hawaiian homeland has homesteads within e coli ai's territory for native alliance. on behalf of the state of hawaii administers million tract on behalf of the federal government. i work for the office of hawaiian affairs and it administers the proceeds from public land tracts in the trust that is set aside for the betterment of the condition of hawaiian its to impact insisted make change. . .applause]

>> thank you.

this is not starting out like one of my congressional hearings. [laughter] good evening. thank you, darcy, for this kind words. thank you all for such a warm welcome. it is a pleasure to be here tonight and a privilege to join with each of you and with so many members of the national lgbt bar association in celebrating and renewing our shared commitment to advancing the cause of equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals. [applause] i would like to recognize the association's staff and the entire leadership team and thank them for all they have done to bring us together for this year's lavender law conference and career fair. for more than two decades, this

important annual of that has brought together hundreds of legal practitioners and law students from across the country. this provides an opportunity to highlight the extraordinary work that this organization's members are leading and participating in every day. it offers a chance to reflect on the progress that in the past few years each of you has helped to make possible and to reaffirm how -- our determination to carry this essential work into the future. because of your dedicated efforts, you have made this year's gathering the largest minority recruiting event in the country. [applause] and the most successful lavender law conference, with over 260 employees in attendance, including multiple representatives from the united states department of justice.

[applause] in fact, i am pleased to report that we are joined tonight by a number of senior department leaders as well as five united states attorneys who are strong lgbt allies. linda, and the northern district of california. -- from the northern district of california. david, from the western district of pennsylvania. amanda, from the district of oregon. stephen, from the southern district of illinois. michael, from the middle district of georgia. and my man, robert, from the western district of texas. [applause]

through workshop sessions, career counseling, and panel discussions, this conference is providing a unique opportunity for mentoring and engaging among some of the best attorneys in america on cutting edge legal issues. your help and to call attention to obstacles and biases both overt and subtle that continue to affect far too many lgbt americans every day. you are encouraging collaboration, cooperation, and more effective advocacy as we seek to design and implement innovative strategies to confront the most persistent challenges that far too many americans face. as attorney general, i consider it a privilege to be a part of this annual gathering and to join such a diverse group of partners, colleagues, and friends in working to strengthen our nation's legal community and legal system.

as an american, i am deeply proud to stand with you in celebrating the remarkable, unimaginable progress, particularly over the last three and a half years -- >[applause] the progress that your leadership and coordinated efforts have helped to bring about. we come together tonight at an exciting moment. thanks to the work a tireless advocate, advocates of the attorneys in and far beyond this room, our nation has made great strides on the road to lgbt the quality and the unfinished struggle to protect and secure the civil rights of all americans. for president obama, myself, and colleagues at all level of the administration, this work has long been a top priority. i am pleased to note it has

resulted in meaningful, measurable, and in during the change. we can all be proud of that today. for the first time in history, those who courageously serve the country in uniform need to know longer hide -- need no longer hide their sexual orientation. [applause] as we approach the one-year anniversary of the end of don't ask, don't tell, it is worth celebrating that some of the brave servicemen and women can now serve their country proud the, honestly, openly, and without fear of discharge. we can take pride in the fact that early last year president

obama and i directed justice department attorneys not to defend the constitutionality of section 3 of the defense of marriage act. [applause] since then, we have seen and encouraging and increasing number of courts hold this provision to be unconstitutional, including a federal district court in connecticut that found that it fails to survive constitutional scrutiny just last month. we can be encouraged by robust efforts that our department of justice is leading to insure the vigorous enforcement of the civil-rights provisions to safeguard lgbt individuals and others from the most brutal forms of bias-motivated violence. thanks to the outstanding

leadership of my assistant attorney general and the dedication of attorneys, law enforcement officials, and support staff and partner agencies, today this work is stronger than ever before. let's hear it for tom and the civil rights division. [applause] our resolve to meet the evolving threats with new vigilance has never been more clear. this past april, the department issued its first ever indictment for a hate crime based on sexual orientation on the matthew shepherd hate crimes convention act. [applause] this is a landmark measure signed into law by president obama in 2009, which many of the people in this room helps to move forward in relation to an

alleged anti-gay hate crime in kentucky. we continue to review cases that may fall under this legislation. we are working to strengthen our ability to achieve justice on behalf of those victimized simply because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. we stand ready to vigorously pursue allegations of federal hate crimes wherever they arise to bring charges were ever they are warranted and support the efforts of our state and local law enforcement partners to enforce their own hate crimes laws. the civil rights division is also taking the lead in bolstering our ability to educate and train federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement officials on sexual orientation and gender identity based discrimination in order to insure that, for those who serve on the front line, they are well equipped to prevent, identify, and stop this wherever it occurs. last month, the department filed a historic consent agreement with the city of norman's to

address allegations of discrimination and harassment by -- new orleans to address allegations of discrimination and harassment by local police, including against lgbt individuals. in a broader efforts, we have demonstrated the importance and in practice of working with elected and appointed authorities to identify troubling practices, correct patterns of increased -- repeated violations, and craft policies and procedures to make state the rights of those law enforcement officers have sworn to serve and protect. we have taken increasing awareness of the rights that -- rolls the community leaders and educators can take in protecting a variety of vulnerable populations, particularly the youngest members of our society. we were to expand the protections so that our children can feel safe in their homes, on our streets, and especially in our schoolyards and classrooms. as many of you know all too well, every year, bullying

