention. and enforces icann to grow up and decide what it is. is icann a global organization or is icann a national organization with global outreach? i can tell you under my leadership, certainly. agreements with the united states government. >> randy mott then at fcc.

just bockman wrote the ftc letter and said most of the things they said were unfounded or address by remediation process. one of the things i didn't see even though she mentioned a trusted trademark or is no mention of the trusted group for ip addresses and domain names. are you planning on including not as well? >> let me first -- >> and reference to our pki. >> i'm not similar at the comments he made about just months. i say we examine the ftc letter and after we receive. >> i think you addressed most of them. one is on a group of ip addresses. >> that is certainly not part of the new gtld program and said i

would has to work three different policy. >> you are going to include encouraging people to be part of the nsf. >> it's required. >> it's required for registries. so if you're toppled the name you have an example, any registered for the of the second level should have the choice to turn on dns because you will find. >> elected the names come in at not the members? >> correct. this is a change to the domain name aspect of the system. we also specify the program but all registries have to support, both internet protocol for an internet protocol six. i think the discussion of the block of internet addresses and how that is considered as an ongoing technical decision once the ietf and the internet architecture board with their

set of guidelines for doing that, in the next that becomes, how does icann look at those standards and policies to support them? it is an important effort and we appreciate your support for that. >> and the business of protecting trademarks and brand names. we recently did one of the first xxx the rapid evaluation service takedowns probably in the world and one went very fast, like you said i'm a 21 day process even for the holidays. is the process for the gtld going to be set up similarly and if it's eventually going be ruled out to other top-level domains? said that he was a very effective process as an alternative to e.u. drp. >> apply to your work. jamie, are you in the room? head of our intellectual property. are the mechanisms the same?

[inaudible] >> okay, there is the money coming. >> sorry, so itm which is run by xxx has been on triple policies and they develop those independently from the program. the urs was under the implementation of the gtld program and applies to top-level domains that are approved for the program. and so, it doesn't apply to existing top-level domains. whether it is to happen in the future will depend on the community leaning towards that object is. >> thank you.

[inaudible conversations] >> hi, i am dan jaffe from the association of national advertisers. i was just wondering coming soon to be glossing over some of the level of criticism that has been coming out. the ftc didn't say there were some problems, but they said chairman savon without this way with create a potential disaster for business and consumers also in that report top about the icann commission, whose review team say the current system is broke and it needs to be repaired. igr also stated that the u.n. come in these international, who, nato and more than 20 other organizations also taught that premature. the gac provided 12 proposals to protect the system from internet

crime said that only three proposals were even liked and none of them had been carried out. the sunlight very serious concerns in a row and something out that will fundamentally change the running of the internet. what are you going to do to meet the citizens? or these concerns hold stories that don't meet any real concern now? >> shortcoming thank you for sharing that. in fact, i'm very proud of the work that the review team has done and was informed as a result of the affirmation of commitment that we send department of commerce on september 30th 2009 they changed the oversight and reviews of icann from the u.s. department of commerce to being done by the world and groups that are comprised of different stakeholders around the world and in the coastal or for others teams and they really appreciate their hard work. i think there's a lot more work to be done.

you've got law enforcement constituencies at the very important set of concerns and issues in his gut civil society groups and privacy parties that have very different views as well. trying to find the right middle ground is one of the great and important challenges we have is americanization and more work has to be done there. a lot of work will be done in the meeting in senegal when we met with the advisory committee and they shared their view that roughly three of the concerns were in the process has been addressed for their concern about other concerned states identified that we've initiated a review of our fundamental contracts with the registrars. the registrars like go daddy or anyone you registered a domain that you go through a registrar for the generics. the country cuts are different. in the generic space with contracts in the registries. at this time we are in the

process of detailed contract negotiations with the registrar constituency to change and demand those contracts in those protections that we have very much hopeful and something dr. steve crocker as their chairman cares about and they shared his support for the evolution and i've been concerned since he came in with by a background in law enforcement cybersecurity. so i think we'll see progress there, hopefully by costa rica next meeting in march. i invite all of you to join a costa rica and i think that is probably when there will be in debt next level debate discussion about where the ra's go. a lot more work needs to be done. there's other parties proposing new ideas to consider on defense is to prevent defensive registrations. so icann is an open community process and we seek to solve that process. thank you.

>> i'll try to answer with brevity is slow. [laughter] australia for both. >> name is martin apple with the council of scientific society president. because of your background i would like to know how you see the filling of the holes of the swiss cheese that security and what you think the current status and how much it has changed from what you're doing. >> sure. i think that is the mother of all questions. that is a huge question. security is so complex. sometimes he was in pittsburgh when it's almost impossible to truly secure anything attached to the internet. for the internet security is a great challenge of our time and something they'll have to on together. the role that icann plays it's really important is that icann

is much like switzerland. with initial counts for every single country and territory in the world bank and at some level of work together to keep the domain name system going. everyone from the oecd countries to northern korea comments here yet, a rand command these countries in many cases or governmental advisory committee. we welcome them. all of them have operating context because we have to coordinate operation other functions. we work with everyone in the world and maintain that neutrality. he might reach some interesting stories in the config or case of the role that i can -- icann plays for collaborative efforts to combat extremely pernicious bot not. we're up to do that because of our neutral position. when you are that it shall come there's other things you can't do. i think we have a role.

i'm not going to panama to the internet is more secure or less secure. we've enhanced technology for the domain name system by cryptographically signing the reach of the internet with dns sec. we have more than 60 or 70 top-level domains cryptographically signed no. those signings are going well. adoption is slow. at the second level, adoption is slow. deduction by users is as those who need the help of everyone in this room, people in government and private industry to prevent demand in the the middle attacks basically so when you click on our domain name for typos domain name you get site and someone else can jump in the middle and intercept your request infinity false data and fool you into curative information and defraud you or steal your money. so dns is one critical piece of internet infrastructure. but the gentlemen mentioned from the ftc and adding security to the addressing system is another key component that must be done. and the work is underway, but

working these standards bodies and building international can think this takes time. were we to be done. we hope were contributing. >> wedowee to those three. please remember to introduce yourself. >> i am judy harris with reid smith. i believe that you're an official of the united states government do for you joined icann. and here in the united states we have a rulemaking process in an agency that's going to make policy has a specific process they follow and may solicit comments and make decisions based on those comments. and there is a recourse to the court of appeals if there is a belief that the decisions that were made of the policies put in place work appreciates and not in keeping with the common

sense. forgive my ignorance on this point, but you have talked a lot about the ability to write letters. you've talked about the open process effect from people submitting comments. he talked about the ability people will have to submit reactions when the applications are. does icann has any obligation to do more than listen? is there any obligation to demonstrate that your decisions were in fact based on preponderance of the evidence in record? and if so, is there any recourse to anyone anywhere in the world to challenge that finding? >> sure, thank you. if they simplify your question is two key pieces. it's kind of one question. secondly, are they review processes and procedures to appeal decisions by the board of

icann? the answer is yes on both. structures are different than in the u.s. government. of course they differ to the departments and agencies and different authorities and titles. in icann there's a formal policy development process that was recently revised and new revisions are just approved by the board of directors. as i mentioned there were 45 public comment. in the development of justice program, just this one program had 45 different from the open public comment process is. let's see what happens if the icann port makes a decision someone thinks is wrong? this has happened and there's independent process called an independent review panel that arbitrators can review any decision by the icann board. we had this case it xxx. the board voted down xxx because they did not meet criterion. the party that applied for that top-level domain disputed a and

