again, free of people, have the moral free markets, and the government's going to get its abundant cut as well. so the key thing is how do you get the free markets going? how to get more freedom and free markets? how do you get them going? they will do fine is on his they remember what issue is, not the big government that we have today, the government envisioned by madison and others. >> we've been talking with steve forbes about his new book, "freedom manifesto: why free markets are moral and big government isn't." also out on market is "how capitalism will save us." final question, mr. forbes. what your enthusiasm level about the mitt romney campaign? >> i think he would be a good president, and precisely because he knows what it takes to get real things done. he's demonstrated the olympics as a crisis manager. and so yeah, does he have my views on monetary policy yet the way i do? or parliament reform and the

like? health care? no, not yet. but that's why we're getting some good candidates in congress. so yes, i think over period of four or eight years there will be a successful presidency like reagan was in the '80s. not because of missiles and rockets, great armies and all that, the central though they may become it's because we're innovative doing things that inspire the rest of the world. >> author steve forbes has been joining us here on booktv on c-span2. >> now on booktv, codepink cofounder medea benjamin takes a critical look at the use of drones by the u.s. military and argues that targeted killings do not make us safer. this is about an hour and a half. >> thank you. it's wonderful to be here. in buffalo, and to be talking

about an issue that is ideally very dear to my heart, "drone warfare." and i want to just give a little background first about what i wrote about on drone warfare. and it really dates back now to over 10 years when the u.s. first, after 9/11, invaded afghanistan. and i don't know, some of your too young to remember, but others of us might remember looking at our tv screens and seen the pictures of these very fancy, new weapons that we had, and this idea that we now had these precision weapons that would only target the people that we wanted to get, and would not result in collateral damage. and it was almost a way to say to people, calm down, don't be

worried. we won't be killing innocent people. so, i was worried because i don't have a sense that the latest and greatest new weapon is going to protect innocent people. and went to afghanistan three weeks after the invasion with several other colleagues, and it was before we even got into afghanistan on the border of pakistan that we found already people who would be considered collateral damage. the first young woman i met is somebody who sticks with me because she looked like my daughter. she was 13, and my daughter at that time was 13. and i felt an affinity with her and asked her if i can learn about her story, she took me back to her home. with the help of an interpreter, i learned that should recently come from kabul where the u.s. started bombing. her family had lived on the

outskirts of taliban compound and her home was bombed i mistake. she was not there, and her father was not home, in the house where her mother and three sisters and brothers. when they came home that evening, they found the whole house had been destroyed. and the only thing they found were pieces of flesh on the trees. that was all that was left of the family. and, of course, she started crying as she retold the story. and also retold the story of her father who was a big strapping man, picking up the pieces of flesh, burying them, praying and never speaking again and never working a day in his life again. and at that moment at 13, she found herself ahead of a household with a new father and two little brothers and sisters, and had to start walking,

walking, and walked in very dangerous territory through the pass all the way into pakistan where she was living hand to mouth, begging on the streets in a very, very poor city. and i realized that no matter how precise our bombs are, no matter how smart these bombs are, they are still killing innocent people and leaving a lot of people suffering. so that's really the reason that i researched the drones and the reason i do this work is because i think as americans we have to be thinking about the lives of people everywhere, not just our own children, the children in pakistan or afghanistan, or anywhere, are as precious as our own. the other reason i wanted to do this book is because i realized that now that we are 10 years into war, that the american

people are tired of war and that this has come out in poll after poll. in fact, the most recent poll shows that is not just democrats or independents or green card members. is republicans as well. in fact, for the first time that we have a majority of republicans saying that the war in afghanistan is not worth fighting. which is something very significant because it's often hard for people win a war is going on and you still have american troops there, to say this just is not worth fighting. and also yet to recognize that with this country into financial crisis more a more people are recognizing that these are now trillion dollar wars that we have been in, that this is part of the reason our economy is in the shape that it's in now, and we just can't afford these expensive of the wars. and i think the government understands that and is recognizing that if we're going

to keep the war is going, it's got to be through other means. not with boots on the ground where americans are being killed, but with a new way of doing war, and that is with drone strikes. drone strikes are shown to the american people as a way to the war without putting our own soldiers at risk because there is no pilot in the cockpit, and as a way, as an alternative to boots on the ground. i used the whole book to kind of counter those arguments, but let me step back for them to just talk about what our drones. so for anybody who doesn't know, dronescome in all shapes and sizes. there are little be the drones decisive in six. there are drones the size of birds. in fact, there are drones that are mimicking the hummingbird, different types of birds,

dragonfly drones. there are drones that soldiers used to put in the backpacks and coach launch an individual. these drones go out and survey the terrain before the soldiers go. and then there are the larger drones, the size of a small airplane, the reaper and predator drones. those are the ones that are being used in these lethal attacks. and they are made by a company called general atomics base in southern california. and then there are very, very big surveillance drones, like the ones called the global hawk that are the size of a commercial airplane. these can fly at 60,000 feet altitude, and give you the insight of an entire city at once. so there's all kinds of drones. most of them are surveillance drones. at the larger surveillance drones can easily be equipped to be lethal drones as well.

so, who was piloting these drones? well, some of you in this audience actually have been protesting at the hancock airport base, which is one of the places where drones are being piloted. another place is outside las vegas, nevada, the air force base, and there are many bases around the united states were drone pilots are either being trained or drones are being tested, or they are being housed. this is a new kind of warfare we don't even have to be in the area of the battle. you can be thousands and thousands of miles away looking at the battlefield through a few screen. in fact, the manufacturers admit that the screens are really, the design is taken from the video games that teenagers have grown up playing. and that is easier for them when they are recruited and become

drone pilots, they are used to using these kind of playstation's. and joysticks. in fact, u.s. of the uss grid a playstation mentality to war. it is a very surreal kind of thing to think about pilots being in an air force base in the united states, or when the drones are being run by the cia, they can be outside of virginia. and they are in an air-conditioned room. they are sitting in an ergonomic chair, and they're looking for hours and hours on end at the scene in a place that they may never have been to, don't speak to leverage, don't know the culture. and they are hovering over people's homes for days at a time, sometimes weeks at a time. and they are the ones then that

press the kill button. now, studies have been done that show that these pilots are oftentimes having the same kind of trauma that soldiers on the battlefield have. because they're being asked to do something that think our brains are not really wired to do, and that is to kill people remotely during the day, and then go home in the evening to their families where they are supposed to be loving fathers, loving husbands, integrated members of their community, part of a church group. and this is very hard for some of these pilots to do. there's another problem for pilots talk about, and that is board. they're just sitting in front of the screen for hours and hours and hours on end. in fact, some of them say they would rather be in the battlefield, that they signed up with the military to be in the battlefield. they want to be with your

buddies on the ground. and so see the in front of a screen, they are actually looking for some action, meeting looking for some kind of suspicious behavior. well, the drone strikes are happening in two different ways. one is that there is a kill list where actually going after an individual whose name you know. you, for example, we have you on a kill list and we're going to go after you and we're going to try and try and try again and tell the gucci. you are a high value target. there is another type of list, and that is called, yours is called a personality strike. the other is called a signature strike. and that is based on suspicious behavior. so think as i get this talk about those remote pilots were sitting thousands of miles away, and they are looking for suspicious behavior.