touches the lives of countless young people. as we have seen all too clearly, it can have a devastating and potentially life on impact. in response, the department has been collaborating with educators, administrators, and students in school districts nationwide to investigate an address this problem behavior. we work with partners, including federal allies like the department of education under the leadership of secretary arne duncan, to explore ways to stop harassment and bullying before they start. in places like minnesota, where the investigation found that some students faced threats, physical violence, a derogatory violence, and other forms of harassment on a daily basis. we have successfully engaged with school officials to lay out a detailed blueprints for sustainable perform -- reform. we will continue to promote safe

and healthy learning environments to support a student nondiscrimination act that will better addressed harassment and bullying based on an individual's real or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity. we will provide assistance to bullying victims and work closer with local leaders, parents, educators, and young people themselves to make certain that all of our students, all of our students can feel safe and free to be themselves in its schools. beyond these efforts, the justice department continues to support and to fight for legislative and policy reforms like an inclusive nondiscrimination act, which would extend -- [applause] -- which would extend protections to lgbt individuals in all workplaces khama and an updated violence against women act -- [applause]

an updated violence against women act that would insure that the law's nondiscrimination provisions cover sexual orientation and gender identity. this is something we are fighting about -- why this is something we are fighting about is beyond me. this is something that needs to happen, and needs to happen now. [applause] even in the face of what are truly extraordinary budget challenges, we remain determined to use every available resource to build the necessary institutional and legal frameworks 2 and harassment, violence, and discrimination, and to provide a safeguard for lgbt americans, my fellow citizens, that are long overdue. my colleagues are not content to

advocate and speak up for these changes and return -- reforms. winners stand the importance of leading by example. that is why this justice department and a range of agencies have taken decisive action to create a more inclusive work environment for our own employees. this is to strengthen our mission of serving all americans by recruiting and retaining highly qualified individuals like you who will reflect our nation's rich diversity and make a sustained and concerted effort to provide the opportunities, support, and respect for every aspiring public servant to develop, grow, and thrive. no one understands the importance of creating such an environment or has advocated more passionately on behalf of the lgbt community and my boss, president obama. -- a van my boss, president obama. -- than my boss, president

obama. [applause] thanks to his leadership, this administration has made historic strides in sending a clear message that the federal government is open to everyone. it is an employer that accept and respect every potential employee. for instance, in the justice department, i launched a new diversity management initiative in 2010 to expand and strengthen strategies and programs for promoting fairness, equality, and opportunity for every member of the doj family, which today includes a number of openly gay and lesbian attorneys, including my friend robert. as well as senior department leaders, u.s. marshals, the director of the transgender law

institute, and three of the attorneys recently named to the national lgbt bar association's best lawyers under 40. [applause] and, an extremely dedicated and ever-expanding membership of a wonderful organization known as doj pride. earlier, we held a workshop focused on inclusion that discussed lesbian, gay, transgendered, and bisexual inclusion as an inclusive way -- as important way to include all individuals in your place. we also act -- asked that every federal prison will appoint an lgbt representative to their employment program to help start a dialogue about issues facing

staff members who serve in more than 120 facilities nationwide. i believe these actions and policies constitute promising steps in the right direction. like everyone here tonight, i recognize that our journey as a nation and as a legal profession is far from over. i know that the progress we seek is not always come as quickly as we might help or as easily as we would like. that is why tonight i am not a cure to thank you all for what you have done to bring us to this point, to highlight the administration's efforts, or to celebrate all we have achieved together. i'm also here to ask for your continued help, to draw on your considerable passion and expertise, and to reiterate the department's commitment and my own to building on the momentum that we have established and insuring the the recent successes we have seen have -- are just the beginning.

current and aspiring leaders of the bench and bar, everybody here tonight understands what is at stake. you realize how important every hard-fought legal victory, large and small, really is. you all are or soon will be uniquely situated to use the power of the law and your own gifts and knowledge to help build a more fair and equal and more just society. you have not only the power, but, i believe, the solemn responsibility to do precisely that. to safeguard the rights and freedoms of everyone in this country, to carry on the critical but unfinished work that lies ahead. this has never been and never will be easy, but as a look around this room, i cannot help but feel optimistic about where your efforts will lead us and how far our commitment will take us in the months and years ahead. with the benefit of your partnership, the strength of your passion, i know that we can, and i am confident that we

will, continue the work that has been our share priority and our common cause. i look forward to all that we will share and accomplish together. thank you very much. [applause]

william webster.

this is one hour. >> good morning everybody. i am the president of the robert mccormick foundation based in chicago. i have a great privilege of introducing this panel that will be discussing law-enforcement agencies at all different levels and the work they do to do -- to keep our country safe. what an amazing panel it is. i will begin from left to right. brad brekke is from target corporation. johnson is the director of the international association of chiefs of police. he has 21,000 buses and members

in that capacity and over 100 countries. he also served as the principal deputy in the department of home and security. sean joyce was named to the deputy director of the fbi with oversight of operations. prior to this, sean oversaw the counter intelligence with weapons of mass destruction and all other intelligence programs. timothy williams is director of interpol, washington. he served as the chief of technical operations for the u.s. marshals service where he oversaw the nationwide surveillance operations.