filed the first formal complaint under independent review panel and that took a considerable period of time to work through. i want to say years. some people know exactly. we certainly spent millions of dollars on the effort and we lost. when we last, by the way and my general counsel called nana friday afternoon or evening and said i cannot believe this, we just lost the independent review panel decision i said good, healthy to eat right now. can we publish this document? he said well, i hadn't thought of that. if it puts your team unredacted right now. i wanted up on the web. you're hoping ready to eat right now that we just lost the decision. so my tweet went out within minutes of the learning of that decision. and we lost it. then the board reconsider the decision, laid out the process for reevaluating the decision with the community i took public comments on the process for reconsidering the decision and i

believe in some different steps. in the end we ended up approving it. the board did not have to change the decision by the way. the independent review panel forced to reconsideration. the reason is in part a legal reason. the board of icann is a fiduciary for making decisions for the organization and its not possible to have those reverted by an outside party i believe under california law. [inaudible conversations] >> that's for the board overall. my first question is does icann have an obligation, not only to take in comment, but to make decisions based on the preponderance? i understand you'll never have perfect consent this. could you choose to make your own decision and ignore all those comments? >> the icann board as

fiduciaries has the responsibility to make decisions in the global public interest and we reaffirmed that responsibility when we signed the affirmation of commitments with the department of commerce. that means in the end that the board must do what they believe is for the highest good of the global public interest and that is certainly the litmus test on this program and the reasoning and debate and discussions we went through the board in reaching the decision. >> tomorrow. >> absolutely. >> certainly, this will be very brief. i name the shorter. just a moment ago you were talking about the complexity of security and i quite appreciate one item that will help. going back to who is problem. that problem isn't very complicated and it's a problem that has been around since 2002

when oecd had issued warnings about the fact that the system was woefully inaccurate and contains a myriad of errors and in 2009 but not for us to not recommend nation of the many intermediary -- many intermediary decisions and issues regarding who is. currently we have all of this. not the law enforcement recommendations developed and we still have registrations to make enough, donald duck, god, you name it. so specifically for those types of registry errors that can easily be screened out by a simple database query, is this even something you propose to do? >> let me say, i invite you to step into the room.

the people in the privacy groups civil rights and civil liberties law enforcement, registries, registrars and cannot until me that this is easy as a set of recommendations everyone can agree on because i haven't seen it. either way, i don't develop policy. i contribute and support the process as a ceo. it's very important one of the key things they focus on as ceo is not trying to steer policies of icann been trained to tune up the policy development process and support organizations who don't have an organizational skew. >> but going back to the stakeholders, the first amendment constituency, privacy constituency would we worried about are they anonymous. law enforcement would be worried about screening out these type -- >> if you start reading this out, please get to a consensus position because i think progress does need to be made. by the way, i agree progress getting made and there's middle

ground can be found. i have to say having watched the battles go on in the positioning and lobbying in different aspects i've never seen a group barge out of the room and say we've got it. it's really simple. it's all right here. they come out with different versions of say i like that and i don't like that and i'll never live with that. i do think that what does icann live on? trainmen live from the trust of the parties we work with on the internet globally and we have to be fair and we have to be respected and we have to act in a trustworthy fashion. and that that we have to keep pushing on these issues to enhance things like when it's easy to get ground down and start. and i think that is part of the value that clearly the board of icann house. i see you try to add value in and sticking things at times. if you think it's simple, write it up and get everyone on board.

[inaudible] last night's >> he's to register something. >> bill mark strand governor magazine. he talked about national governments being one of the likeliest purchaser of the top level domain, but there's also many.been a number of national governments are trying to pare down and rationalize. i wonder if you can talk about how you expect the expansion to change the way government manage their web presences. first i mention sun geography that seems to be an interesting creating local equipment and local language scripts for things like.com,.gov,.org. we'll see what actually happens. a lot of governments look at the issue of how to create higher security zones or networks or

multiple different security sounds and how they do that. some of those are relating to this. most of the game interests we see our bay cities, very strong interest by a lot of cities around the world and all five geographies. and also baystate and send geographies. not in all geographies, but interest by states. so i think you'll certainly see cities. you certainly see states. the cios are struggling with issues that had we manage this new top level domain? who do we let him? we want to open to everyone or to want to have quality control? estimates do quality control you're doing cytidine anyways a lot of difficult issues. this is an area of innovation that i think would be quite interesting. >> one more. no? but let me ask you to join me in

thanking rod beckstrom. thank you fair match. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

>> i think one of the most frightening responsibilities i've ever experienced this too has some substantial responsibilities for communicating politically to national let it in the current media. you all know the basic statistics. television, broadcast television has gone down 50 million viewers who two years ago and about 25, 26 million today and the viewership is down and is remarkably difficult to communicate any kind of the message to the public. slogans be detailed. today this is one of the truths

i've learned in recent politics but you cannot communicate details. the premise look inside of an issue you can win. if you're in the details that come you're going to lose. >> military detainee of detaining a superset of guantánamo bay two years ago. in america foundation hosted a discussion about the facility in political debate over its planned closure. speakers at this event of a congressman brand of virginia and the former chief prosecutor for the u.s. military commissions at guantánamo bay. this is an hour and a half.

>> thank you are coming to the new america foundation. i am peter bergen, national securities program here. we are really delighted -- delighted is probably not the right verb, but we are happy to have this very distinguished panel to discuss what we call that panel pamela guantánamo forever? since that is obviously the main question at hand is when and if one time and that will close and how might that have been? to begin will have congressman moran who is serving his 11th term as u.s. representative from virginia's eighth district. he's a senior member of the appropriations committee. he has been a key critic of provisions of the national defense authorization act in a great actor or political courage, commerce and from virginia's voted against the authorization of this action because of the provisions that

relate to the military detention of terrorism suspects. we also have from the united kingdom andy worthing 10 who is the author of "the guantanamo files." and he has done work to basically explain it exactly as in guantánamo than almost any other journalist i am aware of. and then we also have colonel davis who is the chief prosecutor in the guantánamo military commissions and is now retired from that position, retired active duty in october 2008. he teaches now live at howard and then finally we have tom wilner, had a good crack base and representing guantánamo detainees and key cases before the supreme court such as russell v. bush. we'll start with congressman moran left to go to the house at 130 and wrapped up at 1:45.

thank you. >> thank you so much, peter. everything out of you for being here. we have a terrific panel. i don't want to take too long, but there is so much to be said. that may stipulate my position first. guantánamo should be closed as a detention facility. the supreme court has ruled that noncitizens have the right to habeas corpus, which is being denied to them currently. and so, you can make a strong case that the existence of guantánamo is unconstitutional. i feel quite strongly that it is

undermining our national security and that it is -- it is an ongoing compromise of our foreign policy and the ideals that defined the united states of america. as long as guantánamo continues to exist, it undermines our credibility throughout the world. and i think most people would agree that it is america's idealism that is in its strongest asset in dealing with the rest of the world and in fact has primarily contributed to its economic military and political success in doing so.