what they might surmise is suspicious behavior when it is really just perhaps a community meeting. the kill list, let's take a minute and talk about how the kill list is determined. whenever tribe in the book i was trying very hard time to get that figured out and getting all kinds of contradictory theories about it. and it wasn't until "the new york times" came out with this long story on may 29 about how intimately involved president obama is in this kill list. antennae this was a jaw-dropping decent journalism, because it was so detailed and it came from people who are presently in the administration or had been recently in the administration. and what was shocking to me was to learn that president obama

brings in his advisors once a week on what they call care tuesday's. and they sort through these profiles of people that they have some information and a photo and essay these look like baseball cards. and they decide who is going to live and who's going to die. they play the role of prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner all at once. some might say they play the role of god. some of the most shocking things in that article were that they admitted that the administration defines all men of military age in the zones where we are using those drones as militants. that to me was just astounding. to think that, by definition, a

young man living in the wrong place at the wrong time is a militant and can only be proven innocent posthumously, after they are killed. it's quite astounding. will, when the article came out there were a couple of different reactions. one from congress wasn't oh, my god, why are they doing this kill list and killing so many innocent people in defining militants like that? instead, they said why are they leaking information to the press? which actually is a pretty good question because these are supposed to be secret programs that congress wasn't even supposed to talk about. but it would be nice if more people in congress were shocked about the kill list itself. but it seems, the speculation is that the obama team thought it would be a good election

strategy to have this piece come out and show how tough the president is on terror. that in case there were people like independent voters who he is trying to win over the might think that this president is soft on security, that this would be an example to show them that he was a tough guy. in fact, i quoted people saying it was easy for him to put people on the list. not a lot of hand wringing when it came to this. but i think this article backfired. because as i traveled around and talk to people i find people who were suddenly aware of this program, and who are really shocked by it. so let me talk about some of the examples of who is being killed. if pakistan is a place where the drones have been used the most, we have also used the drones a

lot in iraq and afghanistan, as part of the larger wars. the u.s. is also used drones in gaming, and somalia. it appears they have used drones in the philippines. and in libya as well. now, judy it is an interesting case because -- libya is an interesting case because when there were discussions about the pros and cons of the u.s. intervening in libya, there was one thing that was really left out of the equation. and that is whether or not it was a good thing to get involved militarily to overthrow cutoff he, the way in which it was done is to cut congress out altogether. and the administration's justification for not even bringing this up for discussion in congress he is that when it is just an air war and were using drones and no u.s. lives are at risk, then the congress really should have no say in

that. and so think of the kind of usurpation of power by the executive branch taking this away from the legislative branch, and what kind of president this that's for future people in the white house your we have also come in the case of iraq, when the u.s. troops left, left a drones behind and put them in the hands, not of the military but in the state department. so we have the diplomatic branch of our government, iraq having its own fleet of drones, and we left drones across the border in turkey where they have been used to give information to the turkish government in its conflict with the kurds. in fact, the u.s. supplied information in an attack that went wrong and left a lot of innocent kurds killed. and puts the u.s. in the middle of another conflict that we shouldn't be a. in the case of pakistan, there

were drones -- drone strikes under the bush of administration but there were a total of 46 tracks during the entire time of the bush administration, which works out to one strike about every 40 days once they started using these drone strikes but in the case of the obama administration, they became one strike every four days. there have been over 320 drone strikes, the vast majority under the obama administration. and some would say that people in the obama administration decided they wouldn't choose the bush tactic which was to capture people and put them in guantánamo. because that turned out to be very messy. it was then a big debate whether they should have civilian trials our military trials are what you do with the people you found were innocent and they've got nowhere to go? that it was needed, cleaner to just kill people. and the outcry that many people

in this country had towards indefinite detention, guantánamo, the torture, extraordinary rendition, we don't hear that kind of outcry against an obama administration policy of simply killing people. in the case of pakistan it seems that there are no good statistics because our government doesn't tell us about these programs. but there are several different organizations that tried to compile these statistics. it's very difficult because journalists are not allowed into the northern part of pakistan where the drones are being used, but some of the best features say that there's perhaps 3000 people that have been killed in pakistan. 175 of them children. now, another astounding thing is that you have probably never seen a picture of a child who's been killed by a drone strikes at you probably have never seen a picture of anybody who has

been killed by a drone strikes in our media doesn't seek out those stories, doesn't show us the photos. i'll show you a couple today because again, this is not what you see on your tv screens. this, for example, is an eight year old child who was killed on a drone strikes february 14. that's supposed to be valentine's day. this is two boys who were killed in a drone strikes in pakistan. we have many of these pictures that you can see on the website, drone watch.org. is quite a gruesome looking picture and i know it's hard to look at. but this is what happens in drone strikes. in fact, most of the time that the dems are just pulverized and you won't even see this kind of grisly picture the cows there will be almost no remains. i wanted to read a little bit

from the book about a case of somebody killed in a drone strikes homages to try to humanize this a little bit for you. this is the case of a family of a man, and the drone strikes hit his family's compound in northern pakistan on decembe december 31, new year's day for us, new year's eve, 2009. says the drone didn't just hover overhead that night watching the movement of the villages below, accident on so many other occasions. know, this time it let loose a missile into the very heart of the family compound. when the chaos of explosion dissipated, his brother and his son had been blown to bits. news reports allege that the target of the drone had been high g. omar, a taliban commander. but the villagers insisted that

he had been nowhere in sight. the tragedy that forever scarred the lives of his family appeared to be the product of a mistake. a mistake by far only aggressor who had faced no punishment for pressing the fire button without looking long enough, without checking, without double checking. his son had just graduated from high school. his brother was not a militant or even a militant sympathizer, but a schoolteacher with a masters master's degree in english literature. for eight years he had been teaching at a small village school with whatever meager resources he could muster. he left behind a young wife, now a widow so distraught she could not speak for weeks after the attack. at a two year old boy who would never remember his father. he said the drones were constantly buzzing around his village, and they were terrified