the honorable william webster who is a former judge and the united states court of appeals, former director of the fbi, former director of the cia making him the only american to serve as both of those agencies. he is chairman of the home and security advisory council for the department of common security. -- department of homeland security. we will all have the pleasure of hearing her frequently on the radio. in addition to that, dina is the author of several great box. let me turn it over to you. >> thank you very much. [applause] thank you for coming here this morning. what we are going to do rigid or

is unusual about this panel is it offers a real spectrum about people who get involved with terrorism cases. very often have trouble figuring out where they are in the process of investigating the case. this is a rare opportunity where we can get an idea of what is going on step by step by step. at every case is the same, but this will give you an idea. we thought the best way to do this would be to use specific example. some cases may not get involved with the specific example, but they can give us a good hypothetical idea of what they would have done in a particular case. how many of you know the new york subway case? let me give you a tiny synopsis so that you will understand what it is we are talking about.

this case happened back in 2009. at the time the fbi thought it was the most serious case in the united states since 9/11. the reason was, an afghan native who actually used to have one of those cards from new york city, went to afghanistan and pakistan and basically wanted to fight with the taliban. instead he added that getting recruited by al qaeda because he had a clean at passport and was able to get in and out of the united states. what makes this different from all the other people you talk about is he actually built a viable bomb. he tested one in denver. he was able to make the detonator. i have steady bonds a lot. apparently that is the hardest part to do. he made the bomb with here by

boiling it down to a particular ratio. he went to a big hair salon outlets in denver and bought massive amounts of hair dye. so much that even the guy at the counter said, what are you doing with all of this year die? for the purposes of our panel having set that up, let's assume that he is a thrifty guy. instead of going to this owlet he went to target and bought a lot of hair dye. let's assume for the argument that a clerk at target said, wow, that is a lot of hair dye. he reported it. in what would happen. >> some quick context because i am the private sector representatives here today. i represent a fortune 500

company with corporate security department. we actually do a lot with law enforcement. we have capabilities with our own corporation. i think this case is a good illustration of how it could come to pass. we would have offered him a red card so he gets 5% off on his purchase. >> i gave you a set up, did i not? >> in all seriousness, we do have a working relationship often with the law enforcement community a local and national levels. target has embarked program where we purposely developed it. these relationships enable us to become aware of information they might need feedback on. in a case like this, we might find out from a local law enforcement center or from the fbi out of the sea on her --, be

on the lookout for. he there at headquarters are out on the field we would begin surveying day tab because we will track inventory data. we can pull video from around the country. both inside the store and outside. we actually can go out to our peers and other retailers and ask them if they have seen such behavior, too. it is not just within the target environment. if we trip that wire, we can pick up the phone and call law enforcement and notify them. >> would you call local law enforcement or the fbi? >> it deepens and the situation and what is being asked for us to do. most often than not it is at a local level. >> a uncall the local police. seeing as you now -- so you would call the local police. the phone call comes into the

local police. let's just say there is another aspect. it comes into the local police. then what happens? cox there is 18,000 law- enforcement agencies in the country. target has an excellent working relationship and many other organizations and companies throughout the country. the other good news is law enforcement is part of the security enterprise, the national intelligence enterprise. they know the communities. they know when criminal activity is afoot. if they got the call from a target store employee, they will be armed with information. it will have been socialized to what counter-terrorism is about the acquisition of material. the hydrogen peroxide is part of the material. under that set of circumstances, i am quite confident one of two

things will have occurred. they would have called the fusion center directly or they would have called to expand on that. if they want the national network affusion center route, there would have called the fusion center once again because of the efforts of ina, the fbi, they have the connectivity, both classified and unclassified level to receive the documents and to receive the products that an inmate from the intelligence community overseas about how the devices are made, what the components of the go into them. they also would be informed as it relates to what to look for. a good analyst said would know that could be terrorist related. they will notify the jttf. it has happened in not only these incidents but over the past three years.

unfortunately there has been an uptick in domestic base to incidents. the relationship is very good. it does not stop there. it gets to the intelligence community. the only people not sitting on this side is the cia for the intelligence community to get it up to them and conversely, a lot of affirmation passes down. that is basically what will happen. relationships and the passing of the information. >> of the police chief of denver is a little bit worried about what he has heard from target. he called the head of the field office in denver and says, i have this problem. and what happens? >> make sure you don't tell him, i do not have a white shirt on. the fbi can dress down occasionally. we do a lot of things.

people have to remember, we are just like you out there. we are trying to balance civil rights and civil liberties. what we do each and every time is the least intrusiveness. depending upon what the threat is, if you are talking about somebody coming in and purchasing hydrogen peroxide, then there are certain activities that we do -- checking open source records whether they have a prior record. signage their numbers are affiliated with anyone else who may have an open investigation. also doing checks with the other members of the intelligence community. >> would you check to see if they travel to pakistan or afghanistan? >> absolutely. when people talk about the fbi's jttf, it is our jttf.

on every single jtf since 2001 we went from 35 to 104. there are members of the nsa, the cia, state police, local police, you make it. they are members of the task force. we cannot do it without them. i think we got a lot smarter involving the private sector. i do not think we pay less attention to the before and bringing them into -- i do not think we paid enough attention to bringing them in before. >> us talk about interpol. for the sake of making it easy to go down the line. here is something you tell me about interpol before we had this session. interpol is not like jason bourne, which i thought it was. i thought there were people crashing through windows. i thought you could do the jason bourne stuff. can you explain a little better

what interpol as? >> absolutely. i think interpol is -- there is a lot of confusion about interpol. basically the u. and of police. it is made up of the national police agency's. in the united states it is a little more complicated. it is very important. i think a lot of this forum has been on the classified side and how information has been shared and better between the fbi and military cia. i remember charlie allen saying many times, the real intelligence gatherers are the police on the streets and people making arrests every day that will flip the individual into cooperating on a case and tell the fbi and others on their case. i think there is some real creative people a in the audience.