so, guantánamo is a real problem from a foreign policy, from national security and from a legal stand point. and in fact, our current president ran on a position that he would close it. and so from that, you would have to believe that given the facts that a majority of the american people would agree with the president's position. but it is open and as a result of legislation that was just passed by the house and senate and the president, i have a afraid that it will stay open indefinitely without a very substantial pushback from the american people, which means

that it is the subject that should be addressed in this presidential election year and obviously every member of the houses up and approximately a third of the united states senate. so it should be addressed. it's an important issue. now, when it began, there were 20 captives back in january january 2002. that's why this conference is being held today. it's the 10th year anniversary at the opening of guantánamo. there have been about 800 people howled -- we will collect gitmo. it is a little easier to remember. but there have been 800 people held at gitmo.

about 772 were originally brought their more recently than some people were taken out of what is called by prisons in other parts of the world who were the worst of the worst and there some reason to believe that to be the case personified by khalid sheikh mohammed. they have been put there at one time ago as well. but they are not typical of the people being held at one time and no. they should come as far as i and her income to be dealt with in the legal system. but the data that we have and we would challenge people to refute it then additionally, when 772

people were brought there in the early years, only 5% were captured at the united states forces. 86% were arrested either by pakistan of the northern alliance and then turned over to u.s. custody. this is at a time when the united states offered large bounties for the capture of suspected enemies. there's very little screening when these people were turned over. now, we know that if the actions that the pakistan military have taken have not been consistent with america's policy or its national security. and yet, these are the people we accepted these prisoners and we accept that there were

terrorists. but the majority of the detainees have not been determined to have committed any hostile acts against the united states or its coalition allies. more than half. only 8% of the detainees were cared to read stuff qaeda fighters. 30% were captured because they were members and amusing quotes here, potentially hostile organization. almost two thirds. 60% were associated with such an organization, and associated with is a very broad term as you can imagine. we have some of the top people in the government and certainly in the washington establishment working with mek, for example,

which has been labeled a terrorist organization. i only throw that out because these identifications are just so loose. they're insufficient justification to detain people for an entire decade in some cases. now, the majority of the 175 that are still there had been cleared for release. i could give you the actual numbers. 17136 are subject to criminal investigation or prosecution. 48 are considered to remain in preventive detention without criminal trial and the remaining

detainees may be transferred either immediately or potentially to a foreign country. now this is a result of the conclusions of the quad, task force. is this what its final report that just about a year ago now. now should also be said that civilian courts have prosecuted successfully more than 400 terrorists. and yet, i'm going to reach you legislation which was just passed by the congress of the united states and signed into law with the caveat that the president. but i want to make one more point before i go to that legislation. not only is this the least justifiable facility controlled

by the united states for national security purposes, but it is by far the most expensive prison on the planet. there are 1850 u.s. troops and civilians that maintain a compound that contains 170 when captives. you can do the math. that is over $800,000 per year per detainee. and that the 171, only six are currently facing pentagon tribunals that may start a year from now after a pretrial hearing discovery. so here we are with all of this concern about about about, some

of the very people who have raised the greatest concern are, some of the very people who have raised the greatest concern are maintaining a facility, where the majority of people have been cleared for release but are nevertheless being held under what the supreme court has suggested is unconstitutional detention, without the right of habeas corpus. i know tom wilner will discuss that in a moment. and yet, the new numbers this year will bring it closer to a million dollars per year per detainee. how can you justify a? now, let me tell you the legislation that is most relevant and is cause for greatest discouragement.

the national defense authorization act of faith he was just fine, but the first time in the united states history, explicitly allows the president to indefinitely detain without charge and he suggested terrorists who is captured even within the united states. this can include u.s. citizens in u.s. person. with regard to u.s. citizens, the provisions i need to that does does not expressly exclude the detention without charge or trial. added section 1021 national defense authorization act of 2011. the current authority of the president, which is that people say would not effect it unfortunately is very unclear. now, those who argued on the

floor of the house and the senate that civil liberties are in the united states, i don't think fully consider the implications and many of you so i'll be specific of subsection e. of 1021. because it says that the law should not be construed to affect existing law or authority relating to the united states citizens. but the reality is that current law on the scope of the president's authority to indefinitely detain is unsettled. it is not clear. so when you say it doesn't affect the, it doesn't affect the law that has not been clarified. and in fact, the u.s. government in the padilla case as well as the omar case as recent as 2009

claimed that the president had the authority to tame a suspected terrorist captured within the united states indefinitely without charge or trial. so, the claim of executive attention within the united states has not been test it. the state of the president is unclear. that's very important to say because people need to understand that not only is guantánamo a foreign policy, but it has profoundly undermined the constitutional protections of the united states citizens. and the subsequent section, section 1022 would force the military to indefinitely detain without charge or trial anyone who is a member of al qaeda or associated forces there anyone suspected of planning or attempting a terrorist attack. the key word is suspected. that language 1022 doesn't

prohibit the detention of united states citizens. fbi bowler says he fears this is going to severely, severely compromise the ability of the fbi and our civil authorities have been able to get at the responsibilities. now this may seem somewhat legalistic, but the legalism we are talking about is a basic constitutional protection. so, in the interest of maintaining guantánamo, justifying political positions that members of congress and the senate have taken that we will not allow any terrorist from guantánamo in the united states, we have seriously eroded

something that is intrinsic to the constitution of the united states. now let me just wrap this up with something that i know a little more about that in the constitution of those who should be clear to all of us who have to vote on measures that should be consistent with the constitution. that is the politics discussion. the reason why we have this situation is not because of the president of the united states. i can tell you from first-hand knowledge and experience the problem is that congress that the united states and the fact that they have operated within an echo chamber of conservative media that is hammered away at

what is really not a clear and true statement that people at guantánamo are the worst of the worst. many of them should not have been picked to. most of them should not have been detained. the vast majority of them are not immediate threats to the security of the united states. just look at the numbers that nearly 300, 630 been released. but we held them in detention without giving them the ability to defend themselves or even to know what they were accused of. in the early years, and many were used. i would suggest that being held under force without being able

to contact your families or defend yourself is abusive. now, the majority of the congress today is not prepared to close quan thanh amo. they have prepared to provide whatever money is necessary to keep it open. the majority are not prepared to allow the detainees at guantánamo even the worst of the worst i.e. khalid sheikh ahmed and others that we now have been involved on clear and direct threats and actions against the united states. they're not prepared to allow them to be tried in our civil justice system. the problem is while 400 terrorists have been prosecuted in our civil justice system, only six have been successfully prosecuted by the military

system of justice because of lack of evidence. and so, i think one time and no is going to remain open for the indefinite period of time until the majority of the american people say no. we now understand what's going on. we now understand the majority are eligible for release. we understand that despite the language that says that basically prohibits them from being transferred to other countries, we understand he should be transferred to their country of origin. and we understand the rule of law in the united states should apply to guantánamo as well. so thank you for being here. thank you for your interest in this very important issue. and peter, do you want to introduce the next speaker? [applause] >> , everybody in thank you very much.

he said so much there that i'm not sure there's much left for me to say. that was excellent. i was going to type briefly about men who are still held in approved for transfer by the task worse by president obama because i think those are the people that we all should be able to agree needs to be release and we need to be able to reach a point where that could happen. so these are to the the task force consisted of career officials in lawyers from other government department for the intelligence agencies, who said we have no interest in holding these men forever. so they are still held. now, two thirds of those men are from yemen and the reason they are held is primarily because those they hysteria that greeted the rest of the men who created tomorrow for abdulmutallab who try to bomb it lame mistake 2009 aired after they released

military detention provisions that were inserted into the national defense authorization act have come from the same hysteria that arose. if you can recall that. , this is a man who has read his miranda rights, in turkey did not forcibly by the fbi and ended up a few months ago been six and ended up a few months ago been six and ended up a few months ago been six convicted. he spoke openly without torture being used, but there were people in high positions of the united states who wanted him to be sent to guantánamo. the same cheerleaders who told guantánamo who are still monsters and spreading this unconstitutional message. and what happened as a result of the capture of this man and this is the area was that the people demanded that prisoners are not to be released to young men. and actually the president out to that criticism on congress has also later imposed restrictions on the right to release prisoners.