that people come especially to children who would go to bed at night not knowing if they would wake up in the morning or not. but little did the people at this conference in islamabad know that the first drone strikes that we documented was two days later and it was a drone strikes they killed this young man. now, the lawyers that were at that conference were outraged, and they went to the u.s. embassy. they went to the u.s. government. they went to the pakistani government. face it, why did you kill this young man? and they said, the u.s. government said he was a militant. and the lawyer said well, we would like to see the proof that he was a militant. but in any case, if you have any proof, why didn't you just come in to the hotel where he was staying, or the meeting where he was for four days, and addressed

him and give him a chance for a trial, like you were supposed to go? there was no answer to that question. so what other people of pakistan done? we know from wikileaks documents that originally the government of pakistan, the prime minister said okay, you do the drone strikes and we will say -- we will express our outrage to the public about them. and that went on for a while, and tell the government realized that so many innocent people were being killed. and that this drone strikes program was counterproductive, that it was driving people into the arms of the taliban and al qaeda, that it was turning them against the pakistani government itself and turning them against the american people. so, the government of pakistan went to the u.s. and asked them

to stop the drone program. u.s. government said no. then it went to the national assembly where they voted once, they voted twice, they voted three times unanimously, not to ask, but to demand that the united states stop the drone attacks it and the u.s. government refused to do that. and so the pakistani people have been going out in huge numbers, by the hundreds of thousands, protesting the drone strikes. most of the pakistani people hate the taliban, hate al qaeda, and hate the drone strikes. in fact, there was a poll that was done just very recently that showed that of the pakistani people who had heard of the drone strikes, because there is no a lot of information and immediate there as well, 97% of them said that they were against these strikes. 97% of the population.

you would think that would tell something to the obama administration, to the pentagon, to the cia that maybe this was not a good program. but, unfortunately, it hasn't. in fact, what the u.s. government has done is just transfer this to another country, and that is to yemen. the drone strikes in yemen under the obama administration began in 2009. the first drone strikes was a mistake, hit the wrong target, left 14 women and 21 children dead. only one person of the dozens who were killed was identified as having strong ties to al qaeda. if you want to get a sense of how quote successful the drone strikes has been in yemen, when i first started in 2009 there were maybe 200 members of something called al qaeda in the arabia peninsula, and they

controlled no territory. today there may be over 1000 people to identify as members of this group, and they controlled substantial territory. there was a very good op-ed piece they came out in "the new york times" on june 13, written by a 23 year-old yemeni activist, and it was really a plea to the united states government. the title of it was, how drones help al qaeda. and he said that drone strikes are causing more people to join radical militants, not driven by ideology but by revenge and despair. he said the short-term gains from killing military leaders is miniscule compared to the long-term damage the drone program is causing. so, in yemen is not only a case of killing people inside yemen -- oh, and i should mention with the drone program started there,

it was under the dictatorship of -- and the people as part of the arab spring have started to rise up against him. well, he was the one who is providing information to the united states about who was al qaeda. so he was taking people out, that's al qaeda, that's okay. and, of course, these were just his political opponents. so in the case of yemen, the u.s. drone strikes have not only been telling people from that country, that they've been killing american citizens as well. and i wonder in this group if you've heard of the case of anbar awlaki? so some of you had -- and i think many of people and is content not. this is a muslim cleric born in the united states, move to yemen, known for his fiery sermons. he was put on a kill list and killed by a drone strikes, along with another american named samir khan. there are organizations like the

center for constitutional rights and the aclu that then asked the u.s. government to provide information to say how can you justify the killing of an american citizen? and the u.s. government has refused to provide the information. ..

>> it is really quite astounding that a young american teenager can be killed by u.s. term

strike without a hue and -- huge outcry throughout this country. the administration has felt some pressure to justify this killing spree. attorney-general eric holder spoke in march of this year trying to give some legal justification. now, have all chapter in the book about the legal issues because it is so important to talk about how illegal this program is according to international, the geneva convention, the u.s. constitution. i mean, all kinds of laws that are being broken. the u.s. government, to summon up, is basically saying that we have the right to self-defense. our enemies are mobile, go from one pasture to the other, and we can go there as well. now, according to the legal definition of self-defense it is very narrowly defined and has to be an attack against his

imminent, there is an army massing on your border, some the about the body, and you have given your enemy a chance to surrender. now, tell me, how can somebody surrender to a hellfire missile? you can't. the u.s. government is also saying that it has the right to go anywhere because in the aftermath of september 11th congress gave the administration and green light to attack anybody associated with september 11th. well, as a problem there as well. a lot of the people that have been killed today were maybe ten or 11 years old at the time of 9/11. there is another problem which is that some of the organizations that are being attacked, like the one in yemen, did not even exist at the time of september 11th.

then there is this very strange and i would say justification for the killing of american citizens overseas. that is that it appears that the american public has been misinformed about what our constitution actually guarantees us. and you might have thought that a hundred years after the mccarter when people have established over centuries the right to trial the somehow in our constitution you were guaranteed a right to an unfair trial. did you take that? you were mistaken. [laughter] you're not guarantee the right to a fair trial. you're on the guaranteed to something that is mysteriously called to process. the definition of due process by this administration, constitutional lawyer heading it is that they call in the guise for terror tuesday in the senate put you on mcalester not.

it is terrifying. i look for responses to eric holder's idea that we were not guaranteed any kind of judicial process. the best one i found was not from harvard lawyer or any constitutional lawyer. it was from a late-night comedian. he said the founders were not picky. trial by jury, trial by fire, raw, paper, scissors. it cares? to process just means their is a process. [laughter] the current process, the president meets with his advisers, decide to kill and then kills the. wherever going to win our never-ending war on terror there are bound to be casualties command one of them just happens to be the u.s. constitution. the skin and.

[applause] well, you might think the u.s. can get away with it because might makes right. we are the king of the terms. well, we are fast becoming one of many, many countries that have drone. that puts us in a whole different light. the u.s.'s number one producer and by far number one user. but coming up from behind is is well. that's right. israel. the u.s. and israel had a long collaboration in the development of drums as pack for several decades. in fact, the predator and reaper drown that we are using today was developed by an israeli engineer who was working for the israeli defense forces. israeli -- is russia's used the drone's extensively in the gaza strip.

the operation and vision and 2008-9 in which over 1400 people were killed, over 800 of those people were killed by german tax . israel also sells drowns extensively overseas. there are a number -- they are the number one exporter of terms and hustled them to over 50 different countries. then there is another country that always seemed to get on the bandwagon when it comes to get markets and manufacturing. that is china. go figure. so china sees a multibillion-dollar market. we're getting here and produce them faster and cheaper than anybody else to make piece. lo and behold, the chinese are now producing several dozen different types of jobs and selling them all over as well so this is an arms race.

definitely an on going on trace of, and it's fast and furious because people like leon panetta have called a drone the only game in town. in a tug of nuclear technology. this is a lot simpler, and it n easily get their hands on a. let's think of the case that happened. you and remember just a couple months back the arians said they had hacked into a very sophisticated u.s. surveillance drone and brought it down without a scratch. they showed it to the world television cameras and said, thank you very much, president obama, for the sophisticated gift you give us. low and behold, a couple months later they said the reverse engineered it and are now making their own. some you can see, what goes arod