people that believe sharing information and working together, they have been supportive of interpol. police intelligence, two countries and national police agencies. back when a lot people in this room, it does not this way. when we were younger, and lot of things were done by fax. technology has made interpol more relevant. we have the lost stolen travel document with interval -- with interpol. >> would he have popped up on the interpol database? >> if the fbi wanted him on there. >> he would not have in that

case because -- for a red notice, that is an arrest warrant recognized by interpol members. there are other blue-chip notices and other neck -- mechanisms. he specifically -- we were tipped off. he would have been in the databases they have. >> the way they basically found was the interception of an e- mail. they did not have someone who said something. what was interesting about the case is that he created tatt, an explosive, from this hair dye. then he drove across the country from denver to new york. and the fbi was concerned that he decided not to fly. so maybe there was something in

the car they were worried about. i do not know if you know this or not the my understanding was on his cross-country journey, he was talking very fast. he got pulled over several times by police and getting tickets for dropping so fast. this was again this coordination think we're talking about. the people who pull them over, did they know why he was being pulled over? but it is my understanding he was intentionally pulled over to collect information in cooperation with the fbi. if it was a happenchance pullover and he was speeding, those troopers are well informed as it relates to seeing a wire. i'm quite confident they are well-informed to report that information to the nationwide suspicious activity reporting initiative or to the jttf. >> let's say hypothetically that they did not know. the mechanism that exists as

soon as a case is developed, that person is to -- goes into the known and suspected terrorist file. any police officer out there is going to know when they stop and individual. then he has a contact number to come back to. >> the fact they stop him a couple of times and gave him a couple of tickets, that is one of my favorite parts. i am out of new york and there was another aspect that maybe you can answer. he has this explosive in the suitcase in the trunk of his car and he is pulled over by law enforcement and a search is car and they miss the explosives. how did that happen? [laughter] >> they are all looking at me.

>> in all of these cases, we are all organizations and human beings. so the new -- they knew. they made the stop and it did not find it. there were a couple of aubrey -- of other bombs. there are bumps in every case. they knew and they did their best but it was difficult to detect. in fairness to the police officers, they were not try to make it obvious. that was some of the direction that was given. it was later found, as you know. in this type of case, it was very fast moving. when we initially found out, around september 6 or seventh, to his arrest, it ended up being the 18th. so you can imagine very quickly

the number of techniques. one of the things as how the fbi has changed and director smaller and others have really -- director muller and others have really transformed the agency. we are looking at it as an intelligence collection. it was not to put him in jail. we want to find out everything we can about him. who is the connected with? who are his facilitators? what is he trying to do? at the same time working with the department of justice, they are with us from day 0. we want to preserve the ability to disrupt them, possibly prosecuting them and putting them in jail. that is the biggest thing. people do not recognize -- field intelligence groups, it is about

being intelligent and attractive base. i think we have been extremely successful doing that. >> if i may, being in law enforcement for 32 years, you do miss things unfortunately. but the system worked here in this case. not only did that information in record speed get into the hands of jim davis, the sac in denver, and then share with the chief dan oates but also commissioner kelly. i saw commissioner kelly earlier here today. that would not have happened on the 9/11 -- september 10th of 2001. but it is now. demint -- the information is being passed. people are aware. it is a total good news story progresses it is. . >> this is a nice way to go to you and talk about the

coordination. you have been involved the fbi for a long time. you heard the story. can you talk a little bit about how this is working together? >> most of the time, it worked very well. occasionally it does not. that is when we hear the call failure of imagination. in today's world, that is what people are doing. looking out in advance, projecting what could happen and what would we do about it in what you recognize it? -- and would you recognize it? it is what we do with the lucky break that matters. in today's world of technological advances, we are still behind the curve somewhat. sometimes our system did not follow up and to the way we would like them to. but we are working on it. that is important, too.

>> i wanted to say one other thing about this case. from every reporter's perspective. we are good at listening to voices. the way that i knew this was a very serious case with the tightness in everybody's voice when i was asking questions, whether in the intelligence community or the fbi. you could tell this was a serious case. and it was fast moving. i think that is the reason why you could tell it was such a serious case. a wanted to move on a little bit of talk about a domestic case and go down the line and talk about how it would be difficult -- if it were domestic. the was a young man who was at texas tech and he came to the united states, he is saudi, he came under a student visa. at the end of last month, he was found guilty of trying to produce a weapon of mass destruction.

they found chemical and precursors and things in his apartment near some town in texas. i cannot remember where. lovick. [laughter] let's see if i can recover from that one. >> i am not answering any more questions. [laughter] >> he was going to build a bomb and one of the targets he thought about was president bush's home. this was found in an accidental way. he had these chemicals shipped to his apartment.