so the yemenis are stuck and we need to be able to say, this is not acceptable not to release any went to yemen and the u.s. government doesn't want to because of some other unrelated incident involving a man whose nigerian but was recruited in yemen. that doesn't make sense. that is killed by nationality a thing. i think people find that extremely and they are and should find that extremely unfair and we need to find a way to be able to put pressure on the government and congress to say you need to step this kind of restriction. the decisions made by congress and the release of prisoners they think to be shocking to americans. the lawmakers have got together with great exceptions. lawmakers have got together to observe these positions that instead that the defense secretary must certify to congress that if they prisoners to be released to the country, then he must be able to certify that president will not engage

in activities against the united states. i feel that's actually possible to do. but i don't think that's even quite as bad as another twist that was added, which was lawmakers saying that the defense secretary must not release a prisoner. the government must not release a prisoner if there is an alleged incident of recidivism that someone having returned to the battlefield from the whole country. we are back to the same issue of criminalizing the entire population of yemen to a nationality come the same thing with entire countries. the analogy that i use for this is imagined to take seats in colorado. let's say within the u.s. domestic businesses and some of his release from prison to colorado in commits a crime. the lawmakers that this country get together in vain future, no one must ever be released to the states of colorado because of

this war criminal. that is the analogy. that's a real analogy. i think if i was to have been in the united states, people would understand that's deeply unfair. but it's one of the things that has happened with the way they hysteria has built up about quan thanh amo. so i think those are the really big issues about how we start to work to secure the release of imprisonment. in the yemenis they think is the big case, to be able to say to elected representatives, this is going to stay open forever, this prison, unless some action is taken. and there may be short-term political maneuvering that required people to not do anything about it in the short-term. the short term becomes the long-term. and when history when it comes to look back, when it's presented in the history books that the united states government and congress presided

over a situation for years coming years and years in which people of the government didn't want to hold remains held in the prison were not appeased. that is not going to go down well. that is going to be a bad legacy. but i'm trying to work out how we can get to the point to say to people within the position that the legacy will be yours unless you act. what is it it going to happen? next year? the year after? five years, 10 years? the last two prisoners to leave on time the left in coffins. they died there last year. the living prisoner was released a year ago. more prisoners will die and leave and coffins. as it stands at the moment, no one is sleeping through any other means. i'd like also to mention to people who may not know that the process of habeas corpus, which congressman moran mentioned, with the prisoner security habeas corpus rights from the

supreme court system and that's been undermined over the last year and a half by judges here in washington d.c. in the circuit court who have thought back against decisions by lower courts to release prisoners because of a lack of evidence and for reasons i could only describe as as ideological reasons are saying the government doesn't really need to present anyway in evidence than it should really be challenged. whoever the government says the summit should be out should come to need to be held. what has happened the last year and a half days after successes for the prisoners in release for the prisoners, the 11 habeas corpus petitions have been lost. i'd rather have either been vacated her book again by the circuit courts. and it is not possible to get out of guantánamo through legal means. after all those years of struggling, the judges in the d.c. circuit court has eliminated habeas corpus as a

remedy for prisoners in guantánamo and i think that is something that should concern people as well. and i don't want to carry on for too long because i want the opportunity for my colleagues as well. i want to mention that in the hope of keeping the conversation alive throughout the election year about the need to close quintana no, tom and i and other people have set up a website on a campaign called close quan thanh amo. www.close montano.org. we encourage people to sign up to show lawmakers and judges how much interest there is in bringing this terrible tenures to an end.

>> these prisoners do not have the rights to have family visits. these are people who effectively are still the third exceptional category of human being that was dreamt up by the bush administration. they were not held as soldiers with the protections of the geneva geneva conventions were not held as criminal prisoners,

but they are illegal war combats, a unique prisoner that does not have proper rights issue and we really must work hard to bring that to an end because otherwise i'll be here next year and in five years and in ten years, and the shame of this will only build over time. it's not going to go away. thank you very much. [applause] >> well, thank you. we have to quit meeting this way. [laughter] looking at the panel and audiences, i recognize people who were here last year. hopefully one day we look back at this as a footnote rather than an ongoing chapter in our nation's history. mitt romney has taken to quoting passengers from america the beautiful.

i remember a passage, though, from the star spangled banner that says land of the freedom and home of the brave, but over the past decade, we're the constrained and the cowardly. i joined the military in 1983 because i believed in the land of the free and home of the brave, and i'd like to have my country back, the one i signed up to serve. we've had people, fear mongers, who played to fear and portraying people as the worst of the worst and turning our backs on the law and running from it for the past decade, and we're still here today on the 10 #th anniversary of -- 10th anniversary of guantanamo. we went through the history of guantanamo, and i won't bore you are -- with that. i was a chief prosecutor from 2005 to 2007, and i resigned when i was pressured to use

evidence obtained by torture. people can argue whether enhanced interrogation techniques, but it does not produce reliable evidence to be used in an american criminal proceeding, and when i was told we don't torture so who do you say that we do, that's when i decided to resign. it was not popular in republican circles when i did that, but i was hired to work for congress, and i was the most on the mistake person when -- optimistic person when president obama was elected. in the military, you can't participate in political activity, and for the first time, i got to participate in the fall of 2008. i put an obama sign in the yard, and somebody set it on fire, so i got another one and put up another one, and so i was extraordinarily optimistic when he took office and extraordinarily disappointed when he caved in on his promise

to close guantanamo and end the military commissions. i wrote an op-ed in the "wall street journal," and apparently democrats were not anymore pleased with me than the republican, and i was fired the next day. my case is pending at the dc circuit before the same panel that i don't think they will be phenomenon of the first amendment rights, but we'll see. i'm very thankful to organizations that continue to fight the fight after a decade. you know, all the major organizations, groups like physicians for human rights, the national religious campaign against torture, and others that don't give up. you know, it was a british citizen that said never, never, never quit, and hopefully americans remember that, too, and never quit, and i'm thankful to kirk at howard university law school for getting me a job. howard's motto is leading the fight for social justice, and looking back at thurgood

marshall and what he went through to lead the fight for civil rights, i think human rights fall in that category. exactly a year ago today to now what's changed at guantanamo? i mean, there's 171 people at guantanamo, there were 173 last year, and in the year's time, we had two people die, one person convicted in the military commission, and we had congress pass the national defense authorization act making guantanamo a permanent fixture, but other than that, nothing's changed in the course of a year. think about it for a minute. think about these words. falsely imprisoning people, holding them for long periods, trying them in inappropriate circumstances, cuking proceedings in secret, inadequate legal council, confessions obtained by coercion. sound familiar? that was from a press statement yesterday from a state department's spokesperson talking about the conviction of