, unfortunately, usually comes around. you have to wonder what other countries of thinking. what a the iranians thinking, the chinese. they say there are terrorists like the tibetans and of living, around the world, including here in the united states. why should they just come kill them here? what about the russians to say that they are a war with these chechen terrorists. why should they just follow them wherever in the world they are and kill them. no wonder about the cubans to have been trying to extradite some known terrorists in miami. known for having down the commercial and honor. a known terrorist living happily in miami. i have actually been to the apartment where he lives, and i wonder what the cubans would be thinking about maybe sending a drone into that apartment and

killing and then perhaps couple neighbors in the process. that's what happens. eductive right now because they be very afraid of a counterattack. there are very powerful countries. and it is very dangerous. the possibility of pullback is very real. that brings me to the other issue, and that is drone here at home. so there is an entity in the united states that runs our air space called the federal aviation administration. they have the mandate to look out for the safety of our airspace. they take that mandate very seriously which is why they have been very reluctant to give out

permits to be using drone in the united states because they know something that most americans don't know which is that that drone crash allot. a crash all the time. the air force has admitted one-third, there was just a huge one of those global hawks that just crashed last month in maryland. luckily it crashed in a swamp and to kill anybody but could have very well kill people in the crash. the faa has given up just a couple of hundred permits. now, unfortunately they have not wanted to let the american public know who has these permits. it was thanks to lawsuits and the freedom of defamation act request that we are starting to get information that there are about 300 current permits, and they have been given out to federal agencies like homeland security, fbi, border patrol is

using them on the southern and northern border. they have been given up to companies that make them. the permits also been issued to some universities that were working with the pentagon, and they have been given to about 30 police departments to experiment . while, the drone manufacturers have been very upset with the faa and said, look, this is a growth industry. we need a market. we need to sell them here now. let's speed up this process. what did they do? formed their own lobby group and wrote a new piece of legislation and get their own members of congress to form a drone carcass think about all the things you have a caucus about, how school children, feed the homeless, a million things. there are group of 58 congress people that think it's their duty, elected by, we, the people

who to go into congress and address what they say is the urgent need to see more of these unmanned vehicles being used both overseas and here the united states. it passed a piece of legislation on february 14th of this year signed by the president on valentine's day, but valentine's day gift to the drone industry that mandates the fda to open up our air space completely to drones by the end of september 2015 at the latest. earlier for law enforcement agencies. so that's going to -- we are going to see 20, 30,000 drums being used your home and the decades to come if we don't do something about it. well, what is a market that the he? there many commercial uses. electricity.

the drilling at the thought of 18,000 police stations in this country all having their own drum drone. i mention that 30 police stations are already experimented. you might say, well, this is a time of budget cuts across the board. the police stations, where they getting the money to pay for these? anybody have a suggestion? homeland security. >> homeland security. >> , and security to the rescue taking our tax dollars and going to police stations and saying, would you like to have a drone? here, will give you the money to, by. to me, it's like a drug pusher. would you like to try some of this in getting hurt on the trans. the other police stations i say we want some of that as well. i'm going to just give you an

example of a police station outside of houston in montgomery county the cat at $300,000 grant from homeland security to buy a drone. the ceo had sold the and said that it was for things like search and rescue missions, surveillance purposes. it could be have fitted with what we call less lethal systems let me just give you an example of what less lethal systems could be, and you can imagine your on. taser is that can electrocute suspects on the ground, beanbag firing guns, grenade launchers, teargas, republics, even a 12 gauge shotgun. they also talked about how we can use these for surveillance purposes, recognizing that these can be equipped with a thermal imaging -- imaging, official

recognition techniques, wi-fi network cracking capability, systems to intercept text messages and phone calls. oh, but there was a sheriff at the press conference to said, no matter what we do in law enforcement somebody is going to question it. we're going to do the right thing, and i can assure you that. so are you feeling reassured? [background noises] well, for good reason. and you're not the only one. in fact, the aclu thinks that everything is being put in place now for a 24 / seven surveillance society that would profoundly change the nature of public life in the united states the people who are getting upset about that, this is not people just on the left of the right. this extends to many americans who value their privacy as well as their safety.

here's some interesting collaborations' that we're now looking into. i just did an op-ed in the new york daily news with the cato institute. some of you might know. interesting collaboration between cut peak in the cato institute in which we wrote about the dangers and said there should be legislation a says that no government agency can use our tax dollars to give police departments or other law-enforcement agencies money to buy drone. senator rand paul introduced a piece of legislation saying that they could not be used to spy on americans without a warrant. so there is a possibility of a broad collaboration to try to stop the round-the-clock surveillance of americans before its starts, and we are asking people as i travel around to do a very simple thing, and that is collier police department.

some going to pass around three questions for you to ask a police department. very simple. do you have any? to you have any plans to acquire them? have you applied for a grant from the government agency to get any? then, of course, to add your own opinion about. we are compiling this information on the website of the electronic frontier foundation and is doing really wonderful work. the other thing we're asking communities to do is to bring resolutions before the city council to declare their city a drone-free zone. so would it be wonderful if you are in buffalo and a clear you are a city that is drone-free. [applause] >> well, thank you to your very active occupy movement here as

well as a very active peace community, the resolution has already been introduced into the city council, and there will be hearing about this on july july 301st at 2:00 p.m. and the buffalo city hall. [applause] show up, one and all, and let's send a very strong message to the drone manufacturers as well as to your city in this government that we don't think that drones in the hands of the police will make us any safer. so a couple of other things that being done on the international level and now want to mention. one is that while we are concerned about drones in the hands of the military, at least there are some rules in place about what happens when the military kills innocent people. in the case of the c.i.a. there are no rules in place of all. the cia is not a military

agency. it is a civilian agency. but any kind of international law it is illegal for them have of lethal drone and kill people with them. we are passing around a sign up sheet that is going to -- for going to taken to meet with senator dianne feinstein who is the head of the intelligence committee and say, senator, please do your job, get them out of the hands of the cia. >> here here. [applause] >> we have been making connections with people in pakistan to tell them that the american people and not all silent and go along with this program. there are many of us for speaking out. once we made bus connections they came up with some proposal and said it would be so powerful effect group of americans came to pakistan and linked arms with

us and walked in ghandi style to the region where they and are killing so many innocent people. will you please do that. we said, of course. we would be honored to. we have decided to take a delegation the week of october october 3-tent, and we are inviting people in the public to come and join us. we have information on the website. you can check the box that's going around here if you want more intimation about that peace delegation. finally, i wonder if any of you were thinking, what about the u.n.? should not be doing something? well, the people in the u.n. have been speaking out against the program for years now. it just recently has become more active. in fact, for the first time with