the dax dropped them off at the local carrier. the local carrier happened to look at the address and solve all these chemicals were going to residents. the local carrier had a rule that it would not ship these things to a residence. it could only be to a business or a school. this is an example private- sector stepping in. i do not know if you want to talk about that. >> just briefly. the fact that it would be the same for the private sector. homegrown, we are more dependent on citizens of the private sector. he will not ship communications -- you will not ship made it -- these points are not happening. i look at it as citizens that before doing their duty, seeing suspicious behavior and

reporting it to the right people. >> the chemical company called local police -- the shipping company called local police? >> possibly or the jttf. the missing piece here would be the intelligence community. the intelligence community is a great role in informing on tactics and procedures, whether it be domestic base or foreign base. for law enforcement, it would not be handled any differently it would get the receipt of the reporting whether it be from a target or a shipper chemical local law enforcement. they will be informed to notify the fusion center. the one thing i did not mention is the value added of what the fusion center has as it relates to the information sets. whether or not it is a blotter or active investigation or

deconfliction. when there is an act against -- investigation against the target, if you put that individual's name, it will identify that person is already under investigation by another agency. to think about what a local officer trouper encounters each day, whether domestic. the opportunity they have to review that. that is important as it relates to the value added coming out of the fusion center. you used the word lokke to read in my career -- the word luck. in my career, people say you were really lucky. no, you are not lucky. it is based in your training, out there stopping cars. but has nothing to do with that. it is the system. that's it -- that shipping company having the processes in place or the general public sang

something is not right here. at that has been there much too long. and knowing to call local law enforcement and local law enforcement -- knowing to call the jttf. sometimes a lot of these chemicals are also used to manufacture narcotics. that also helps out the dea. so those relationships, it is not only benefiting ct but general crime. >> there were two companies involved. there was the carolina biological supply that contacted rre in greensboro than conaway trucking in texas that contacted the police department there. >> he was already on the radar screens by the time the -- >> they happen within a day of each other.

we were also tip of -- tipped off from another foreign agency. we talk about these layers, that is what works. we talked about general adult -- general alexander and his folks are doing. then you have what dhs is doing on the borders of hardening the target. then another layer. then appear with the jttf -- then the bureau with the jttf. it is other agency help you, would he have shown -- showed up on interpol? >> it depends if the agency contacted interpol. >> it is possible. most of the countries in the interpol do not have a classified system. they do not have the complex communications systems we do. the only way they can communicate is through interpol sometimes.

or to the attache in that country. >> the legal attache. >> will coordinate that with the fbi. there are eight divisions in interpol. one of domestic counter- terrorism division. we have that connection. those leads, and -- those leads come in and it is close coordination. >> when you hear these case studies and you hear how everybody is working together, how different is this from the fbi you know? >> it was not that different. i heard last night something that up and -- i should address. there was a time when it was thought the fbi was all take and no give.

when i came on board in 1978, the ex agents society was having a convention and they wanted to do something for the fbi decide the integrity statute they donated. they had a quotation on the wall from dead girl over and asked me to select one. the quotes ran heavily on law and order and defensive type comments. the one i selected became truly i think the spirit of the fbi. if you ever go there in the courtyard, you will see in large letters -- the key to effective law enforcement is cooperation at all levels of government and with the support and understanding of the american

people. i think that is the direction in which we are going. after september 11, the problem of need to know shifted to need to share. at the the fbi got into that spirit as it became an effective law enforcement but intel is averaging -- but intelligencve gathering. we talk about first responders. state and local have to be there when the problem arises or when the first explosion occurs. if they are engaged in a community oriented policing as i hope most of them are these days, the chances are the public will be as equally responsive and identify suspicious activities. they will do as we have been encouraging to do -- see something, say something. that is very important to our welfare and safety today. i think the american people are

responding. through these combinations of relationships with the american people and with the local law enforcement and issues and sharing of experience and the ability to transmit that information not only accurately but quickly improperly out that to the field where it can be of value is one of the most remarkable changes i have seen in the last 30 years. >> anybody have something to add to that? but i want to recognize judge webb. it is an honor to be up here with him. >> i am often asked why the private sector charges involve a public safety our counter- terrorism. as citizens of this country, we have a duty. we might have different skills sets for expertise but we have the same mission -- to protect this country.

the simple way i look at it is if i'm walking to my house and my neighbor's house is on fire, i do not just keep walking because i'm not a fireman. i do something. i think that is where the private sector could be part of that do something also, whether it is citizens or businesses. we have to look at them as a partner in this and a force multiplier. i go back to 9/11. i was in minneapolis when that occurred. we were in disarray like most of us in this room. but what i find most fascinating is that morning, flight 93, the first group to act against those acting against us were citizens. i think we have to keep that in the forefront of all things we do, whether it is in the

business sector, or private citizens. it is part of what makes this country what it is. >> and acted only hours after it first happened? what they got intelligence -- >> they got intelligence as they did it and it took down the bad guys before the u.s. government knew what was going on. [applause] >> i almost want to end it there. if we could shift gears a bit. we were supposed to talk about what more can be done to keep the home and safe. in particular, the threat is changing. there seems to be a new threat emanating from iraq with al qaeda and iraq also leader saying he wanted to target the u.s. which is new. there is still a threat in yemen. if we could go down the line

quickly, could you talk about what you think can be done to keep all lance zipper as the threat is safer -- keep the homeland safer as the threat is changing? >> with the private sector has brought to the table paul 9/11 is resiliency. we have done much to deal with what can we do as a business to protect our people, to recover businesses, help our communities? my team was with fema nearby in colorado springs looking at what else the to do in the public sector. we do this about tornadoes and natural disasters but it is the same impact with the terrorist act. what is often missing from the public side is because the view is not on my watch. our view is if it does happen, what can we do to get this

country back up and running, our businesses up and running, our communities? it is along the lines of the british business as usual. that is the model we study. ira terrorism. that is what i think the private sector is much better at today than it ever was. it helps supplement government efforts. >> i think we are at a very critical part. over 10 years after september 11 as relates to the economy, the economy is declining. there has been a significant amount of layoff for local, state, tribal law enforcement. my agency had the high watermark of about 5000. they are at about 43 hunter right now. couple that with the grants and how they have been cut dramatically. it cannot be done at the expense