amir in iran, and we condemn iran for using those procedures, and i'm thinking it sounds awful familiar to me. we're hypocrites for holding ourselves up as being this standard bearer for the rule of law and humanitarian treatment, yet what we condone for ourselves we condemn for others. how did we get there? john, you did an article in the "wall street journal" about a week ago reviewing a couple books, and as ewe can probably imagine, he was not thrilled with one and thrilled with the other. you said in the article, and i think this explains how we wound up where we are today. this is, john, you speaking. "america's response to 9/11 caused outrage among intellectuals because it proved so successful preventing further attacks on united states, eliminating bin laden and the am chi da leadership beginning the overthrow of authoritarian

regimes in the middle east. the bush administration rejected the intellectual international network of activists right groups and courts in favor of robust unilateral response drawing upon the traditional sources of state power. america's response was so effective and so hated because it relied on national sources of power spurred on by great people's belief in its own exceptional place in history taking advantage of its superior economy in the military, and the united states mounted a worldwide campaign to bring democracy and capitalism to lands that barely knew them." that was the mind set that led to guantanamo, and i think america is an exceptional country, but we can't use our expensallism to -- exceptionalism to apply us as an exception to the laws. you talked about the current

administration, and i i've been extraordinary disappointed from the lack of leadership from president obama. i mean, i agree it's a difficult process when you got a congress against you and giving credit where credit is due, dick and liz cheney did an effective job early ongoing on the offensive painting this as either you're with us or with the terrorists, and whether than call their bluff and tell the facts like they are, the president chose to spend his political capital on health care reform and the economy and other areas, but we need to get back to who we are in the land of the free and the home of the brave for we do have the ideal that others live to, but it talked bowel the use of drones, again, another interesting phenomena where president obama had not just embraced the bush policies, but kissed it on the lips and ran with it, particularly with the drone program. william wrote, "the decision to use the drone to kill american

citizens in yemen was a remarkable turn around for a politician who crit sized every aspect on the war on terror waged by his predecessor in the oval office. by the fall of 2010, it was not such a surprise, and by then, mr. obama authorized military trials that he once condemned to take place in guantanamo, which he promised to close. like mr. bush, mr. obama learned the hard way that his theologian warned, "we take and most continue to take morally has -- hazardous actions." again, that's turning our back on the rule of law. as i said, it's unfortunate when we criticize others, and we can't hold ourselves up as the example. as a military person, i spent 25 years in the military. think back to 1991 and the first gulf war. we invaded iraq, the war was over fairly quickly with minimal

casualties because the iraqis put down their weapons, raised their hands, and saw american soldiers because of our reputation of humane treatment and following the rule of law. it's in our national interest to have that reputation. think about the image of america today where the same soldiers put their guns down and surrender if they thought they would be sexually humiliated, tortured, and indefinitely detained? i contend from a military perspective and security perspective, it's not in our interest to continue this facade that gawrn gan needs to -- guantanamo needs to continue into the future. it's one thing to complain about the treatment as unfortunate a situation as he's in, but we don't have a strong leg to stand on when we conduct that same process in guantanamo. i was driving home weeks ago and i heard a story on npr, and i turned on the radio in the

middle of the story, and they were talking about a person detained in cuba and how unfair it was. i was thinking it's a story about guantanamo. it was a story about allen gross, and american citizen working for the state department who was apprehended and prosecuted in a cuban prison, at the state department was condemning them. on the other end of the island, we have 171 people that we're doing the same thing to. again, i think it's unfortunate we find ourselves in this situation. i look forward to the day, and i always enjoy seeing andy, but i hate to see him once a year here when we lament about the ongoing saga at guantanamo bay. i hope we get back to our roots, and that when the campaign is over, and it's amazing to me because you can't be dumb enough or hateful enough, if you watch the debates, what are the big lines? you know, if a person doesn't

have health insurance, let them die, yeah. we had more executions in texas than anywhere else, yeah. water boarding, if elected, we'll go back to it, yeah. that's what the american public, at least a segment of the american public reacts to. i really appreciate you taking time out of your day to come out here again this year to mark the 10th anniversary of guantanamo, and i hope you go back to talk to your friends and neighbors and remind them we're americans and we're better than that. [applause] >> well, i didn't know what to say until i heard the other very bright people here say something. i'm struck this is the third year in a row andy and i have done this and second year with mo and nothing's changed, which is probably the biggest lesson. i want to talk more about what i

think people can do to change this. i really do first want to evening two things. we get very depressed in democracy today about the lack of political courage, and i just want to say, really, since day one, jim moran, i think, it would have been politically easy to be the other side, but he stood up on this issue from day one, christina husky is here, and we worked together, and he was talking about closing guantanamo when was terribly unpopular, and voting against a national defense authorization act in northern virginia is a hell of an act of political courage, so, you know, we still have heros. morris davis redesigned as prosecutor because of the use of torture. there are still people in the country who stand up for what's right, and we need to get more. [applause]

you know, i just say a few things about gan gan. it's extraordinary to me, security experts throughout the country have unanimously said -- that's from the secretary of defense, the national security adviser, the head of the military, the head of the fbi -- everybody said that these policies and guantanamo don't help our security. they hurt our security. those facts are ignored. the reasons they hurt our constitute, and jim moran mentioned it well about our greatest asset is who we are. ronald reagan, a republican hero, put it very well in nominating george -- the real george bush i say, the first bush president, the second term, you know, he said our greatest strength is not our wealth or our power, but our ideas, our ideals of individual freedom, justice, and the rule of law.

guantanamo clearly violates those principles of america. they are not who we are. it hurts us every day it remains open. what can we do about it? i've got very depressed because i've been involved in this now for nine and a half years, and things don't seem to get better, but i want to share something. a few weeks ago, i went to the robert f. kennedy awards in new york, and one of the awards was given to al gore, and i thought, oh, my gosh, why is al gore getting this? he stood up and made a speech which encouraged me, and it gave guidance on what we could do. he said, and he was talking mostly about the environment, but other things in the democracy today, and he said, you know, people come and they are depressed about what's happening to the country, and he said, i'm reminded of what martin luther king said in the

early 1960s when the supporters came to him and said it's not going to get betterment we're depressed. we're giving up. he said that's not so. things will get better because a lie cannot endure because the principles of the united states are too great to allow it to. that inspired me. the only way a lie can exist is in the absence of truth, and i'm struck every day that people don't know the facts. jim talked about this echo chamber in certain areas of the country where people -- people simply don't know of the 171 people at guantanamo, 89 of them have been cleared. that's an incredible -- people don't know it. if you say that, people are shocked by it. i encourage you to say it to everybody you know, to everyone you know. every party you go to, say, you know, do you know that all of the security experts of this

country, including republicans, have said this hurts our country because it gives it a recruiting tool for terrorism. do you know that more than half of the people down there have been cleared for release? don't we have the courage to get the facts out? that's the most important thing, i think, you can do. in that regard, as andy said, we're setting up a website which is going out now, which is closeguantanamo.org. go on it, participate in it, read it, send it to your friends. on that, there's opening to a white house petition, a petition to the white house to close guantanamo. i agree, this is a very difficult thing for the president of the united states to do with a congress the way it is, but i think if we get, you know -- it's an amazing thing. in the last election, both john mccain and president obama were for closing guantanamo.