you in that in june of this year they had commissioned the report on the program and came out with a very critical report saying that the u.s. had to justify why it was killing people instead of capturing them and letting them have a fair trial. obviously many people wondering the same as we are here. and they also said that the u.s. must be accountable, transparent , and should give preparation to the victims of the drone family's. then there is the question at the international level, what about getting some regulation? there have been successful, the difficult campaigns that have regulated other weapons like land mines and cluster bombs. in the case of drone it will be harder, one because it is really big business and they're is a very strong lobby and because in

no way the genie is out of the bottle when it comes to them. but there has to be regulation. as a group called the international committee for the robot arms control made up mostly of scientists who recognize how dangerous this technology as, and they came to a conference that we gathered in washington d.c. they said, if you think things are bad now, wait until you see what is in the works. where we are today in drone technology is where the wright brothers were when it came to the airplane. what is being developed would knock your socks off. of course it would just blow you love. [laughter] and what they're really worried about is something called autonomous trounce. that is when there is no human and the lip and all. there is no pilot even remotely 10,000 miles away. these are preprogrammed jones that will be told where to go, what to look for, and then would

go out on their own to do it. bacon, and others in what they call us warm and just half a drone attack. and these scientists are saying we must stop autonomously full terms before they are used. we must put rules and to play for the use of any kind of lethal drone. is it -- this technology has now outpaced the regulations that we have internationally and domestically. these are some of the things that are happening, both locally and internationally. and i want to end looking for just a minute that drone as a symbol because it really is only a piece of technology. it is symbolic of a kind of attitude towards the world as well as a kind of economy that i think is keeping us on the wrong track here it home and in our

relations overseas. in terms of your home we are suffering from the financial crisis that is really grounded in things like drug in dollar wars and we should never been in as well as an economy that is based on a benefit for the 1%. included in that 1 percent is the 1 percent that benefits from these wars. the 1% of corporations that are getting all the contracts from these, the 1% of the weapons manufacturers. we have people desperate for work in this country, and on my travels i've met drone engineers are desperate for work and are working and making drones' when they would much rather be using their expensive talent to be making things that benefit people here don't. we need jobs were engineers don't have to make killing machines to make a living. [applause]

and then in terms of the way the were looking at the world, i have -- i give an example in the book of a steady it was done of 268 different entities that were called terrorist groups. in the last 60 years have a dissolved. the study, which is a very extensive study by the rand company, shows that the vast majority of them, the demise came by initiation, something very rarely stays , better policing and only 7% came from the use of military force. we are in our 11th year of trying to use military force against a problem that cannot be solved by military force.

[applause] just about everybody who was associated with the attack on 9/11 seems to have been killed according to our own governments so now we're going is creating more enemies faster than. we are only perpetuating a war machine. our government has said we have boots on the ground here and an expensive war in which the american soldiers can get killed or we have drones. i think it's time to say to the american government, we want another option, and that is pull our troops out of afghanistan and ground the killer drones. under the bush demonstration there was a very strong, vibrant anti-war movement. so strong and vibrant that on february 15th of 2003 come before the invasion of rock we organized the largest mobilization of people in human

history about any issue. [applause] for a year's people came out into the streets in this country to say no to war by the hundreds of thousands. then president obama get elected. many people thought, okay, he's going to end the war. let's give him a chance. let's give him money none. of the people that got caught up in a financial crisis and had a focus on issues your home. for whatever reason the anti-war movement fizzled out. there is another reason, and that is partisan politics. many people who are sensitive and i find themselves in the democratic party and might find themselves supportive of president obama. at this point it might find themselves very anxious to see him reelected. so they don't speak out about a killing spree that president

carter said in a new york times op-ed recently would have never been allowed in any other administration and so we are allowing this to ministration to get away with something that is murder . we have to build a movement that is not attached to it political party. we have to build a movement that is attached to value, morals that says to whatever government is in power that we want to relate to the rest of the world not three terms, not through bombs, not three troops, not through tanks, not through killing, but your kindness, after compassion, through love, and with respect to international law and our own constitution. [applause] ..

>> interesting observation. taking a long this idea of a movement, what is going to be the mechanism for the architecture of this movement? this is going to be just davy jones? i don't think so. occupy wall street and so

fourth. what observations do you think that these will have? the u.s. going into other countries with drones subjective to the syrian borders. that is the imperial theory. >> let me just say that i don't think this is a fascist country. i think we should recognize that we have a tremendous ability in this country to speak out, and we have to use that ability. we have to recognize that we can mobilize industry, we can use civil disobedience. we can do sit in and we certainly have done them in our congressional offices. there are a lot of things we can do. and we have to do more of them. and i do think that the occupy movement gives us a lot of new

energy, and thank goodness for the occupy movement giving up a lot of younger people. [applause] way too many people in the peace movement have been from the vietnam generation. including myself. it is so important that we get this energized by the younger generation. and that is happening now. and i tried to put this in the context of a larger war economy. because that is what it is. i think with the occupier movement -- the problems of the country is no longer really of war and by the people, but oh, for and by the corporation. i think that we have the ability and the need to mobilize not just about these foreign policy issues, but about how are we

going to move our society from the present one to one that is based on an economy for the good of the 99%. for the good of all of us. an economy that really takes care of one of the biggest problems we have, which is global warming. as we are sweating during the summer, people don't finally recognized that we are destroying the planet and that we have to take money out of the military and put it into green energy, come on. [applause] >> i am an organizer. so the one thing i have been talking about, especially with john the other day, was president obama. the difference between obama and mitt romney coming up in 2012. a lot of the progressives that i work with on the left, not the

way left anarchist, i would not even even go so far as to say it occupied. there is the pizza came piece that came out that we were joking about about how occupied and whatever -- my question to you is, this 2012 election coming up, i know that it mitt romney gets elected, my work will be more difficult. i am wondering, and i can explain it if you would like, but i'm wondering where you stand on the 2012 election. >> i don't go around and encourage people to vote one way or the other. i think everybody has to vote their conscience and which issues are near and dear to you. i personally cannot vote for obama, given what i know. and i have spent a year talking to victims families. and i just can't do it. i will vote for the green party candidate. [applause] but i understand all kinds of issues are held by people who

care about them. you have to make a list about those issues and he would be the best possible candidate based on those issues. we are not given enough choices in this country. you know, we have a two-party system that is so limiting to us, and it is so hard in this country for a third party to get any kind of traction. i look with envy at so many other countries around the world to have a representative democracy, where'd you get 5% of the vote, you get 5% of the representation. and you can really feel the tenor of the debate when you have a stronger third parties that are part of this. we don't have them in this country. so i say look at what is important to you and make that decision personally. but what is most important to me is building movements that are independent of political parties, and that we are not in this position every two years, every four years, in which we have to vote for the lesser of two evils, in which we have to

put down the important independent, which we are doing, because we are going to start organizing for some or one of the two major parties. i will personally not do it. >> i just want to say that the movement we are talking about doesn't exist. irregardless, romney or obama will probably win. probably president obama. but it is our job not to allow him to continue to do this and remain a viable politician. [applause] so if you are going to organize and support obama because of other issues, make sure this becomes an issue that is important to you, so that he cannot continue to act with impunity. no matter who the president is, there have always been progressive movement to hold this president accountable for what they do. we all have an extremely lazy disposition and we need to get off our rear ends and make sure that he cannot do this.