of national security. all the progress that has been made and the need to not that back on where we have been headed, we need to keep moving forward. strength and the processes. a lot of this is based on trust and personal relationships that have developed. in need to be institutionalized. -- it neesd to be institutionalized. there are a lot of high level folks here. i did not know what dod and the iec did until i spent about four and a half years within the intelligence community, most recently with an ina. i was thoroughly impressed about the analysts, the amount of time and work and effort they put into it and also i know that the ice and dod recognize and appreciate what they have here domestically. that needs to continue to grow and be enhanced. it is not -- it is also cyber

and what is happening with the gangs and narcotics and the threat that you have spoken about. keep that information coming and recognize that law enforcement is very mature, they know how to do things. they know how to investigate. they can be trusted. they have clearances. they now know how to store it. so trust that and build that trust and institutionalize it. >> you are trying to do something in a environment of shrinking resources. how do you protect the homeland better when you have less resources? >> like all of my counterparts, we look for a patient sees. ways to do things better. we look for ways to do things differently. we live to leverage other agencies, the private sector more effectively. i think we -- we are all living

in a fascinating time. there are so many things going on around the world and it does affect the united states. we have to remember that. i think that red has become much more -- the threat has become much more difficult, much more diversified to detect. they did a phenomenal job desecrating al qaeda but the threat has changed and evolved. it is becoming more difficult which goes to really the next point. i think the dni realizes the importance of the domestic intelligence architecture. i think for many years, we ignore that. he is really taking an active role in that and figuring out how these agencies fit together. he recently designated 12 of the

fbi offices as dni reps domestically. that is part of the efficiency i was talking about. how to the coordinate activities -- how do we coordinate activities and do them with less? >> to echo everyone's comments, partnership is a crucial thing. everybody talks about a partnership but i want to echo the judge. after september 11, i was in new york. i got a call, got together with a group of people to work on a mixed agency. he did not care if it was f.b.i.. he wanted people to get things in -- done quickly. >> that is special agent in charge. >> i am sorry. i worry that we have come so far along in sharing information but i think as we get further away from september 11, i did not want to get back. i believe that sometimes the

system the way agencies have compete -- to compete for funds especially when resources are shrinking, it has a negative affect. it does not encourage sharing of information. we are supporting everybody. when agencies have to battle for resources, that makes it very difficult. it would also affect them and pulling off of task forces like interpol with the need to be because the resources they have to prioritize where there are -- where people are going to go. that is my concern going forward. >> judge webster, where do you think we need to go? we need to do as john says, to get better at all of the things we are doing right. to anticipate what our problems may be and to have the no more

failures ever imagination. we hope we can anticipate it. the importance of having the support and understanding of the american people is something we do keep it until our minds but we have to work hard at it. in our country, there is something different. we believe that we must do the work that the american people expect of us and the way that the constitution demands of us. sometimes that is tough. we have a lot of things we could do that might theoretically produce an answer, create a confession, do something else to wage a war but the important thing is that we behave in a way

that earns the trust of the american people and in the end is far more affected than law enforcement and intelligence principled than some of the other extreme measures that will take place until other countries. that is the challenge we face in the future. to not forget who we are and what we are. to be better at what we are and what we do than anyone else in protecting in keeping save the people in this country. >> i was hoping we could open it up to questions now. the gentleman here. >> i want to thank all of you for your service and agree with the spirit of cooperation you gentlemen are promoting. no single agency department has all the tools needed. going forward, we have some

great tools that the place since september 11. we track large sums of money that travel throughout the financial system. we track chemicals now better than we do before. how to attract 6000 rounds of ammunition purchased on the internet as we saw recently? >> i should have asked that question. look at everybody looking at you judge. >> there is no tracking, no national database of weaponry or bullets. i'm not going to give an opinion or get in trouble with those 18,000 sheets in the country. suffice to say, at a state level, they do a good job as a relate to cataloging weapons at purchasing and things of that

nature. but there is no national system. that is why -- firearms are a dealer distributor. it is public. what is suspicious activity. what constitutes suspicious activity? law enforcement, they know all about that. they are held accountable to it. there is no notion of doing that. they are too busy going from complete to complaint and if somebody may, there are significant consequences to that. law enforcement take that very importantly. sorry for digressing. >> you talk about some policy issues which obviously some of us did not want to comment on

because of our positions but it gets down to the internet. i wish i had mentioned it before. technology. we all are up in a generation where the computer was introduced to us in some part -- point of our lives. it started at the very beginning. we need to do a better job with technology, principal. we have got to get better at doing that. we have to be able to detect the good and evil. it will be good -- through advanced technology. >> there is some weapons chasing internationally led by atf. there is some international domestic. there are some on weapons that are used in crimes overseas to track them. >> director, you may be one of

the few people who can express an opinion about this. do you think there should be a way to track huge amounts of ammunition at purchase all at once? >> consistent with what i said before about the rights of american citizens and others in our country, i think that the problem we identified particularly in the fort hood massacre, i cannot discuss it because that is part of the portions of the report, except to say that this capacity to gather data is huge. and massive. the problem is making sure that it can be sorted, filed an available and disseminated. in an effective way. >> and seen in time. >> yes, i absolutely.