what happened afterwards? you know, other things were more important? maybe they seem important to people, but i just encourage you now to use the time to really get these facts out and work on it. i think that's what we can all do. thanks. [applause] >> thank you very much to the panel and speaking also of putting himself out there, thomas wilner took the cases, a lot of, you know, they were not popular, and had a great deal of success, and anwar andy worthington, who is a u.s. citizen, put time into this, and so i thank all of you. we have time for questions and answers, and because it's on c-span, wait for the mic. i emphasize make it a question rather than a statement, and if you have a particular question

for someone, just address who you want the question to go to. starting there -- >> hi, i'med to pierce, a defense attorney for some at guantanamo. it seems evident to people of comments made, and notice how close a resemblance they have to carl smith, and people mention that occasionally. but it seems bad manners that they rely upon the legal theories of the nazi crown jurorrist, but now, lately, we have books written by some, and tom on the "new york times" talking about why we need to keep guantanamo open, but why isn't anybody taking notice, i guess, the question of the fact -- the books, two different books, in the law review articles come out and say we have to go back to carl smith, this crown juror of nazis, of legal opinion and theory of the

nazis to figure out how to work and act in this state of emergency, and they go right along and say, well, we have to suspend the constitution. we can't afford civil rights, and on and on and on, which is 5 total subversion. u.s. constitution, and i don't think, you know, as long as we let them have the veneer of caring about national security instead of looking at the real motive because it seems to me they really are trying to create an authoritarian state that is so anti and un-american that you don't want to think it, but they -- >> thank you for ignoring the suggestion about statements rather than questions, so what's the question? >> [laughter] >> the question is why are we not recognizing our duty to defend the constitution and not allow the ideas to be a gangrene in our legal system? >> well, yeah, as you know, most military officers while on active duty pretty much have to keep their mouths shut other

than writing scholarly articles and that type of thing. the other side is convincing the public the worst of the worst, and they cater to fear. people are concerned about their safety. i guess it was franklin who said if you give up your liberty for your safety you don't deserve either, and we've done that. we've become so afraid of the bomb going off on time's square on new year's eve and killing people. people who are willing to give up on who we were prior to 9/11, and there's a lot of military officers, i think, who -- i don't know if you saw this week or last week the first detex camp at guantanamo who is an army officer saying guantanamo needs to be closed because it doesn't serve a useful purpose. there are military folks who have stood up, and we need more and citizens in general who are willing to pay attention to the issue. >> let me ask you a question about the yemen prisoners

because i think, you know, andy mentioned that there was a part to play in that, but i think really the real problem is being the escapes from the yemen prison on two occasions, and there was discussion about perhaps the saudis would take the yemen prisoners, and then that didn't happen. what concretely might -- you know, how do you solve the problem particularly now that the problem in yemen is worse with three sile wars going on and -- civil wars going on, and no one knows who to return them to. what steps could the government take to remediate with that problem? sir? >> well, one of the -- i agree with the gentleman's contention, and obviously i agree with colonel davis, and this is all within the context of the pom politics and bigotry. fear of the unknown, and bigotry of muslims. that's a principle element of

this. the -- with regard to some of the legitimate concerns, know, and there is a seemingly legitimate concern that the military says that as many as a quarter of those released have gone back into the battlefield, as they say, and that's what peter is getting at. how do we ensure that they don't go back into activities that might jeopardize the security of the united states? but i think it should be underscored. first of all, 60% of those in prison in the united states are residevous, so clearly, there's some elements of recidivism. when you look at specific people cited as having returned to the feel of battle as they say or some activities related to terrorism, it's about 6%.

it was about 4% that you could identify. it went up to about 6%. the increase that 2% of really are russians and chinese. the russians consider most to be terrorists or potential terrorists, and the chinese consider the others to be terrorists. now, if you allow that conflict, they would be more on the side of individual freedom an consistent with america's struggle for independence, but i won't get into that, but it's to the extent of which they are actually terrorists, objectives that are not in any way consistent with what would make a security threat to the united states. in terms of yemen, when you release people, you follow them. that's what the saudis do. you can make a strong case that since we know their [background --

we know their background, everything about them, and if they were to go back into the field, first of all, they would be suspect working with us possibly, they are people that have been cleared, so they are not terrorists, and it seems to me that if they were going to go back, it would be a propaganda tool achievement for al-qaeda in the arabian peninsula or anywhere so we hear about them. it would be much easier to capture them if they were actually engaged in terrorism because we know so much about them so i don't think it's a compelling argument for not releasing people. it's certainly not compelling enough argument to cause us to act inconsistent with our most fundmental principles of democracy and rule of law.

>> briefly, i thought the questions were related in the sense that the fundamental problem at the heart of the bush administration's war on terror was equating people involved in military conflict with people involved in terrorist activity, and the worst of the worst at guantanamo, enduring propaganda remains because people have been encouraged to think that everyone who is in guantanamo is a terrorist, that they are bent on acts of international terrorism where they just shouldn't be released. that's never been the case. only a small handful, a few% of the people held at guantanamo have ever been accused of involvement in agents of international terrorism. there's people involved in a military conflict with the taliban against the northern alliance. these are the people we're talking about releasing. we are not talking about releasing terrorists, but we've not been able to make the case

that the complete shifting of language and of concepts undertaken by the bush administration lodged itself in people's consciousnesses so they think guantanamo is full of terrorists. these are not people who are going to fly a plane into a building. people released to yemen, these are minor innocent foot soldiers in a conflict that was over a long, long time ago, and we have to make that case on a rational basis, but unfortunately, we're in an arena where rational explanations are not popular. >> i have to push back on that with a fact chewable thing to consider that the two leaders of the al-qaeda were people released from guantanamo who went through the saudi rehabilitation program, and they were not people you probably should have released. it is more complicated than what you just presented, i think. what is the answer to that complication, if any?

>> well, i don't know, peter. one of the things complicating is the recidivism claim. you have done research to demonstrate it's less. >> right. i understand what you say about there being a potential of something, you know, bearing ill will against the united states and being able to do something about it, but practically how can we have a zero recidivism possibility? the only way it's happened is to say everybody must be locked up there and nobody can ever leave, and we then are getting into what it's about is preventative detention. now, that's a very alarming situation to be in because you can see how that plays into the office that tom was talking about who want to indefinitely detain people who have not committed crimes but who might. that will be alarms. it is alarming. >> go ahead. >> one point that you make, christine and i represented a fellow who was clearly not a

terrorist, and he was resis vism. guantanamo turnedded him, no doubt in my mind, turned him into -- >> tell the story. that's the kuwait story? >> yeah. he was a very young guy picked up in the confines of sort of pakistan, had gone down there, you know, he was a very naive young kid who was not a terrorist, and not even -- we saw in the course of the time that we went to guantanamo this guy turn into basically a madman, and he was released by the government. we had nothing to do with it really. he was a behavioral problem down there throwing things as guards, and when he got out, it was interesting because he went home, and he couldn't find a girlfriend because he had been in guantanamo. the only place that he had any

worth was in these sort of radical elements, and he went out and blew up not u.s. soldiers, but iraqi soldiers in iraq, so you always -- well, what is the benefit of holding people? clearly they were harmed, but what's the benefit? why, also do we need to be the policeman of the world? there's other places that can hold people if we have concern about them, and what andy said is true. i always think, you know, one more kuwait example. one of the fellows now released was a person who was listed as somebody they were not going to prosecute, and nervousst nevertheless, he was a dangerous person or maybe they were. this guy was clear by the cia at the very beginning. they interviewed and said this guy is a mistake, and yet they were going to hold him there forever in this way of sort of

two dangerous to relose because of the fear factors that go on. how does that benefit? why do we do it? is there recidivism? i don't know how much danger we cause ourselves, so just an observation. >> gentleman over there. >> hi, james from national journal magazine. can someone explain to me who engaged on this only periodically, the supreme court saying that these guys had the right of habeas corpus seemed to be a victory, and heard today that these circuit and appeals courts have pushed back against that, but why isn't the supreme court getting the cases again? certainly they must not feel they can be used by circuit and appeals courts. >> maybe i should take that one. we -- we won the right to habeas corpus for guantanamo detainees twice. in 2004, the supreme court ruled