shamelessly, july 31. we speak out. [applause] >> you can really say that the real corporate is us, the american people. no matter who is in office, we should have a strong movement that forces our government to have a foreign policy that reflects our own values. instead, what we have? well, we had a republican race in which ron paul was the only one speaking out about foreign policy issues against the warfare state. but all of the other candidates are pulling obama to the right. then we have a presidential race in which mitt romney is pulling obama into a more militarized physician. and we have the whole military-industrial complex that pulls him into a more militarized physician. a demobilized event.

so you are absolutely right. we have to look in the mirror and at ourselves and say, how do we let anybody in the white house get away with a foreign policy like the one we have now. >> i wanted to ask about domestic drums. as far as regulations, i know they are very limited. after someone gets a permit to have a drone, is there any follow-up to make sure that they are not equipping these drones with weapons or anything if it is not a police department, states just a corporation or a company or some rich person that wants to get one for any reason -- is there any follow-up to make sure they are not using these for anything other than recreational or any other activities? >> well, that's a great question. right now, all we know or all i know is that the faa has given out these permits for very

specific uses. but they won't tell us what those are. and that is a real problem. we also know that those specific uses have already been violated. for example, the drones that have been permitted to be used at the border in the northern border have arguments appended to a police department in north dakota it uses to find somebody who has stolen cattle. and then they can use the drones to find a cattle. that is a violation of the permit they were given. it is a very important question. these are the kind of things that i am trying to find out, working with other institutions that are meeting with the faa and asking how these regulations are. the faa has only really to do with our safety. it doesn't have to do with our privacy. so then you are in another area. we know how awful the regulations are in terms of

individuals buying firearms. and we see the results of that in the violence in our communities. i do not know what kind of regulations there will be for the legal uses of these weapons. >> that is what is scary. that is what is scary, because from the research i have done -- i can't find anything. i was just curious if there is something that you knew. >> i agree that it is scary, and we have to meet with our is department and talk about this. we should go to the national association of police. we should be asking that of all different levels of our government. you are absolutely right. we do not know. it is very disturbing. [applause] >> speaking of police and the drones, the drones are simply a continuation of the militarization of police in this country. something like $3 billion in the last 10 years have been distributed to local law

enforcement to buy basically, law enforcement units in the department of this country -- they have a military arms platoon called swat teams, as well as armored vehicles and under the rubric of home security, homeland security is infusion centers and cross intelligence and it is called the terrorism task force. first of all, the police department in the area. so the drone issue is really more about the militarization of police, which i think goes back to the idea of the fascism that we are seeing. >> yes, and i think they are taking advantage of the occupy movement to act as if this is a very dangerous movement. and justifying -- it is dangerous and successful to

switch the corporate rule by the people. in terms of being a violent movement, certainly it is being used to justify a further taking away of our civil liberties and a further militarization. >> yes, the last comment credit goes to where i was going. i think the work that lies ahead, because when you are done with presidential elections and whatever, it is the un- organized masses that we need to get engaged. because they become the layer between those who consider themselves progressives that are blocking foreign movement. and i would argue that it is not a dangerous movement, it is a necessary movement. [applause] >> i just wanted to ask, in terms of when you were talking about due process. of course, when we put that in the context of the national defense authorization act, which

actually specifically took away our due process and says that now it is legal. it was made legal to hold people without any charges and put us back to pre-magna carta level of civil liberties. it is shocking. so what i would like to get back onto, what can we do ourselves? you told us a number of things. if you would summarize them again, what you would advise us to do to make some forward motion in this area. >> well, i would not advise you what some other people have been advising. but i will tell you what some other people have been advising. [laughter] there are people like charles kell high number who have said america, the first americans to shoot down a drone that is

hovering will be a folk hero. there are others who have said that we should have done these drones just like iranian attack on the drones. i don't use those as my tactics. i say better tactics are the peace movement. at this point, it is prevention. because we can do this right now. we can form a relationship with her police department. we can go to our congresspeople and have discussions about this. we can get these things past two or city council. i think throughout the united states, there should be city after city and not just the berkeley's and the madison, wisconsin, and santa monica, they should be ruled towns and conservative america. that is things that we have to appeal to people about. we have to make this a nonpartisan issue. and we have to reach out to

people that we often do not be too. i say that in all seriousness. sometimes those we see on the other side won't talk to us. like recently, i went to philadelphia when we tried to join a tea party gathering that was happening, and we thought that they wanted to meet with the occupier, and it turned out they wouldn't let us in. but we've reached out and we did want to talk to them. and we need to reach out in this area, because i think we are going to find a lot of support. even the needs of your own family. i don't know about you, but i have a lot of conservative people in my family. this is one area where we have really found common ground. so oftentimes in congress, you can't get a bill going because it is introduced by the progressive democrats still usually cannot get much traction on the bill. on these kind of bills we can

get some conservative republicans, as well as some blue dog democrats and some progressives, and maybe we can even make some headway. there was a very good article put out by the associated press it said the complaints about the drones had just been on the fringe so far. and at the fringes, you know, but now it is much more important. and a republican cumbersome and says i go to wal-mart and these people are talking about these drones. we can give these no drone resolutions passed. in many different kinds of urban and rural cities and we can try to stop the drones, but i am very glad that other people have put it in the context of the militarization of our police force. i was in berkeley, california, just two weeks ago, and i was giving a talk and people say oh,

my goodness, can't come to your talk, and they said we are going to flood the city council because the city of berkeley is talking about buying a tank. yes, there was. it is much more of a larger issue, and let's keep it in that context. >> military and industrial complex. >> some congress, some religious groups come out and say killing aspect is wrong and has to be discussed. you know, publicly. >> the democrats introduced a bill that didn't even say the killing is wrong and has to stop. it said that we want accountability and transparency and please explain what you're doing. he could only get 25 other congresspeople to come onto that with him, which is astounding to me. not even the entire progressive

caucus and onto that. >> [inaudible question] >> well, because it's an election year and they want to show their support for the administration. many have one other piece of it. >> [inaudible question] >> that is a really good question. and it is something that has puzzled me to no end. in writing the book, i searched far and wide for people in the religious community and what they had to say about this. i have a chapter on the ethics and morality of drones, you would think that they would be really written about this. we have been doing this program for over eight years. it was very hard to find religious leaders speaking out against this. and i think that we have to change that, and change it quickly. i think we need to encourage our pastors and priests, our rabbis,

all people who have a community -- a faith-based community, to speak out. there is a big exception to that, and that is the catholic workers. the catholic worker community, who are probably some of the most soulful, her full, the best our country has to offer. in caring for the poor and caring for the planet and trying to stop the killings. he has been putting their bodies on the line and going to jail and progesterone. so have my sisters, i must add, who have been doing this for several years, air force bases, in front of the headquarters of drone manufacturers, veterans through peace.