the more we collect, the more challenging the issue of identifying something unusual and acting on it. >> those of you who do not know, debt webster released a report looking at the fort hood shooting -- judge webster released a report looking at the four parachuting. it came out last week. what was the most surprising thing in putting together the report to you that you can tell us? >> probably what i just said what i think the surprising thing to me was that the system that was designed with a joint task forcing by bringing in agents from other departments to have responsibilities to guide and help result in -- there were

to field offices with different views. one trekking in very bad guy in yemen, passing to another field office with the discretion to do with it what they wanted about an american soldier and officer communicating with one of these very bad guys. the and nurture that occurred because of differences about what to do about it -- the inertia that occurred because of differences about what to do about it. not a clear policy at the time about how to resolve that this agreement. in a way that might have anticipated an opportunity to prevent or head off a bad thing. that was the surprise to me. the joint task force system was supposed to enhance our capabilities and not create in our shop. but it was not the fault of the

task force officer. he made mistakes but it was not the fault of the other individuals. it was the lack of a clear policy which made sure you could resolve the problem quickly. in other words, taken upstairs. >> and judge webster and his folks did a fantastic job on that report. i have read it several times. we made mistakes, there is no question about that what we try to do is learn from those mistakes. he made 18 recommendations. i believe they were all adopted. and we are going to get better. >> question and terms of the evolving threats. u.s. officials recorded last week that the bulgarian suicide

bombing had all the hallmarks of a hezbollah aspiration -- operation. how concerned is the bureau right now that hezbollah operatives and to the united states may be taking on expanded roles going into legal operations like this? are you taking any steps to monitor it? >> yes and yes. without question, not only bulgaria but if you recall the plot to kill the u.s. saudi ambassador. the related to the iodc in proxy with iran and hezbollah. speaking from open source and

other things, there is a change in the threat without question. we are looking at at that and are in talks with that. >> how about the lady in the striped in the back? >> there are two conflicting dialogues i see in the press right now. one is the sea something, do something or something, report it. the citizens are on the front lines. and we understand our neighborhoods best and therefore we can be good judges of what is unusual. on the other hand, even though there is an increased concern for a homeland radicalization, there seems to be an effort to make sure there is no bias and

therefore to downplay homegrown radicalization. how to you balance those two? >> do you think your downplaying radicalization? >> i think there are a couple of things going on here. i am not sure what you meant when you used the term biased. i think we are much like a neighborhood watch and everyone else -- like everyone else, we are looking for behaviors that are not normal. as far as homegrown extremism, i think everyone appear is well aware of the current threat that exists. we meet on a monthly basis on combating violent extremism

related to the homeland. and in other ways. what are other ways and techniques we can stop that before it even begins? before they go through that complete radicalization process and move into mobilization? on the bias side, i cannot think there is bias. when you notice something, you try to report it. it goes to the program level, what the local police for sheriff or who ever is responsible. >> i think what i am referring to was there is a reluctance to identify the fact that there might be a religious theology that serves as the basis for the radicalization and in certain circles, there seems to be a

reluctance to identify the use of a religion in the radicalization process. >> i would say if you look over the centuries, radicalization is not limited to, i think you are referring to is mom, it is not just as long. christianity has had its share of that extremism. whatever you want to call that. this is the greatest country in the world. it is those elements with and religion that adopt and etiology that is not really the religion. it is extremism. there is no bias there. anyone who is doing that, i did not care what religion you are practicing, if you are talking about killing and murdering people, we will get you. >> this is a very small group of

the muslim population. we tend to make sweeping generalizations about islam and we should not. there are a lot of muslims in this country who are as horrified as non muslims. >> from state and local perspective, it is based on a criminal predicate. you are targeting an individual who is reasonably suspicious or probable cause or reasonable indicative of criminal activity. did you take it where it goes. after you complete that trouble, there could be something that led to that person doing what they did. i think that it's it. >> we have time for one last question. >> question about major hassan.

the gaps seem to be -- why didn't they involve the military? they had clear communication with the sheik in yemen. this was just recent. i did not understand what they did not alert the military. >> i can answer that question. the task force member who opposed scoreboard was from the military. >> they had argument that it would affect his career but of course there were methods by which an interview could have occurred. the defense department was aware of him and was aware of both

good reports and not so good reports about him. there was no leptin to let the defense department about it -- there was no reluctance to let the defense department know about it. was right after 9/11, one of the big things that concerned everyone is people not talking to each other. but we have seen at least in these two cases is that while this might not be a perfect system, it is, a long way in 10 years. if you could thank>> we are goid

now. this next panel will focus on the white house's role in counter-terrorism. moderating is michael crowley, a senior correspondent for times. he writes about washington, the obama administration and national security issues. he wrote about foreign-policy for the new republic. he has also written for new york magazine, gq, slate, and the new york times magazine. his major articles in recent years have included profile of a white house counter-terrorism chief john brennan, former defense secretary robert gates, and efforts to combat the risk of nuclear terrorism. michael. >> thank you. i am going to briefly introduce our panelists.