6-3 in the rasul case that the detainees have the right under the habeas corpus stay chute, and that stay chute was passed -- statute was passed in 1789, and then congress with the great republican majority revoked habe habeas cor put for those people, and in 2008, it's a right and congress can't revoke it. what's happened since then is honestly the dc circuit interpreted the rules for habeas corpus and even with the difficult standards, most people bringing habeas corpus cases have won, but the dc court that disagreed and made it clear put in standards that basically say if any evidence is presented by the government, that this person

might be connected with terrorism or taliban, they can be held forever, even if the evidence is he could have been a cook for the taliban. that's the standard now. we have sought supreme court review for the cases. we're in a very difficult position with the supreme court because justice kagan rescues herself from the cases because she was in the justice department while they were first coming up, so you have a divided court with no ability right now to get review. we're hoping that there's review soon in a case, and that justice kagan can vote on granting review to it. one thing i've learned, and we brought our case for habeas corpus on may 1, 2002. i thought that this issue would not be resolved by the courts because they take a long time, and the country comes to its

senses, and as a policy matter sop this silly prison. that has not happened, and the fact is the courts are very slow process. eventually, it will be cleared up, but the people will be dead or broken by that time. >> in front here. lady here, yeah. wait for the microphone. thanks. >> i'm alice day, a filmmaker. i'd like to ask a question of all of you. we're in an election year. i've just left a meeting of people who are very sympathetic to president obama where it was said that let's not bring up anything that might challenge him or make it look as though the people on his side were

disagreeing with what he's done. what do you say to a group like that when there is a grave injustice like this being done, and it's partly responsible for it because of the leadership or lack of it. >> well, i'll do it, but i know that congressman moran and i probably have a different view. i would say that the worst places in hell are reserved for those who stand silent in the face of injustice. >> for me it's just -- about the only time in my adult life i've been able to participate in the presidential election process, i aggressively campaignedded for president obama -- campaigned for president obama, and i've been thoroughly disappointed, but there's no one on the other side -- it's like picking between vomiting and diarrhea. i don't want either. [laughter] it's picking the lesser of two

evils. >> when we argued this issue and on the full appropriations committee and them on the florida house, i was very frustrated because we were not getting any information i felt was helpful to our side and the president's publicly stated position out of the justice department. talked to them, there was a heated conversation, they knew how i felt. i don't know why they didn't fight the language more vigorously. i don't know whether it was political policy or simply that they didn't have the people in place at the time that they needed. there was a lot of restructuring going on, so that was a disappointment. i grant you that, but one thing i did not say and should have said is when the president signed this legislation, he made

it clear that these objectionable sections, from my stand point, these objectionable sections that he said that it fundamentally maintains unwarranted restrictions on the executive branches' authority to transfer detainees to a foreign country and to carry out the national security and foreign relations activities and would under certain circumstances violate constitutional separation of powers of principles. he took exception in the signing of the legislation. i don't think he had a choice about signing the legislation. it was clear he was going to do it. he was not going to be able to stop because the fact is he didn't have sufficient support in the senate even, let alone in the house. he was forced to let it go with the caveat that president bush

employed many times to say he takes exception to these sections. he wants to close it. he has said very definitively as has attorney holder that these people should be tried in civilian court. that's the only times we successfully tried people, terrorists, have been in civilian courts with six prosecutions in military courts, but four of them were plea deals for shorter sentences. it was really not a full trial, so our only success has been in civilian courts, and he has not changed his position but accepted the political reality, and the political reality is that unless the american people become better educated about this and far more forceful in terms of cares about it within the context. it's going to change. >> you can tell me to shut up

about the american election campaign, but if people are interested in voting for president obama and care about these issues, say to people who want to go blindly along with it, we need to be able to say to the leadership. we need to say to the president, maybe we'll vote for you, but you have to demonstrate you'll take the issues on board and there's difficulties out there, but if you win that in january 2013, you're going to act. we're going to see you do what you did not do and did not fulfill from your terms before. that's a fair deal. there's no reason why people should blindly accept everything and don't criticize. that's not appropriate at all. >> just one little thing. when i said sounded flip, but i think it's right. i don't think you can be silent in the face of injustice. more than -- i really need to say that i think president obama's greatest failing is one that he doesn't believe the right things, but he doesn't

show leadership in mobilizing public support to get them done. the fact is he showed tremendous ability during the campaign to convince people that what the busch administration was doing was not in our public interest, and he used to say ha every day. we're going to close guantanamo and stand up for habeas corpus and protecting our securities consistent with our principles and stronger because of it. he needs to do that again, and we have to push him to do it. we need to push him to show leadership. we can't -- you know, we struggled to get out the facts. he is the bully pulpit. he should use it. >> congressman, i know you have to go, and in a minute or two -- >> one more question. >> yeah. this lady here in the purple shirt. >> oh, for me? hello, this -- i'm sippet ya from new york, and this is for all of you folks up there.

would you agree that one way to let our president know how we stand on this issue is for to encourage every person everywhere to call out four, five, six, one, one, one which is the white house line where people, citizens can call up and give your opinion. last time you remember -- not some of you won't remember, but dark friday when nixon -- when the attorney general elliot richardson and the rest, you know, resigned. the telephone at the white house was ringing off the line, and when enough people in this country, about a million people or whoever, keep that phone ringing off the line and the other one is to call on shows

like npr and ask these questions and tell the facts and really -- >> okay. thank you very much. >> okay. >> thank you, thank you. this gentleman over here. >> thank you. mike, resigned lawyer. my question is really for mr. thomas wilner picking up from the last question in terms of what can the people do? now, i think the panel made a persuasive case for dealing with guantanamo as guantanamo as a sing 8 issue, but what -- single issue, but what if even from a longer term perspective, we look at guantanamo, not in isolation, but in a broader package of illegitimate activity, we can say drones, torture, preventative attacks, political assassinations and other things that could be put

in the nest, but what if we do that and try to get what we say is accountability? >> i'll give my take on it which will be hard headed. i think it's a political question more than a legal question. i think you're absolutely right that guantanamo ha become a -- has become a symbol of overreaching by the government, and it's a symbol of a #re action to -- reaction to fear mongering and appealing to the worst side of people than their better side. another thing rage p also pointed out, and i want to use the republicans to say it. i don't appeal to your worst fears, but your greatest hopes is what we could do. i don't want to, frankly now -- so congressman moran put this as not just guantanamo, that national defense authorization

act allows anyone suspected of terrorism to be picked up and held by the military forever. it's extraordinary. it's extraordinary. guantanamo is a symbol of that. i don't want to tie it to the drones now because that's a troubling thing. there's also -- there's also other issues that i think -- i think all of these issues should be debated. it's extraordinary to me. we never had a public debate about torture in this country. people assume it's good. i used to say president bush thought -- he knew it was good because he watched the tv program "24" and saw it worked there. that's the depth of our study of the issues. i think it is a symbol. i think we need to be careful in picking -- it doesn't stand for every injustice and some are more complicated. it's a diffuse answer. >> i would agree on the point about accountability is the key part there. we're great at preeshing to others around the --

preaching to others around the world about the rule of law and accountability. you know, he's at the bottom, and knob -- nobody at the top has ever been held accountable. anything necessary to keep us safe, we do, but the convention against torture, there's a, you know, president obama is turning a blind eye. the convention says there's no justification whatsoever for torture, and there's a duty to investigate, prosecute, and provide a civil remedy for victim, and we have blocked every one of those and pretended that nothing happened. >> i have to leave, but i'll say -- well, i'll stand up for this. [laughter] i just -- [applause] well, thank you, but please don't. you're not going to like what i have to say. first this is not a random sample just off the american street.