there is a lot of that, vietnam era vets, as well at more recent veterans. i would think everyone who has done something and say that more likely to come out with you and that we make these protest more frequent and visible. it would be good for some in the community who has been involved in these protests to explain what you have been doing. >> i would just say, actually, i wanted to get the microphone at this point to say that here in buffalo, we have the interstate peace network. which is a faith-based group, interface group that has been a supporter of the upstate coalition to ground the drones and end the war, which is one of the -- one of the protests in hancock are coming from. one of the hancock 38. [applause] we have jamie over here who has been part of the hancock peace

workers. actually, anybody who has been to hancock field. also, veterans for peace has been part of the hancock peace walkers. we could just have everybody from buffalo, to just stand up, because i know there are quite a number. [applause] >> frank, valerie, murray. thank you all. we are hoping to not give people thinking that this is a solution to some of the niagara falls airbase problems there. because it is a big problem and we know it is a lose lose and we are looking for a win-win. >> for those of you who don't know -- >> bible does say that hancock field right outside of syracuse is one of the three largest

drone operations, where they are doing drone maintenance and some training, including working with drones, and they are operating out of the drones area in afghanistan. they are very busy out there with the drones. and we have had building protests. they have the peace council response by weekly protest out there, it has been for years, and the upstate coalition to ground the drones and then the war has been one of the arms, and that itself is a coalition of different groups from upstate new york are working hard to stop this. and we are getting some traction. because for the very reasons that we just said, all of the problems with the violence -- if they are solidified in, you know, anything that makes violence easier to perpetrate is going to work in a bad direction.

i believe that fighting violence with violence is like fighting fire with gasoline. it just doesn't work. so we are glad to be part of a larger movement against the violence. working in a sustaining direction, and then it's one of the things we have been doing with hancock field. >> [inaudible question] >> for the hancock 38, first charge was the obstruction of governmental administration and disorderly conduct. i will say that the author who booked me did not write disorderly conduct when i was so shocked that he was suggesting it, i said the only way we could have been more orderly was if we had done the dining room in alphabetical order. [laughter] >> [inaudible question] >> possession time for the hancock peace walkers, i was arrested again. as the police we did it this

time, which was highly irregular. it was directed several of the people -- 10 of them for assembling without a permit in front of the base. >> [inaudible[inaudible questio] in a also walking and marching. >> [inaudible question] >> right. >> [inaudible question] >> it was a preemptive arrests, and it seemed very clear. because there have been meetings between the base and back to what you mentioned, joe. that because of these meetings, the debate people, meeting with the sheriff's, but they are finding ways to try to prevent are petitioning the government for a redress of grievances. actually, we are working under

the nürnberg principles, trying to stop the illegal acts of our government. we had in the courtroom with the hancock 38, testifying, as a leader of international law expert, to the illegality of the drones. it is thrilling to be at the forefront of all of these things. >> a couple of you have talked to me before about seeing me when i spoke out when the counterterrorism chief, john brennan, was speaking in washington dc for the first time, addressing a strong program. and you were laughing because i was keeping myself from being pulled out the door before it finished talking. but it's not an easy thing to do. and it's not easy to get arrested. it's not easy to speak out before it the terrorism piece of the united states. these are hard things to do. but we have to do them.

in the case of john brennan, he has set in 2011 that we have not killed one civilian with our drone. he also called the drones ethical, just, surgically suffice, and wise. you know, it is very sad that this is comedy from somebody high up within the administration. so i want to end on a note of one saying how proud i am to be with people here who have put their lives on the line, we have crossed over into the days of being willing to go to gel, those who have taken the road of martin luther king, standing up for all human rights. and i also want to recognize the work that we have ahead of us, not just that in our government what to do, but convincing other americans. because while other americans might be quicker to agree with

us, that they don't want their privacy and their safety violated at home, they are still living under the cloak of fear that allows them to think it is okay to be killing people overseas that are militant by her government, no matter what a militant really means. it could be suggesting someone who wants the occupiers to leave our country. those who allow the american people -- allowing us to kill a lot of innocent people, including american teenage boys without speaking out about it. one of the saddest pieces i ever read was a recent one. it says that eight out of 10 americans said it was okay to use drones against terrorist suspects. that included people who define themselves as liberal democrats. of those 79%, they said it was okay to kill an american overseas who was a terror suspect.

we have a lot of work to do. on the other hand, there is one positive thing. and that is there was a similar poll that was taken 22 different countries. apple shows that the vast majority of people around the world think that these drone strikes are atrocious, think that this is a barbaric way of addressing these kinds of international conflicts. and we are really anxious to see the united states.this program and to see the american people join the world community in denouncing these killers. the least we can feel that we are part of a global community, and that should give us inspiration. >> i wanted to start with a note of gratitude. thank you for everything you have done. [applause] >> there are people who stand up for justice and compassion, and they do so in a very visible

way. i think it your assessment that this is a sweeping peace movement is different in ways that we can see right now. the occupiers -- it is not yet really be done for them. a lot of things that are happening right now, sort of like arguing with a little sprout, one that is not a tree yet, and there is not enough shade. something is happening. so i think all the people i see her from the occupy movement. and i see all these movements collectively standing for something. i have a specific political question for you. what, in your opinion, have you discovered is the administration's political goal or military goal of killing people in a country in northern pakistan, which doesn't have much infrastructure. what exactly are they hoping to do by telling people?