ken to my left spent two tickets in federal law enforcement and homeland security, including general counsel to the fbi and chief of staff to robert mona. as the united states attorney and that the first assistant attorney general for national security. he became homeland security adviser to george bush in 2008. juan was that the assistant to the president for combating terrorism from 2005 until 2009. he served as assistant secretary of treasury for terrorist financing and financial crimes where he led the global hunt for saddam hussein's assets. quinten is one of the country's top experts on muslim communities, and radicalization. he has been senior director for community partnerships on the white house's national security staff, focus on building partnerships between the federal government and local communities, including partnerships to counter violent

extremism. he served at the white house's senior director for global engagement. he said it is lyme -- islan in cairo. ken, why don't i start with you? an open-ended question. we talked in the last couple of days about so many different parts of the federal government with responsibilities for counter-terrorism. the white house is the hub of the wheel. have you ordinate and absorb the information -- how do you coordinate and absorb the information and action? can you talk about the managerial challenge of that in your role? what is the best role for the white house that straddles the balance between being overwhelmed by all the external

apparatus but also not micromanaging it at the same time? >> good question. it brings the discussion we are going to have here today. in terms of the best balance, i think we explore that three different situations. we will go through various unbearable to get to what we think is the best balance. the issue that our parliament is made of a number of different departments and agencies, -- that our government is made up of a number of different departments and agencies. in counter-terrorism, it depends on contributions from each of these departments and agencies. how does the white house which ultimately has to make the critical decisions get that input, get the consensus among the cabinet officers and

translate that into decisions? and operational policy? in terms of policy, the concept put it into place when i was -- in 1947 when you have a council comprised of cabinet officers to get together and make basil -- and make recommendations to the president. that functions right -- quite well. the question is how does that concept work when you have operational decisions that need be made? and decisions that need minute by minute decision making? they have to be made at the highest law will by the president. that is the gray area. that is with the balance constantly need to do recalibrate it. -- that is where the balance is and it compton the need to be

read calibrated. -- and it constantly needs to be recalibrated. there are a variety of considerations that go into that. you do not want to nuclear terror -- cabinet officers -- want to neuter your cabinet officers. counter-terrorism is one of the primary concerns of the country. the president needs to take an active role and the critical decisions about policy and operations. he needs to be at the table. that is the cost of balance. the short answer is there are some decisions, like the osama bin laden rate. you need a president to say go. other decisions are lower down and you have to decide case by case. >> do you have a sense of how the obama administration is handling that talented not

drawing the president in too deeply but making sure he is there at the right time for the key decisions? >> i can speak from my experience and give an assessment of what i am doing. i think ken has it right. there is an inherent dynamic tension within the white house between the classic role which is to set strategy and policy and ensure coordination among all the elements of the government that have a role and then the flip side which is how deeply do you get involved in operations? that is the balance that is constantly being drawn on each and every case. no cases like another. the ubl rate and now the famous photo with all the principles facing the screen watching is emblematic of the fact that that was essentially driven this is in making process -- decision

making process. it is the quintessential white house involvement in the case. we were going through a strategic stretch review and a core element of that review for two years was not just what will our strategy be and how the we do with the ideology but who was in charge? i remember secretary rums felt coming to the meeting saying on whom depend the robe? who is in charge of counter terrorism. the complicated issues the government has to deal with that affect multiple departments, the answer is the president. it is only at the white house that diplomatic authority sets. law enforcement authorities said. intelligence collection. in a way, it is not an easy answer because it creates a

dynamic tension of whether the white house becomes operational. it is inherent in this complicated issues. it is not just the work of the fbi but health and human services. it is only at the white house record intact. >> give us a one minute summary of what it is you do. a lot of people might not be familiar with it. the macon talk about how it fits into the larger picture here. >> be set at a new office at the white house and is to help the department effectively collaborate with the private sector has decided. and the tools and capabilities that lie outside the government.

dealing with complex issues, we need to make sure we are working across sectors leveraging the expertise in a collaborative way to maximize the impact. to those inside and outside government, it is not easy to read we have all sorts of rules and regulations that could make a very challenging. our job right now is to make sure we start to move those obstacles. we apply that partnership model to include human trafficking encountering violent extremism. it might be interesting to talk about how -- what this tells us about thinking about counter- terrorism, particularly at the white house. this is a field that took a while to get off the ground.

can you talk about how it has matured over the past few years and what it says about long-term thinking about what counter- terrorism is at the white house? >> juan and i worked together. it would be interesting to hear his view on this but for me, post 9/11, it was a lot of data gathering and trying to connect the dots and figure out the threat. it was a bit on the preventative side, figure out how we stop people from becoming terrorists in the first place. at the burial push on that happened after 7/7, the attacks on the transit system in london. the president have a visceral reaction of what is happened? we had a couple individuals who were to drinking citizens of the

u.k. who just killed their fellow citizens. on the analytic side, that is when programs in terms of assessing how people are radicalize to place, how you build programs to counter violent extremism been over the last five to 12 years, that has become programming into actual action. >> i know someone who was talked a lot about the muslim community, john brennan. he puts a high priority on it. he is the white house counter- terrorism adviser. i thought we might talk about what that job looks like right now and what he is doing. what strikes me in looking at how the white house operates right now is his extreme close to the president. not just physical proximity.

but it is clearly have a great relationship. the president has a lot of trust in him. he also has a broad portfolio which began talks about. can he talk about how that role has evolved and how you see it working right now and whether it is working well? >> those positions, adviser to the president's, national security adviser, their role evolved and changes depending on the person and situation and what the president wants. kissinger and nixon driving form policy for a number of years when he was national security adviser. john has earned the trust. he is a true professional. 30 years in the intelligence committee.

the man has tremendous experience on intelligence matters and counter-terrorism matters. he is the driver for those issues. the question is can he -- you have not only counter-terrorism but you also have homeland security. port security, pandemic flu and critical infrastructure protection at all of these issues that relate to hardening of the homeland and protecting against threats, but the n made a natural, that is an area of intense focus since 9/11 and katrina. that portfolio is under john. when we were in palce, the president established the homeland security council