[laughter] we have our own echo chamber here in terms of people with questions and tieing it into drones is not an effective strategy, and i'm sorry, ma'am, but calling the president is not an effective strategy. in fact, mr. romney, the most likely opponent of the president has said he would double the size of guantanamo. that's the position of what i fear is the majority of the american people, at least enough people that he can get away with saying that. i think most of the people, and a more random audience, if told, if even one detainee has the capacity to go back and cause harm to the united states, then keep them all there. they operate, the politicians who feed off the echo chamber

that's primarily a chamber on radio and television and media. they feed off of that. they know when people turn the radio dial, that's what they going to hear about, and they'd love to have president obama take the right position, stand on principle because they know right now the majority of the american people are not with him they are not with you. now, this is a reflection of lack of information of knowledge, maybe some reflection, but that's where we stand. it's -- this is not a unique issue, although, i think it's a much more important one than we oftentimes give credit for m i think our best shot is to underscore what tom just said. to ask people to think about this.

we've now passed legislation over the president's objection that allows the military no person in military uniform ever volunteer for the purpose of taking action against american citizens. it's to protectmen citizens, and yet the law, as we read it, says the military now has the right to detain indefinitely without writ of habeas corpus people suspected of terrorist activities. suspected. that's a fundamental erosion of everything we stand for as a national law, so people need to know this is in your interest, in the interest of your children and grandchildren. we cannot allow this to continue. you need to understand it, and then you need to speak out and change it. that's why i appreciate all of

you being here. thank you. [applause] [applause] >> okay. >> the only disagreement is i think if obama said that, a lot of people would respond. >> i agree. >> we have ten minutes left so jennifer, to your immediate left. yeah. >> john mccollough from the ngo. to put it into context a little bit. there was a tremendous reaction in the white house and the congress and the media when one cuban hunger striker died, a justified reaction. how many suicides have there been at guantanamo? how many people are currently

being force fed to prevent their suicide? force feeding itself has highly questionable human rights aspects to it, but is there any figure on suicides and force feeding at this point? >> two others died of natural means. the number of people who have been on hunger strike and have been forced fed, i don't know. you know, in 2005, when there was the big hunger strike, it was reportedly around a third of the people held. there are people on hunger strikes now being forced fed, and that process is brutal. you know, that's the kind of, you know, the nasty end of what's still going on, but i do think that fundment tally what's going on in guantanamo is that it is outside of every other detention system, and i think

congressman moran just then illuminated that, and with reference to u.s. citizens and with reference to the unfairness of holding people in military detention indefinitely without charge or trial, and the thing that still applies at guantanamo and the thing that i don't know how we get a message of compassion out, of fairness and justice out, when as the congressman said, so many american people are on dick cheney's dark side essentially still. the people held at guantanamo that are held without charge or trial, that have been there for ten years, that are going nowhere, what's been the effect on them of this detension? it's the open ended nature of the detention. they have no idea when, if ever, they are beginning to leave. every morning they can wake up thinking, will i go home? everybody is sentenced, may be unfair, but they are told what the sentence is.

it doesn't happen in guantanamo. in 2003, in october of 2003, a man of the new -- he spoke to the "new york times," a member of the red cross who is allowed to visit guantanamo but not allowed to speak about it, but he said what troubles him about guantanamo is the open ended nature of the detention of the prisoners there and it's ruinous effect on their mental health. that was over eight years ago. that still applies, and i just wish that i could find a way that we could have compassion of something that people could identify with this and would understand that that's unfair and that what lawmakers recently decided they want to expand remains fundamentally unfair. if you have a case against somebody, charge them; otherwise, don't maintain this

idea that by being brutal and unfair you're actually somehow doing the right thing. >> if we could talk kim kardashian into marrying a detainee, then maybe america would pay attention. [laughter] >> in the back. >> hello, i'm kim, and i was one of the founders here in washington of the washington regional campaign against torture, and we work terribly hard, and so when, you know, media didn't cover us and congress moran was great, so i, too, started to work for obama. i thought he would actually deliver orphan what he said he would, and, you know, went door-to-door starting in new hampshire. i now decided that since he has not done that, we really can't depend just on presidents.

we're going to have to work to try to unseat every person who voted for this law, and that what we need to do is get out to states and make it procar yows to infringe on human rights on this matter, so what do you think? [laughter] >> challenge all lawmakers who voted for it, but while doing that, make sure that people know that guantanamo is the root of the idea that it's okay to sling people in a prison and throw away a keys. i'm a british citizen here talking about this, and you're the guys who threw the british out because you opposed the tyranny of king george the iii. >> i have to say something. you know, i think there's a danger, and congressman moran said it that when people of like

minds get together they disagree and fight on the other side. this is a liberal cause, close guantanamo. the other people say, well, a lot of people say, well, don't we need it? what are we doing? this is a terrible time. there's terrorists around. we have not dealt with them before. it's an obligation to go further than just posing -- but it's to get the facts out. it's get the facts out that security experts agree it doesn't help us, that it costs $800,000 or a $1 million a year per person that 89, more than half of them have been cleared by an international agency task force made up of the top security and law enforcement officials in the country. people don't know that. why hold people who have been cleared or are essentially

innocent. i wouldn't do it in these liberal things. i tried to get the facts out. really, this lie only exists in absence of truth. somebody here is from the national journal. the national journal years ago at the same time that there was a study about who are these detainees? they were not picked up on the battlefield. we have to push the press to get the facts out, too. we could really do much more on that. i'm trying to make justify my own existence because i get to depressed by it. what can we do? tell everyone you know whether it's your brother who is right wing or your sister. he's the facts -- here's the facts. do you know them? make people answer on the facts. >> time for one more question.

>> hello, i'm daniel wilson here with the group called witness against torture, on day eight of a ten day fast in solidarity with the men of guantanamo. tomorrow, we're holding a big rally as we get out the facts and rally public support against us. just a quick question. it seems that the ideas of indefinite detention and suspending habeas corpus is coming from a central part of our policy. i want to know how the detention center fits in with this, alleged allegations of torture and happenings there. >> is that a sort of guantanamo beast? >> i can answer in a legal sense and then overall. >> when we did the last supreme court case in 2008, we didn't -- i mean, this is a very legalistic answer. there's one way to win the case saying guantanamo's like the

united states so they should be entitled to habeas corpus because of that. we avoided that with great dissension among the lawyers saying, look, when the united states holds somebody in a place secure from battlefield where you have time to do it, people should be entitled to a fair review. in fact, justice kennedy who wrote the decision in that case, the boumediene v. bush case, didn't tie it to guantanamo being different. he said in the circumstances you look, and people can't be held without process unless there's battle and everything prevented. the circuit court determined that since there's still an ongoing war in afghanistan, this fits in with the battle and the court shouldn't intrude. that is not been reviewed by the supreme court, and in the time the case was made, the afghanistan battle was h