>> good point. >> well -- >> a significant military goal is being achieved. >> so, the fact that this program is happening in pakistan is a reflection that the surge in afghanistan has been unsuccessful. in the obama administration sends 34,000 troops, thinking they can win this war with more troops, they realized that was not happening. pakistan is where some of the people are over end. if the troops were in afghanistan, they were going over to enter pakistan. i think so much of this is political. so much is about military strength when it comes to

terrorism. i can imagine, and i would love to be the little drone fly on the wall at some of these meetings, where they are probably saying, we must do everything we can to make sure that there is no other terrorist attacks between now and the november elections. if it means we are going to launch more of the missiles and unfortunately, kill more innocent people in the process, because i don't think the president wants to kill innocent people. then i think they are saying, so be it. this is something we have to do to make sure there isn't an attack, especially during an election year. i think it comes with this idea that there really is a military solution. let's recognize that a a lot of people came from the last administration. there isn't that much of a transformation from the bush administration to the obama administration when it comes to the military. and when it comes to the cia.

there has just been a little rearranging of the title. so it is the same mindset, some of the same exact people. and it is a reflection of an inability to have a military solution in afghanistan, even with boots on the ground. some people say that this administration, a way of dealing with the war is a whack a mole policy. you whack a mole in afghanistan, then yemen, now they are talking about the huge drones in africa -- i think what is implied in your question is, isn't somebody going to stop them and say this doesn't make sense. on the other hand, it keeps this military complex going, and as long as americans continue to allow it to happen, it will keep happening. >> a soldier has a duty to refuse illegal orders. could you talk about the legalities that are being broken

for the soldier, personally, i was concerned about her education process. why people are willing to kill innocent people. they don't seem to have the mentality to say no. >> well, there are a number of people who are conscientious on the wars in iraq and afghanistan. the afghan vets against the war, those who are standing up and speaking out and even talking about what happened at vietnam. if we don't have a draft, there would be a huge movement against these wars and it would've ended already. but when you only have less than 1% of the population that sees the direct effect of the war, we are all affected, in terms of the financial situation. but when it goes to a small number of people who are directly involved in the war, and makes it harder to corrupt

this kind of peace movement. so i don't know. i think it is going to take a lot more work and a lot more effort, and it will end easily. and we need our allies on the inside. we need people in the military who are speaking out. want to speak out, who are afraid to speak out. we need people when they leave the military and bring them in, because their voices are often times seen as very legitimate voices in this discussion. there are people from the obama administration who have spoken out against his drone programs, and we should get them out. get them out on the speaking circuit. i find it disgusting that people

from george bush to dick cheney and condoleezza rice and donald rumsfeld and the latest one being colin powell, they make so much money from writing their memoirs, and then, i am scraping together $5 to do a speaking tour. they are getting hundreds of thousands of dollars for one top. they are getting millions of dollars for their books. and they are propagating the lives that they propagated when they were in office. nobody has held them accountable. at codepink, my organization, we have been telling people so and so is speaking at this place, go in there and tried to arrest one in the name of the citizen. [applause] when you have no accountability for the sins of the past administration come you have none for this administration. >> i could listen to for the rest of this world. but here is what comes to mind.

in terms of the government and the military, i think it comes back to what we are doing. i always refer back to the sport season. you are like a good coach. a good coach talks to the team. much of what you have been doing is talking to the team. because it is we, we the people, that have to do it. i will end by saying, everything you said this back to the simple bumper sticker. do you know? when we asked about where the church leaders are or any other leaders. if the people lead, the leaders will follow. it really is about going ck to the people. specifically, to the peace movement. you are right. we need an infusion of energy and deeper insight and more inclusion to really do the work that we need to do.

so i am, i am in love with you. [applause] >> the love goes both ways. as i travel, i must say that i am so inspired by this community. this community has shown me how you can integrate the issues of the local economy and what kind of local economy you want to see what the global picture and say that that is not what we want to see is the drone killing. the bad and the good. the local and the global. the occupy movement and the peace movement. and you really are a model of us around the country. so thank you for bringing it back to that. and also to the other expression we are the ones we have been waiting for. you are the ones that i have been waiting for. thank you. [applause] to visit booktv.org to watch any of the programs that you see online. type the author in the upper

left search bar and click on search. you can also click on anything and share his younger booktv.org by clicking share in selecting format. booktv streams live for 48 hours every weekend for top nonfiction books and authors. booktv.org. mitt romney was asked about the book he just finished reading. we met i know you are reading george friedman's book about the next century. what about america's role in the world over the next hundred years? >> well, i hope some of the things that george friedman predicted come true. there are some other things that i don't think well. but i do believe that america is a place where the concept of freedom with individual freedom, political freedom, economic freedom, where was born and nurtured, change the world from the very beginning of those that

inspired the declaration of independence and the constitution. i believe over the coming century, america will continue to play a leading role on the world stage. by virtue of our commitment to those exceptional principals. >> more information on this and other summer reading list, visit booktv.org. >> i know many of you might not have even been born in 1973 and 1974 when watergate took place. but richard nixon, one of the biggest websites, he won in the history of the united states. most americans who voted in that election voted for him. yet, when the facts came out suggesting that laws were violated, the american people, including the overwhelming majority that had supported richard nixon said that congress, you have to investigate and you have to have a special prosecutor, the laws have to be enforced. no matter what. in the end, when the house judiciary committee passed on a

bipartisan basis to vote for the impeachment of richard nixon, the country overwhelmingly supported that verdict. what does that tell us? >> that more important than any political party, and more important than any president of the united states, and more important than any single person in any ideology, was the bedrock principle of the law and the preservation of our constitution. americans united on that theme. regardless of how they had voted just about a year and a half before that. people put behind them their own partisan views and said what is good for the country and the rule of law, and one standard of law, it is critical. so i said, you know, that is a very important principle, and i believed in it, too. and then we got to the bush

years. the accountability principles pretty much worked, i won't say that they were perfect, hardly. government doesn't operate in a perfect world and is not normally perfect. but then we got to the bush years and things changed. and so i and my co-authors wrote a book about impeachment. it was a very niche area in this country. about 10 of us, still, have had the experience of dealing with the terms of the constitution and the impeachment proceedings. but we saw and wrote a book. we saw, however, that there was no catalyst to the teaching process. and then we said let's look at what else can be done. because we need the framers of the constitution, and it is clear in the debates about the

constitution, that once the president leaves office, he, and someday there might be a she, can be prosecuted. there was nothing in the disclaimers that said oh, you have the president? you get a forever free from jail card. nonsense. the framers understood that presidents can do very bad things. i mean, they were human. they created checks and balances. they also understood that congress could do bad things. they were not idealistic about people. they were very practical, and they were very pragmatic. so he said, okay, let's do this book about what kind of accountability exists. to our surprise, as we begin to look at what the criminal statutes were, what we saw was not just the possibility of accountability. that the bush team was

excruciatingly sensitive to the possibility of prosecution. and had tried to arrest the barriers in a variety of ways, including slicing and dicing and rewriting criminalize to protect themselves from accountability and protect themselves pacific league from criminal liability. >> the tomatoes and other programs online at booktv.org. recently, booktv asked our twitter followers with a plan on reading this summer. here were some of their tweets.

>> you can submit your own summer reading list. tweet us with the hash tag summer reading. you can also watch authors and their summer reading for integrate booktv, 48 hours of